In the face of reports from both the West and Iran regarding significant progress in the Vienna talks on the return of the US and Iran to the nuclear deal, there is a possibility the parties will reach the required understandings. However, for the time being, a number of issues in dispute have not yet been resolved, and as expected, each party holds the other side responsible for taking decisions that would allow successful conclusion of the talks. The deliberate leaks and statements are intended primarily to put pressure on the respective rivals, both for acceptance of demands and for the responsibility for any future failure.
From the details reported so far in the media it appears that in addition to references to the obligations of each party, the draft agreement refers to the stages of implementation of the agreement. This in fact is one of the key stumbling blocks in the face of Iran’s demand to verify the lifting of sanctions, for example, by executing an actual cash flow through the global banking system before it implements steps rolling back parts of the nuclear project.
The United States is also hard pressed to respond to the Iranians' demand to remove most of the personal sanctions, including from elements close to the Supreme Leader, as well as the demands to remove the Revolutionary Guards from the list of terrorist organizations and close past cases with the IAEA. Also problematic is Iran's consistent demand for collateral from Washington that it will not leave the agreement again, and a recent demand for a commitment not to activate the existing "snapback" clause in the original agreement, which allows for Security Council sanctions to be restored.
As the talks linger, the pressure by political elements in Tehran and Washington is mounting, including by Democratic lawmakers who oppose the agreement. Prominent also is the letter by a majority of the Iranian parliament (February 20) to President Raisi, which stipulates conditions in order for Iran to consent to sign the agreement.
With the Ukraine crisis intensifying in the background, the parties are trying to prevent the tensions from spreading to the Vienna talks. There is no evidence of Russia posing difficulties to the advancement of the talks as a bargaining chip against the US on the Ukrainian issue. It is important that given the tension between the United States and Russia, Israel is not portrayed as campaigning against the US administration, particularly since it has no capacity to influence and the administration ascribes much importance to the return of the nuclear deal. It is a major Israeli interest to continue the intimate dialogue with the US administration to coordinate policy against Iran in good faith, even if an agreement is reached on a return to the deal and certainly if at the last minute no agreements are reached.
In the face of reports from both the West and Iran regarding significant progress in the Vienna talks on the return of the US and Iran to the nuclear deal, there is a possibility the parties will reach the required understandings. However, for the time being, a number of issues in dispute have not yet been resolved, and as expected, each party holds the other side responsible for taking decisions that would allow successful conclusion of the talks. The deliberate leaks and statements are intended primarily to put pressure on the respective rivals, both for acceptance of demands and for the responsibility for any future failure.
From the details reported so far in the media it appears that in addition to references to the obligations of each party, the draft agreement refers to the stages of implementation of the agreement. This in fact is one of the key stumbling blocks in the face of Iran’s demand to verify the lifting of sanctions, for example, by executing an actual cash flow through the global banking system before it implements steps rolling back parts of the nuclear project.
The United States is also hard pressed to respond to the Iranians' demand to remove most of the personal sanctions, including from elements close to the Supreme Leader, as well as the demands to remove the Revolutionary Guards from the list of terrorist organizations and close past cases with the IAEA. Also problematic is Iran's consistent demand for collateral from Washington that it will not leave the agreement again, and a recent demand for a commitment not to activate the existing "snapback" clause in the original agreement, which allows for Security Council sanctions to be restored.
As the talks linger, the pressure by political elements in Tehran and Washington is mounting, including by Democratic lawmakers who oppose the agreement. Prominent also is the letter by a majority of the Iranian parliament (February 20) to President Raisi, which stipulates conditions in order for Iran to consent to sign the agreement.
With the Ukraine crisis intensifying in the background, the parties are trying to prevent the tensions from spreading to the Vienna talks. There is no evidence of Russia posing difficulties to the advancement of the talks as a bargaining chip against the US on the Ukrainian issue. It is important that given the tension between the United States and Russia, Israel is not portrayed as campaigning against the US administration, particularly since it has no capacity to influence and the administration ascribes much importance to the return of the nuclear deal. It is a major Israeli interest to continue the intimate dialogue with the US administration to coordinate policy against Iran in good faith, even if an agreement is reached on a return to the deal and certainly if at the last minute no agreements are reached.