Share This Page

Iran nuclear talks close without deal

| Saturday, Nov. 9, 2013, 11:19 p.m.

GENEVA — Talks on curbing Iran's nuclear program ended without a deal early Sunday when France argued that proposed measures didn't go far enough. Secretary of State John Kerry said, however, that “significant progress” had been made on the differences that remain.

Six world powers and Iran agreed to resume talks Nov. 20.

Both sides badly wanted agreement. The United States and its five partners were looking for initial caps on Iran's ability to make an atomic bomb, while Tehran wanted some of the sanctions stifling its economy to be eased.

But France would not soften its concerns about Iran's polonium project and the level of its uranium enrichment program.

Kerry, speaking to reporters once the talks broke up, acknowledged that there were “certain issues that we needed to work through.”

“We're grateful to the French for the work we did together,” Kerry said.

Kerry rushed to Geneva on Friday as the talks foundered, followed by counterparts from Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, for a last-ditch effort to push through an agreement.

That failed, with disputes between the two sides complicated by rare open dissent within the six powers.

France rejected a joint list of demands on Iran, saying they were too generous to result in sanctions relief.

Once the talks ended, top EU diplomat Catherine Ashton spoke of “a lot of concrete progress” but also of “some differences.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said he hoped the disagreements will be resolved at a future meeting.

The two said the talks would resume on Nov. 20 with Ashton and Zarif in attendance, but the other delegations will be led by senior civil servants instead of foreign ministers.

Prospects for an agreement dimmed when France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, raised objections to a draft that the French previously agreed to. Fabius spoke of “several points that ... we're not satisfied with compared to the initial text,” telling France-Inter Radio that his nation does not want to be part of a “con game.”

He did not elaborate, but it appeared France wanted tougher constraints on a reactor that will make plutonium when completed, and on parts of Iran's uranium enrichment program.

Although Kerry publicly played down the differences with Fabius, other diplomats at the talks said the last-minute objections were a surprise and complicated the chances of agreement. They demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the closed negotiations.

Iran's Arak reactor, southeast of Tehran, could produce enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons a year once it goes online, which is expected to happen next year. Fabius said France was seeking a freeze on construction during negotiations.

He spoke of disagreement over efforts to limit Iran's uranium enrichment to levels that would require substantial further enriching before the material could be used as the fissile core of a nuclear weapon.

Iran insists it is pursuing nuclear energy, medical treatments and research, but the United States and its allies fear that Iran could turn the material into the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Tehran has said it is ready for concessions if sanctions are lifted.

Iran runs more than 10,000 centrifuges that have made tons of fuel-grade material that can be further enriched to arm nuclear warheads.

It has nearly 440 pounds of higher-enriched uranium in a form that can be turned into weapons much more quickly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.