On November 1, the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy hosted a panel discussion to preview the November P5+1 talks in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program and to assess the outlook for the negotiations. Brookings Senior Fellows Robert Einhorn, Suzanne Maloney and Kenneth Pollack took part. Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center, moderated.
Ted Piccone: “We are at the precipice of a really crucial time on the question of Iran and its nuclear program.”
Robert Einhorn: “We’re at the verge of a leap forward in Iran’s nuclear breakout capability. And I think we have a big incentive to try to halt their movement toward the breakout threshold.”
Suzanne Maloney: “The Iranians want to make progress quickly. They want to see tangible results and compensations. This has been a clear theme throughout the decade long nuclear negotiations.”
Full audio is now available. Here are highlights of what they said during the event:
Audience ?: What would cause Iran to walk away from negotiations? Einhorn: If P5+1 insists on maximalist efforts.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
Audience ?: What would cause US to walk away from talks? Einhorn: US would consider failure if iran insisted on unfettered ability. (1/2)
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
Bob Einhorn: Iran, IAEA went 11 rounds of talks, this past wk deemed productive, but progress was on issue of modality. Still work to go.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
.@tcwittes: What are signals that window closing for Iranians? @maloneysuzanne: Nothing we haven’t seen, negotiators not talking on nuclear
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
.@MaloneySuzanne: I hope deal will begin process of rehabilitating Iran, will help Iranians take advantage of evrythng world has to offfer.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
When asked about the effect on the Middle East balance of power if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons capability, Ken Pollack, author of Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy, said that “It would make things worse. The question is really by how much? … And how much could we mitigate it?” He answered: “Not by enough to make it worth going to war to prevent it, but enough to make it worth going the extra mile to try to get the deal to prevent it.”
Ken Pollack: “The problem that the administration faces and the problem for those of us who would like to see these negotiations work of course is that we have consistently seen is that there is a group of people in Congress who believe very fervently in the argument that you have to just keep squeezing as hard as you can that maybe you can get the ultimate deal if you just squeeze hard enough.”
Read Bob Einhorn’s recent speech “Is a ‘Good’ Deal Possible?” http://t.co/FVon9FHAyQ
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
.@tcwittes: What does a good Iran deal look like? Bob Einhorn: Bad deal is partial constraints on program, while we give away leverage.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
Ken Pollack: I’m convinced reason why Saudi turned down UNSC seat was Iran issue, potential scenarios would provide lose-lose situation.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
Ken Pollack’s latest book focuses on what strategy US should take on Iran talks: http://t.co/EYtjR4Qae0
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
Ken Pollack: On Iran talks, US should be as transparent with allies as possible, take into account their concerns and fears.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
.@MaloneySuzanne: Iran needs more than simple cash, but need ability to interact with intl economic community. http://t.co/fyK3aIZSKU
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
.@maloneysuzanne: Iranians want to make progress quickly, want to see compensation. Read more at Maloney Iran blog: http://t.co/qw0qBGHgVr.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
On Iran, Bob Einhorn says that Iran could make big gains in reducing breakout time. P5+1 must do what it can to put near-term constraints.
— Brookings FP (@BrookingsFP) November 1, 2013
Suzanne Maloney: “I don’t believe that mistrust is a rationale for not pursuing the talks.”
##6##
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
Commentary
Brookings Experts Discuss Iran and the P5+1 Nuclear Negotiations
November 1, 2013