The White House has begun discussing its options in case of failure to reach a nuclear deal with Iran as faltering talks fuelled criticism of President Barack Obama’s negotiating strategy.
Iranian officials and Secretary of State John Kerry continued their quest for an agreement in the Swiss city of Lausanne. But American lawmakers seized on the lack of progress late Wednesday to renew calls for tough new sanctions.
The White House said Mr. Obama is prepared to walk away from the negotiations. Alternatives to diplomacy include stiffer economic sanctions, military action or an extension of the interim agreement with Iran that expires June 30, the White House said—exactly the type of measures that the Obama administration has said the talks were intended to avoid.
“In the unfortunate circumstance that we could find ourselves in, which is that we’re not able to reach an agreement, then the president will have to consider that range of options,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
The six world powers negotiating with Iran missed the deadline Tuesday night to conclude a framework agreement outlining elements of a final deal to be reached by June 30. That deal would curb Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief.
Republican senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said in a joint statement that it was apparent the talks had failed.
“Any hope that a nuclear deal will lead Iran to abandon its decades-old pursuit of regional dominance through violence and terror is simply delusional,” they said. “The Obama administration’s failure to recognize and counter this threat has only served to expand Iranian influence.”
Diplomats involved in Wednesday’s talks said they remained stalled on two main points: the pace at which international sanctions on Iran would be scaled back and the future scope of Iran’s nuclear research and development. Washington and its partners are also pressing Iran for greater access to its nuclear sites.
There were some hints of concessions from the Iranian side on Wednesday after the deadline passed.
“We continue to make progress, but have not reached a political understanding,” State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, said, in announcing Mr. Kerry’s intentions to stay at the talks at least through Thursday.
The foreign minister of Russia departed Switzerland on Wednesday, following China, as talks continued to drag.
U.S. lawmakers said congressional action now is a near certainty when they return to work mid-month following a recess.
“Congress clearly has an itchy trigger finger,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), who said he would prefer to wait until negotiations are completed for Congress to act.
“Many members of Congress are eager to weigh in before the negotiations are over,” he said.
Some of the diplomats at the talks have grown more resigned in recent days.
The 1979 Iranian Revolution set the stage for today’s tough negotiations over Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. WSJ’s Jason Bellini has The Short History of Iran’s revolutionary ideals.
“You may well be in the situation where this effort fails now, [and] that’s life,” said a European official in Lausanne. “If [the Iranians] are not interested, that’s their choice, and we can resume another piece of negotiations in the fall.”
This week marked the third time in less than a year that a diplomatic deadline for the Iran was missed. By repeatedly extending the talks, Washington’s leverage over Tehran is diminishing, critics charged.
Even some of Mr. Obama’s supporters in Washington questioned the White House’s tactics and transparency in pursuing the Iran diplomacy.
Dennis Ross, who served as Mr. Obama’s top Middle East adviser during his first term, said the U.S. needed to answer more directly Congress’ fears that an agreement won’t go far enough in denying Tehran the capability to develop nuclear weapons.
“Rather than questioning the motivations of the skeptics, the administration would be wise to demonstrate that it has compelling answers to their concerns about the possible vulnerabilities of the deal,” he wrote in an article published Wednesday for the Washington Institute of Near East Policy.
Former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a staunch supporter of the diplomacy, said there is too much at stake to abandon the negotiations entirely. But he said taking a temporary break from them could be useful.
“They do not want to walk away lightly, but will in the end want to use perhaps something that one could call a constructive pause,” said Mr. Pickering, a career diplomat whose postings included undersecretary of state for political affairs and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Despite the White House’s threats to turn the page on negotiations, the State Department said Mr. Kerry would stay in Lausanne at least until Thursday and hold his eighth straight day of direct talks with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif.
And in a sign of possible progress, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius returned to Lausanne late Wednesday after he left earlier in the day. He said the six powers were still striving for a “concrete” working understanding on Iran’s nuclear program.
“The last meters are the most difficult,” he said. “We are not there yet.”
In one negative sign, Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and a key figure in Tehran’s negotiating team, said in comments on Iran state media that Tehran wouldn’t back down on its demand that it be allowed to continue nuclear research on its most advanced technology.
However, he also signaled the possibility of compromise on Iran’s demand for an immediate cessation of sanctions and indicated it could accept a phase-in of relief. Under such procedures, easing of noneconomic measures such as United Nations Security Council restrictions on nuclear related materials could come after the first stages of a deal.
“We insist that in the first step of the agreement, all the sanctions—economic, financial, oil and banking…must all be annulled,” Mr. Araghchi said. “And for those sanctions that occasionally relate to other sectors, a framework [must] be found for them, too, and their fate to be clarified precisely.”
Mr. Zarif, however, stuck to his public position that all Western pressure much be eased on Iran for an accord to be reached.
“An agreement and pressure will not go together,” he told reporters.
U.S. lawmakers, including Democrats, warned the White House that Mr. Obama’s strategy was running out of time.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ken.) has said he could seek to quickly pass a bill imposing new sanctions on Iran if a final nuclear deal isn’t approved by July.
House GOP leaders also have signaled they could act in the coming weeks.
A second bill, authored by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), seeks to give Congress the power to approve, amend or kill any agreement.
Mr. Earnest said Mr. Obama would consult with the leaders of the other countries involved in the negotiations to determine how to move forward with sanctions if talks collapse.
White House officials have shown a willingness to continue extending talks beyond the March 31 deadline, in part, to ensure that if negotiations fail, Iran would be to blame. Absent that, officials fear the international sanctions regime would fall apart.
“The concern that we’ve had was that if the United States could be blamed for the talks falling apart, then it would be hard to preserve international unity around the implementation of sanctions,” Mr. Earnest said on Wednesday. “But in this scenario, it’s pretty clear that we’ve given Iran every opportunity to make the kinds of serious commitments that the international community expects.”
Asked about the pending sanctions legislation, the White House spokesman said: “If a deal is not reached, there are a range of options on the table, including some options that Republicans—well, that members of Congress in both parties, frankly—have sought to put on the table now. – WSJ.
