News
Iranian official says nuclear gaps with P5+1 “still wide”
A senior Iranian negotiator indicated that many difficulties lie ahead in attempts to reach a long-term agreement on Iran’s nuclear development with the P5+1 powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany).
The next round of negotiations between the two sides is set to begin in New York next Thursday. Speaking yesterday in Vienna following preparatory talks with UK, French and German officials, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi was asked how big the differences are between Iran and the P5+1 forum. Reuters says that Araqchi replied “Still big,” adding, “We are always optimistic … but we have a difficult road to go.”
Iran and the P5+1 concluded a six-month agreement in Geneva in November 2013, which saw Tehran reduce some of its enrichment capacity in return for a loosening of selected sanctions. However, both sides are now looking to broker a longer-term settlement, but were unable to meet a 20 July 2014 deadline. The last round of talks concluded with an arrangement to extend the talks until 24 November 2014.
There are several significant sticking points between the two sides. A major point of disagreement is the number of centrifuges Iran will be permitted to enrich uranium. The P5+1 powers reportedly want Tehran to reduce its number of centrifuges to 5,000 while Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has said that his country needs 190,000 centrifuges. Meanwhile, Iran recently missed a 25 August deadline to supply information to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over its nuclear programme, specifically relating to the development of so-called Explosive Wire Detonators, which can be used to help trigger an atomic explosion, but which Iran claims were being developed for civilian use.
Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz last week told Israel Radio, “if there is no dramatic development in the coming month then either there will be no deal, or there will be a bad deal leaving Iran a nuclear threshold state, and this is of course something we are not willing to accept.”