This week, talks between Iran and the P5+1 regarding Iran’s nuclear program will resume. All eyes are on Geneva, given that the first series of talks was reportedly the most productive and positive that the two sides have had in quite some time.
To help us better understand why the last round of Geneva talks was significant, I’ve written a piece in The National Interest analyzing that negotiation. I focus on the ways in which these talks represented a welcome improvement over the past decade of negotiations with Iran, which have too often been characterized by unrealistic demands, an unwillingness to focus on the most important issues, and an inability to link interim progress with long-term goals.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Finally, a crucial, if subtle, shift in the two sides’ approaches has been a greater willingness to look at the ultimate goals of the talks—what commentators like to call the ‘endgame’—and to work backwards from there to determine interim steps. To an outside observer, this may seem like an obvious way to negotiate, but as Trita Parsi pointed out, the West in particular has studiously avoided discussions of the ‘endgame’ in an effort to maintain the upper hand in past negotiations. Now, that could be about to change.”
Have a look at the full piece, here.