It Appears Any Iran Nuclear Talks Are Now Over

By Steve Hynd

While I was on blog-holiday there were some interesting developments in the ongoing series of talks over Iran's nuclear program. Iran finally agreed to sending consignments of its low-enriched fuel out of the country to Turkey in return for medium-enriched fuel rods for its research reactor. Although not in the quantities the West had wished for, it established that the principle of such a swap was sound and would have led to both a ratcheting down of tensions and a little more ability to monitor Iran's program if it had been accepted. Iran then stupidly added a one month ultimatum to the offer, saying it would do its own medium enrichment if the offer wasn't accepted by the end of january. And just to underscore that it knew what such a rejection would mean, Iran also ordered a massive military readiness exercise for February.

Well, now France has rejected Iran's offer on behalf of the international community.

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told French radio Monday the international community will not accept an Iranian ultimatum on its nuclear program.  He said discussions with Tehran can continue, but not about nuclear development.

Unless Kouchner was seriously out of line here, he won't have said such a thing without clearing it with the U.S. and other allies first. And even if he did, will those allies risk fracturing their united front by calling him on it? Yet it leaves absolutely no possibility of further progress unless Iran fully capitulates - something it is unlikely to do. My hopes of a breakthrough are now gone. France has again played its designated role of "spoiler" for any chances of continuing negotiations, just as it did when it insisted on shoehorning itself into the original IAEA deal in a move that had far more to do with its own geopolitical ambitions in the Gulf than any wish to see a deal completed.

Can I just say that I'm heartfelt sick of the West's insistence on trying to play poker with hagglers, leaving the only two options as "raise" or "fold"? Despite deserved criticism of Rory Stewart's latest essay, he got this bit spot on.

Cool poker-players, we are tempted to believe, only raise or fold: they only increase their bet or leave the game. Calling, making the minimum bet to stay, suggests that you can't calculate the odds or face losing the pot, and that the other players are intimidating you. Calling is for children.

...But there is another category of people who raise or fold: those who are anxious to leave the table. They go all in to exit, hoping to get lucky but if not then at least to finish. They do not do this on the basis of their cards or the pot. They do it because they lack the patience, the interest, the focus, or the confidence to pace themselves carefully through the long and exhausting hours. They no longer care enough about the game.

Or, in the case of Iran hawks, they want the "jaw-jaw" game to end prematurely because they want to move on swiftly to the "war-war" game that inevitably comes next. For them, that you can't successfully play poker with a haggler is a feature, not a bug.