Geneva IV talks, a step towards mutual trust building
Fourth summit of representatives from Iran and P 5+1 ended in Geneva on Wednesday October 16th. This round of talks is counted a major step forward and a measure for trust building between both sides.
Share It :
Two-day Geneva talks was important for the Iranian side because it was realized after dragging months of unfruitful meetings. Iran, bringing a new proposal more irresistible and attractive for the unquenchable appetite of the western side, showed that it is ready for a perfect understanding and agreement with the west over its peaceful nuclear program.
From the viewpoint of western sides, Iran’s proposal and discussing the details were undeniable and that proved Iran was ready to show more transparency with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the west recognizes Iran’s right for uranium enrichment on its own land. This was to the point that western countries were assured that Iran is continuing uranium enrichment within the framework of peaceful nuclear activities.
An analysis of the meeting results
Since the beginning it was clearly known that due to lack of trust on both sides, the issue could not be settled in one or two meetings.
Therefore, when both sides agreed to issue a statement for the first time after six years of talks, there seems to be a new path for trust building has opened.
Formation of three expert committees for scientific, sanctions and disarmament also seems to be a basic solution that prepares the preliminary necessities for upcoming talk which is due in the next three weeks at the same venue.
These committees are supposed to prepare the grounds for lifting anti-Iran sanctions, ways for future nuclear cooperation between the two sides and also ways for making sure on the peaceful nuclear activities of Iran and submit the results to the next summit.
For a successful future meeting the following logical measures seem to be inevitable:
1- Both sides accept commitments that are mutual and moderate, meaning that it an agreement should be formed based on win-win law, then both sides have to meet their mutual commitments which have to be the same from the view of their importance. Then the exact fulfillment of the agreements seems to be possible.
2- It is supposed that both sides will move towards each other in a bid to build trust; therefore, it is not expected that one side only stops for the other side to take steps. Naturally cooperation will then realize and continue.
3- It is a necessity for continuation of future cooperation that both sides are expected to contain the oppositions to the point that the agreements are not subject to negative views. Of course no one can prevent oppositions but they can be managed if promotion of talks is truly believed.
4- If the onset for trust-building steps is recognition of Iran’s right for uranium enrichment, then it will help the unknotting of future talks with the least possible cost and in the shortest time available.
5- Iran’s proposal includes three undividable steps are predicted under the condition that all are carried out step by step, meaning that performing each step is related to completion of the previous one. In this model promotion in each step will bring mutual trust building for the next steps; therefore, there is no need to concern about three steps not being carried out because both sides perform each step only after they are assured on the completion of the previous step.
6- Iran’s proposal is so concise and perfect that blocks the way for any excuse and in full details explains the logical way for who at what time takes what measure in what way. Therefore if such a proposal is rejected, then it will be clear for everyone who for what reasons is avoiding an agreement of a logical and concise plan with Iran.
7- Iran with proposing a timetable foiled the old excuse of the western media that Iran leads a policy of killing time to complete its nuclear programs; hence, it is high time that the western side makes the best of the opportunity and leaves the policy of “negotiations for negotiations” in a time table comes to a final agreement with Iran once for all.
8- Following mutual trust building, it is a necessity to change former wrong approach of the west, strategy of “pressure and talks”, and substituting that with “cooperation and talks” because that will lead to persistence and continuation of successes in talks.
9- Certainly, to stop passing new sanctions and lifting previous boycotts by Obama, will help softening the atmosphere for future talks and provide more possibilities for Iranian team to come to new important agreements. This will send the clear message to Tehran that to what extent previous wrong approaches by Obama have changed.
10- Iran and other members of P 5+1 have found the way for constructive interaction and coming to a common language and in a bid to avoid new unpredictable blocks in this way, they have to set their previous experiences as a guideline for a better future. The past, though bitter and tough, has been a good lesson for both sides.
Conclusion
The way for improvement has opened with the new proposal by Iran and it seems that the time for a concise and complete agreement between Iran and the west has come. It is also the bright side that a trouble making Zionist regime is also incapable of diverting the talks to previous uncertainty.
Now the west knows that it has a unique chance that will not be achieved if lost. If “heroic flexibility” of Iran, which is in fact in line with assessing the true intention of the US and its allies, fails, then once against we will witness a new round of confrontations instead of constructive interactions. In that case a new game of lose-lose will start.
