Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


What to Make About Nuclear Talks With Iran

What’s known and unknown about bilateral talks with Iran

Print Email
Ayatollah Khamenei(FARS)

This election cycle’s October Surprise didn’t come from the Romney or Obama camp (at least, not yet), but rather from the Iranian officials who signaled that Iran would be open to engage in bilateral talks for the first time on its nuclear program. The announcement came just ahead of tonight’s final presidential debate (B”H) which, fittingly enough, will be on the topic of foreign policy.

The things we seem to know and not know about this diplomatic initiative are pretty important in gauging whether this whole shebang is worth getting excited about. Here are some of the many issues:

Is this actually going to happen?

Nobody knows. A final agreement has yet to be reached.

What this means: U.S. and Iranian officials are in talks about talks.

When would this happen?
According to Iranian officials, after the elections.
What this means: Iran’s got to know with whom it would be negotiating. President Obama and Governor Romney have different views on some of the details:

Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran’s enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.

But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.”

Has Ayatollah Ali Khamenei signed off on bilateral talks?
According the administration officials, not yet.

What this means: Until Iran’s supreme leader signs the permission slip, the field trip to meet with Great Satan is only theoretical.

How’s Israel feeling about this?

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he hadn’t heard anything about bilateral talks.

What this means: Israel’s position seems to be that talks are not the preferred means of derailing the Iranian nuclear program. Ambassador Michael Oren said this over the weekend:

“We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks, rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”

Is this a sign that sanctions are forcing Iran’s hand?

What this means: This is a good sign. Viewing it as a capitulation, Iran typically eschews dealing with the United States.

Is this all just a smokescreen for Iran to buy some time, complete the critical aspects of its program, and slide safely into the zone of immunity?


What this means: Iran’s got a history of this with regard to diplomatic efforts. Also, the Persians are frequently credited with inventing chess.

Is this the last chance to avoid military conflict with Iran?

What this means: Stakes are high.

U.S. Officials Says Iran Is Ready to Talks About Its Nuclear Program [NYT]
Netanyahu Says He Doesn’t Know of Any Iran-U.S. Talks [Reuters]

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 (the fiftieth anniversary is on right now BTW) there was a crucial period whereby things were coming to a very dangerous head. Call it divine intervention, but something kicked in, and President Kennedy and the circuit breaker of direct talks with the Russians was triggered. Where are we on a similar “World Crisis” timeline ? Which narrative should prevail ? Vision, courage and trust building or myopia, cowardice and betrayal of trust ? Are the children of the Holy Land and Persia destined to live in peace as neighbours in the future or will a climate of continued enmity and fear prevail ? Let’s see how wise various “leaders” are in the coming hours, days and weeks.

Prayers for the Middle East.

P.S. There are many calenders in the world…Jewish 5773; Christian/Gregorian 2012; Islamic 1433; Iranian Nuclear Enrichment Red Line Soon ??? The divine timetable will trump all others. I repeat…There is an optimal, peaceful solution to the Iran/West imbroglio. Google scientists recently discovered that a Rubik’s Cube no matter how diabolical its configuration can always be solved in 20 moves if the right algorithm is in place. They call this the “G-d Algorithm”.

A more cynical view than the above “analysis” takes is that Iran is stalling, timed the announcement to exert some influence on the election in the President’s favor and the President is playing politics with the Iranian bomb by timing bilateral negotiations after the election.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

What to Make About Nuclear Talks With Iran

What’s known and unknown about bilateral talks with Iran

More on Tablet:

Facing Death

By Jenny Diski — ‘I don’t believe in you, “salvation,” I never have and I never will. And very soon I won’t even be.’