Iran and six world powers enter second day of talks in Geneva

Iran and six world powers have entered into a second day of talks on Iran’s nuclear program on Thursday in Geneva. On Wednesday, EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton held direct bilateral talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as did the U.S. delegation. Several officials described Wednesday’s discussions as "positive" however, one diplomat said, "considerable gaps remain and we have to narrow the gaps." An Iranian official said mistrust continues to be a problem between the two sides. He noted that the parties had not resolved disagreements over Iran’s uranium enrichment. Iran’s chief negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, said "no deal that does not include the right to uranium enrichment from start to finish will be accepted." However, he also noted, "There is a chance of a deal by tomorrow [Friday] but it’s a difficult task." Iran and the world powers are seeking a six-month interim deal, which would include a suspension of Iran’s 20 percent uranium enrichment in exchange for an easing of some international sanctions. During this time, the parties would work toward a lasting agreement. France has continued to take a hard line on Iran’s nuclear program, and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabrius said, "this agreement can only be possible based on firmness. For now the Iranians have not been able to accept the position of the six. I hope they will accept it."

Syria

According to U.S. intelligence officials, dozens of Americans have traveled, or attempted to travel, to Syria to fight alongside opposition forces against the regime since the uprising began in 2011. While the officials noted the number of Americans is small, this adds to concerns over the growing number of foreigners involved in the conflict. On Thursday, the British Foreign Office said it is investigating reports that several British citizens have died recently fighting among Islamic militant factions against government forces. The British government estimates between 200 and 300 Britons have joined the rebel fighters, and up to 20 of them are believed to have been killed in the conflict. The journalism advocacy group Reporters Without Borders has accused the Syrian government of targeting media centers and news providers. According to the group, Mohamed Ahmed Taysir Bellou, from Syria’s opposition Al-Shahba TV and Shahba Press Agency, was killed Tuesday while covering clashes between regime forces and rebel fighters in Aleppo. Additionally, the organization said over 20 Syrian news providers are being held hostage and 16 foreign journalists are either detained or missing. Syrian state-media reported two Jordanian writers were injured when a bomb hit their bus in the southern Daraa province. They had been on an official visit meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

Headlines

• A truck bomb hit a market killing an estimated 27 people in the northeast Iraqi town of Sadiya Thursday in a surge of violence that has killed more than 5,500 people since April.
• Turkish authorities arrested a man carrying a fake bomb in front of the prime ministry building in the capital of Ankara.
• In an interview published Thursday, Egyptian army chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi held open the possibility of a presidential bid. 

Arguments and Analysis

‘Preparing for a Strategic Shift on U.S. Policy Toward Egypt‘ (Michael Wahid Hanna and Brian Katulis, Center for American Progress)

"In the United States, the policy debate on Egypt is often unfortunately reduced to a choice between continuing longstanding U.S. policies unchanged or abruptly cutting aid to Cairo altogether. The Obama administration split the difference between these polar opposites with unclear results. This move has delivered an opaque message to Egypt and the region. The current U.S. posture seems to give tacit assent to Egypt’s military-led transitional authorities’ current attempt to impose stability through a combination of repression with limited gestures at inclusiveness. This model does not seem sustainable; stability imposed by repression cannot be assured and may not be conducive in supporting Egyptian interests — or, for that matter, those of the United States — in the long run. It is not likely to produce the sort of sustainable security that helps spark economic growth and jobs, which is the ultimate challenge in a country where massive demographic, economic, and social problems are mounting.

The strategic rationale and context for U.S.-Egyptian bilateral ties have fundamentally changed. For decades since the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the United States and Egypt worked together to advance regional security interests. During the last decade of the Cold War, Egypt was one partner in the broader U.S. effort to contain and check Soviet influence. Three decades later, the situation has completely changed; the Soviet Union no longer exists, and the Middle East has become a region filled with intense competition for influence among countries in the region with wealthier and better organized countries seeking to influence outcomes of political battles in more divided countries with less resources. This new strategic environment lends itself to policies that are muddled and lacking in clarity — which the U.S. policy has exhibited to date. This approach may be pragmatic in the short run, but it is ultimately damaging to U.S. influence, interests, and values. The changed strategic context requires the United States to develop a new policy approach."

‘Let’s Make a Deal‘ (Thomas Friedman, New York Times)

"No, I don’t begrudge Israel and the Arabs their skepticism, but we still should not let them stop a deal. If you’re not skeptical about Iran, you’re not paying attention. Iran has lied and cheated its way to the precipice of building a bomb, and without tough economic
sanctions — sanctions that President Obama engineered but which Netanyahu and the Arab states played a key role in driving — Iran would not be at the negotiating table. I also understand the specific concerns of the Gulf Arabs, which I’d summarize as: ‘It looks to us as if you want to do this deal and then get out of the region and leave behind an Iran that will only become economically more powerful, at a time when it already has enormous malign influence in Syria, Iraq, in Lebanon through Hezbollah, and in Bahrain.’

I get it, but I also don’t think we’d just abandon them. In the long run, the deal Kerry is trying to forge with Iran is good for us and our allies for four reasons: 1) In return for very limited sanctions relief, the deal is expected to freeze all of Iran’s nuclear bomb-making technologies, roll back some of them and put in place an unprecedented, intrusive inspection regime, while maintaining all the key oil sanctions so Iran will still be hurting aplenty. This way Iran can’t ‘build a bomb and talk’ at the same time (the way Israel builds more settlements while it negotiates with Palestinians). Iran freezes and rolls back part of its program now, while we negotiate a full deal to lift sanctions in return for Iran agreeing to restrictions that make it impossible for it to break out with a nuclear weapon. 2) While, Netanyahu believes more sanctions will get Iran to surrender every piece of its nuclear technology, Iran experts say that is highly unlikely. 3) Iran has already mastered the technology to make a bomb (and polls show that this is very popular with Iranians). There is no way to completely eliminate every piece of Iran’s nuclear technology unless you wipe every brain clean there. 4) The only lasting security lies in an internal transformation in Iran, which can only come with more openness. Kerry’s deal would roll back Iran’s nuclear program, while also strengthening more moderate tendencies in Iran. Maybe that will go nowhere, or maybe it will lead to more internal changes. It’s worth a carefully constructed test."

–Mary Casey & Joshua Haber