This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/world/middleeast/kerry-cites-progress-in-iran-talks-while-gaps-remain.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Kerry Cites ‘Progress’ in Iran Talks While Gaps Remain Kerry Cites ‘Progress’ in Iran Talks but Says ‘Very Real Gaps’ Remain
(about 2 hours later)
VIENNA — After intensive talks with his Iranian counterpart, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that “tangible progress” had been made in negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program but acknowledged that “very real gaps” remained. VIENNA — After three days of intensive talks with his Iranian counterpart, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that “tangible progress” had been made in negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, and that he would return to Washington to consult with President Obama over whether to extend a Sunday deadline for a final agreement.
When the talks began six months ago, it was generally assumed that if an accord to roll back Iran’s nuclear program was to be reached the compromises would be negotiated at the 11th hour. Mr. Kerry said that “very real gaps” remained, but his tone — and his acknowledgment that Iran had complied with all of its commitments under a temporary agreement that took effect in January — left little doubt he wanted to extend the talks by weeks or months. “That’s where we’re headed, I think,” one of his top advisers said.
But as the deadline approaches on Sunday, an accord is not yet at hand and Mr. Kerry signaled the need for top-level consultations in Washington on the American negotiating strategy. When the talks began six months ago, it was generally assumed that if an accord to roll back Iran’s nuclear program was to be reached, the compromises would be negotiated at the 11th hour.
“I am returning to Washington today to consult with President Obama and with leaders in Congress over coming days about the prospects for a comprehensive agreement as well as a path forward if we do not achieve one by the 20th of July, including the question whether or not more time is warranted,” Mr. Kerry said. But as the July 20 deadline approaches, an accord is not yet in hand. The temporary agreement allows for an extension of the talks for up to six months, but some in Mr. Obama’s negotiating team have suggested that a shorter extension might be more fruitful.
In an indication of the complexity of the talks and Mr. Kerry’s dogged negotiating style, no sooner did he emerge from his news conference than he launched into a meeting with Catherine Ashton, the foreign policy chief for the European Union, and then yet another meeting with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister. At a short news conference here, Mr. Kerry said, “I am returning to Washington today to consult with President Obama and with leaders in Congress over coming days about the prospects for a comprehensive agreement as well as a path forward if we do not achieve one by the 20th of July, including the question whether or not more time is warranted.”
Mr. Kerry declined to comment on the proposal that Mr. Zarif outlined in an interview with The New York Times, saying that he would not negotiate in public. It was an indication of the complexity of the talks and Mr. Kerry’s negotiating style that immediately after his news conference he launched into a meeting with Catherine Ashton, the foreign policy chief for the European Union, and then yet another meeting with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, his fourth in three days.
Mr. Kerry declined to comment on the proposal that Mr. Zarif outlined in an interview with The New York Times for what would amount to an extension of the current short-term agreement for a number of years. Under Mr. Zarif’s proposal, Iran would not have to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges, but would use a combination of technologies and inspection to provide assurances they could not produce weapons-grade material.
American officials were clearly annoyed that Mr. Zarif had discussed details of his proposals, and Mr. Kerry said that he would not negotiate in public.
“The real negotiation is not going to be done in the public eye,” he said. “These are tough negotiations.”“The real negotiation is not going to be done in the public eye,” he said. “These are tough negotiations.”
In the interview with The Times, Mr. Zarif proposed a deal under which Iran would essentially freeze its capacity to produce enriched uranium for several years but would not be subject to constraints on such enrichment after that. American officials are concerned about several major elements of Mr. Zarif’s proposal. While it would essentially freeze Iran’s capacity to produce enriched uranium for several years, Iran would be free to keep up research and development of highly sophisticated centrifuges, and put them in place after the agreement would expire. Mr. Zarif wants a short agreement, of three to seven years. The United States and its allies insist on limitations on Iran for at least a decade, preferably longer.
There has been some speculation that Mr. Zarif’s hints of flexibility, in connection with the progress Mr. Kerry reported on Tuesday, may provide a sufficient basis for continuing the nuclear talks past Sunday, which can be done if both sides agree. There has been some speculation that Mr. Zarif’s hints of flexibility, and the progress Mr. Kerry reported on Tuesday, will be enough to provide a basis for continuing the nuclear talks past July 20, which can be done if both sides agree.
The Iranian proposal, however, runs counter to the goal of the current talks as American officials described them last year: a lasting agreement that would put stricter limits on Iran’s nuclear potential, assuring that the Iranian program is peaceful while adding substantially to the time it would take Iran to produce a nuclear device if it reneged on the agreement. The Iranian proposal, however, runs counter to the goal that Mr. Kerry and others laid out last year: a lasting solution that would eliminate the possibility that Iran could have a “threshold” nuclear capability, one it could exercise with one last push for a bomb. The whole negotiation is about adding substantially to the time it would take Iran to produce a nuclear device if it reneged on the agreement.
Gary Samore, a former senior official on the staff of President Obama’s National Security Council, said that Mr. Zarif’s proposal was “not enough for a deal but enough for an extension of the negotiations.” Gary Samore, a former senior official on the staff of Mr. Obama’s National Security Council, and head of an advocacy group called United Against Nuclear Iran, said that Mr. Zarif’s proposal was “not enough for a deal but enough for an extension of the negotiations.”
Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in an interview that Mr. Zarif’s proposal would not add to the time Iran would need to break out of an accord and produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear monitor, said in an interview that Mr. Zarif’s proposal would not add to the time Iran would need to break out of an accord and produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.
“What Zarif suggests is actually to maintain a status quo,” Mr. Heinonen said. “Thus I do not see that this proposal opens any avenues for a deal.”“What Zarif suggests is actually to maintain a status quo,” Mr. Heinonen said. “Thus I do not see that this proposal opens any avenues for a deal.”
David Albright, a nuclear expert, also said that the proposal indicated that broad gaps remained between the two sides. The interview with Mr. Zarif, Mr. Albright said, indicated that “the Iranians have returned to earth but are not yet in the ballpark of reasonable offers.” David Albright, a nuclear expert who has been highly critical of Iran, also said that the proposal indicated that broad gaps remained between the two sides. The interview with Mr. Zarif, Mr. Albright said, indicated that “the Iranians have returned to earth but are not yet in the ballpark of reasonable offers.”
Robert Einhorn, a former senior State Department official, offered a similar assessment.Robert Einhorn, a former senior State Department official, offered a similar assessment.
“The modified Iranian approach doesn’t seem to be much of a concession,” Mr. Einhorn said in an interview. “They remain opposed to reducing their current enrichment capability.”“The modified Iranian approach doesn’t seem to be much of a concession,” Mr. Einhorn said in an interview. “They remain opposed to reducing their current enrichment capability.”
Mr. Einhorn also said that while Mr. Zarif suggested that Iran was willing to defer “ramping up to an industrial-scale enrichment capability,” Iran had little reason to do so in the near future as it would still need to finish developing more advanced centrifuges and mass produce them.