Hardly had the computer ink dried on the joint statement at the end of the Geneva talks, when there was a row over what had actually been agreed. Even by the convoluted, esoteric standards of Iranian nuclear talks, this was a new low.
Here is the 'she said/he said'.
The EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, read a statement saying that in Istanbul next month:
"We plan to discuss practical ideas and ways of co-operating toward the resolution of our full concerns about the nuclear issue."
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, said that agreement was:
"To organise a set of talks based on cooperation to reach common ground."
The distinction is important. Jalili's version does not commit Iran to talking about its nuclear programme again. That matter, he said, is already settled.
From what I have been able to tell from talking to people at the meeting. Jalili is technically right. His very vague version does reflect what was actually agreed. Ashton then went out and spoke on behalf of the six nation group (the P5+1 or E3+3 depending on your preference), and expressed its expectations of what would happen in Istanbul. "She spoke on behalf of the E3+3 and that's how we see it," said a European official.
What this row illustrates is that the basis for going forward to Istanbul is wafer-thin. It was defined by one diplomat as an agreement to continue talks on the nuclear issue, but both sides have different takes over what that issue is. The E3+3 wants to talk about Iranian uranium enrichment. Jalili made it clear that the only nuclear issues Iran would discuss would be the failure of the West and Israel to disarm.
Western officials portrayed Jalili's bravura performance after the meeting as playing to the gallery at home, where it is not acceptable to be seen negotiating over Iran's programme. But one source admitted that the western diplomats there also have domestic demands on them. They have to be seen to be talking but they also have to show progress.
Getting the Iranians to show up and at least listen to E3+3 concerns was just about good enough here in Geneva, after a break of more than a year. In Istanbul, the benchmark will be higher, at least for the four western nations in the sextet. A repeat of Geneva, with both sides speaking past each other, with nothing concrete to show for it, will count as a failure.
