Skip to main content

Iran and the two Genevas

There is widespread understanding that a nuclear deal on Iran will facilitate progress on Syria.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (obscured) and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (4th R) arrive at a news conference at the end of the Iranian nuclear talks in Geneva November 10, 2013. Zarif and Ashton said on Sunday they hoped Iran and six world powers would reach an agreement when they gather again in 10 days, adding that the latest round of talks on Tehran's nuclear programme was something all delegations can build on.  REUTERS/Jason Reed   (SWITZERLAND - Tags: POLITICS)
European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (obscured) and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (fourth from right) arrive at a news conference at the end of the Iranian nuclear talks in Geneva, Nov. 10, 2013. — REUTERS/Jason Reed

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his negotiating team are preparing for the next round of nuclear negotiations in Geneva, while another meeting in Geneva, to look into solutions for the Syrian crisis, is yet to be arranged. Both nuclear Geneva and Syrian Geneva are believed to be connected in one way or another, the main link being Iran, which is why many feel that signing a deal to end the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program means that a possible deal on Syria stands to be next.

In Tehran, its difficult to pry loose a single word on what happened in Geneva. Even those who have spoken to Iranian media, including Zarif, have been extremely cautious not to say anything that might affect the progress achieved a few days ago. Even when US Secretary of State John Kerry blamed Iran for being the reason a deal was not signed, Zarif responded on his Twitter account, reminding Kerry that it had not been Iran, but without revealing additional details.

“There is no reason to be tormented,” an official source in Tehran told Al-Monitor. “Iran knows what it wants, and that’s what we are after.” The source explained that a deal on the nuclear front will help get other files in the region sorted. “The Syrian crisis wasn't at the heart of the negotiations, but it was discussed thoroughly during side talks. Moreover, there was an American request that we discuss possible options whenever the nuclear deal is sealed, and that’s why some regional powers asked the French to put their spanners [wrench] into the talks, and here we are.”

The source elaborated on this last point, stressing that Syria was one of the reasons that a deal failed to be reached. “It’s not right to say that Israel and Saudi Arabia didn’t want a deal for the same reason. The Saudis’ main reason was Syria. They don’t want US-Iranian talks on Syria, because they know this will affect their vision there.” He added that this gave the French another good reason to interfere: “They wanted to please Israel, and now they could please the Saudis too, and the latter aren’t pleased for free. So they did whatever they could to [ensure] a deadlock, but this is temporary. Things will not continue this way.”

SUBSCRIBER EXCLUSIVE

Continue reading this exclusive analysis

Original reporting and analysis unavailable elsewhere. Subscribe to AL-MONITOR to read this story and access everything we publish