WASHINGTON – The Iran nuclear talks defy easy comparison: But think of a labor negotiation where it’s too costly for workers to go on strike or for management to impose a lockout, so the two sides continue without a contract while negotiations proceed. The situation appears stable, but that’s partly because it’s at an impasse.
This collective-bargaining analogy illustrates some dynamics of the nuclear talks between Iran and the West. Negotiators agreed Monday to extend for seven months their efforts to reach a comprehensive pact. They’re still far apart on some details, but neither side wants a breakup.
Behind the standoff in Vienna is a deeper confrontation in Tehran. Hard-liners in Iran argue that the compromises necessary for a deal would undermine the radical Islamic Republic that was born in 1979. An agreement would signal that, as a recent cover headline in The Economist enthused (a bit prematurely): “The revolution is over.”
For the West, the stakes are also huge: Agreeing to the concessions Iran wants on enrichment of uranium could open the way for proliferation of similar nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and other regional powers, setting off a nuclear arms race that could be catastrophic.
So each side, for different reasons, seems to agree that for now, “no deal is better than a bad deal” – with the proviso that they will keep talking. This no-deal consensus includes Israel and the Arab Gulf States.