The fifth round of Iran-US talks concluded on Friday, June 21, in Rome, Italy. at the end of the meeting, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Busaidi said the fifth round of Iran-US talks ended with some progress, but without a final conclusion.
The most important issue that overshadowed the talks was the issue of ' uranium enrichment' which Iran insists it has the right to enrichment while the American side says Iran must stop enrichment.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also said, "Our positions are completely clear and insist on them. Now the American side has a better understanding of our positions."
He added that the Omani Foreign Minister had some proposals that can pave the way for a possible agreement.
To shed more light on the issue, TABNAK reached out to Marc Finaud a senior advisor and associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former French Foreign Ministry spoksman.
Following is the full text of the interview with him:
The fifth round of negotiations between Iran and the United States in Rome, the capital of Italy, has concluded. Regarding the outcome of this round of talks, Axios, quoting responsible officials, reported that the negotiations between Araghchi and Witkoff were very useful and fruitful. What is your assessment?
Apparently, the talks are indeed constructive, otherwise the Iranian side would not have made positive statements and continued the meetings. The mere fact that they are being held is a positive sign and hopefully can contribute to restoring some trust and stability in the relations between the parties.
This round of negotiations took place while, prior to the talks, the United States had demanded “zero enrichment” from Iran and had declared Iran’s uranium enrichment as its red line. On the other hand, Iran had also described halting enrichment as its red line. Based on this, it seemed that the negotiations were heading toward a deadlock, but Oman presented a proposal. The details of this plan have not been made public, but Abbas Araghchi has expressed hope regarding its effectiveness. In your opinion, how can this proposal create a balance between the positions of Iran and the United States?
This is indeed the crux of the matter. It still is not clear whether those in the Trump administration who made statements in favor of "zero enrichment" did that out of ignorance of the history of the JCPOA, to eventually prevent an agreement, or as a tactical point of departure likely to be softened, just like the P5+1 did for the JCPOA. Hopefully the Omani compromise proposal will help solve this issue, just like the EU did in the Vienna talks on the revival of the JCPOA.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that he supports an agreement that ensures Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons. Does this statement signify a retreat by Israel?
Apparently, this is Trump's only red line, so one can imagine that Netanyahu's statements have been suggested or encouraged by the White House. However, it remains to be seen whether Israel will not sabotage any agreement between Iran and the United States or conduct the military strikes against Iran that Trump agitated as a threat to Iran.
It seems that the fifth round of negotiations between Iran and the United States was highly significant and that the talks could have reached an impasse at this stage. Considering that the Foreign Minister of Oman has announced progress in this round of talks and that the negotiations are set to continue, what is your assessment of the likelihood of both parties reaching an agreement? Could this agreement go beyond the nuclear issue (a limited deal) and lead to a comprehensive agreement?
The likelihood of an agreement on the nuclear file is still uncertain: it will depend on US flexibility if an Omani compromise allows Iran to continue enriching uranium but within strict limits, like in the JCPOA. Iran's position will be strengthened if it can give more transparent explanations about what peaceful uses of enriched uranium it envisages. As for the other issues (ballistic missile program, "Axis of Resistance"), they certainly should not be raised as topics for negotiation at this stage because of the risk of jeopardizing the nuclear talks. However, if some relative normalisation can be achieved with a nuclear deal, prospects of regional discussions on other topics of common interest, particularly with [Persian] Gulf countries, would be enhanced and desirable.
