Nuclear Negotiations: The Last Day and Analysis of International Media

On the last day of the deadline set for reaching an agreement on the framework of a comprehensive deal between the Islamic Republic on one side and the P5+1 group consisting of the US, Germany, France, Britain, Russia, and China, all eyes are on the city of Lausanne in Switzerland where this round of negotiations is taking place. The most reputable media outlets in the world have not overlooked this issue, each publishing multiple news reports, analyses, and articles about the nuclear negotiations with Iran, presenting speculations and predictions based on their own tendencies and interpretations. CNN quotes John Kerry stating that there are still 'difficult issues' on the table during the negotiations in Switzerland. According to this network, three key points are hindering the speed of negotiations: first, how quickly Iran will be allowed to expand its nuclear program in the last five years of the 15-year agreement; second, how quickly UN sanctions will be lifted; and third, whether sanctions will be reinstated if Iran violates the agreement. The Islamic Republic wants the sanctions to be completely lifted, but Western powers insist that these sanctions should only be suspended so they can be reinstated if necessary. The Washington Post reports that in a recent poll, 59% of Americans support a nuclear deal with Iran to limit Tehran's nuclear programs in exchange for easing sanctions. However, fewer citizens are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Meanwhile, the British newspaper The Guardian, in an article by Simon Tisdall, has welcomed the agreement of the P5+1 countries with the Islamic Republic and warned that the opportunity for this agreement should not be missed. According to Tisdall, all parties involved in the nuclear negotiations currently taking place in Lausanne, Switzerland, must allow Iran to enter the global stage for 'strategic, security, and moral' reasons, as pressure and punishment for 'this nation that has historically been inclined towards the West' has gone on for too long. The New York Times also addressed the likelihood of a contract and agreement between the negotiating parties in Switzerland in a video report, quoting one of its reporters who states that there are currently not one, but three agreements at stake, making the situation much more complicated. According to David Sanger, a New York Times reporter, the first agreement, which will be the easiest, will be between Iran and the P5+1 members in Switzerland. The second agreement must be established between the US President and members of Congress. Sanger notes that this second agreement is somewhat more difficult than the first. However, the third agreement must be reached between Hassan Rouhani's government and 'the Ayatollahs and military forces' of the Islamic Republic. David Sanger calls this third agreement 'an impossible agreement.' The New York Times reporter believes that one of the oddities of international sanctions against Iran is that while the sanctions are bad for the Iranian people, they have been beneficial and profitable for a few within the Islamic Republic's government. This complicates matters, as lifting the sanctions would mean taking away the abundant income source from these few individuals. The New York Times also refers to the end of the contract with the Islamic Republic: will the Islamic Republic resume its 'worrisome' activities at the end of what is said to be a 15-year agreement? This seems to be a question currently occupying the minds of many diplomats, politicians, and analysts. However, the Politico website, in an article by Simon Daglber, a French diplomat and former member of the negotiating team with the Islamic Republic, states that any agreement with Iran, if signed, will be nothing but the beginning of a 'long game.' According to Daglber, implementing a comprehensive agreement between the negotiating parties, if achieved, will not be easier than the negotiations themselves. Nevertheless, he remains optimistic, stating that if the P5+1 establishes clear mechanisms for implementing the comprehensive agreement, it will not be too difficult. However, Daglber concludes his article by stating that if Iran truly wants to gain the trust of the international community in the long term, it must make 'difficult choices' now. This is a point frequently heard from foreign analysts, especially Western ones, who argue that Iran has not made significant efforts to build trust over the past couple of decades. Conversely, analysts inclined towards Iran argue that the West has not made efforts to gain the trust of the Islamic Republic.