"THE BIG SIX" EXTEND TALKS

The Vienna talks between Iran and the "big six" international negotiators (the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, and Germany) were unable to come to an agreement on the issue of Tehran's nuclear program within the planned period - that is, by November 24. The parties agreed to prolong the talks until June 30, 2015. This indicates that the participants in the 6+1 format talks are sure that the Iranian crisis can be solved peacefully.

Nothing has been reported on what exactly prevented the parties coming to an agreement. Only Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif stated that the main obstacle to an agreement was a mutual lack of trust of the parties.

Meanwhile, according to global media, no small part in the lack of success of the latest round of talks on Iran was played by the positions held by Israel and Saudi Arabia - leading Western allies in the Middle East. Tel Aviv and Riyadh are afraid that Iran will become more powerful, seeing the Islamic Republic of Iran's transformation into a nuclear state as a direct threat to their interests. Israel has not backed down from its threats to launch military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities if the Islamic Republic of Iran is allowed to develop its nuclear program. The Saudis are so worried that Iran's nuclear status will give the country leadership in the Islamic world, that on the eve of the latest round of talks in Vienna US Secretary of State John Kerry had to reassure Saudi Arabian foreign minister Saud al-Faisal. The head of the American State Department reaffirmed that the United States, as President Barack Obama has repeatedly announced, will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Despite the apprehensions expressed by Iran's rivals in the region, it is obvious that it is nevertheless the West that acts as the main force in the world seeking to stop the further development of Iran's nuclear program. Taking into account the results of the latest rounds of talks, it is likely that certain forces in the United States and the countries of the EU have an interest in solving the Iran issue by force, and will try to justify their position by citing the lack of a comprehensive agreement. Reaching an agreement after November 24 will, apparently, become more difficult, since critics of the talks progress are interested in further escalating the situation in the Middle East and weakening Tehran, whose policies block the West's hegemony in the region. 

By all accounts, some in the administration of US president Barack Obama, being under considerable pressure from hawks, are concerned by a possible agreement with Iran. The hawks are in particular demanding increased sanctions against Iran. Which is quite significant when one considers that Tehran is expecting from the arbitration the development of a comprehensive agreement, one that will most likely guarantee the complete lifting of sanctions in exchange for providing greater transparency for the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program. In the long run, the 6+1-format talks make sense for Tehran if Iran gets out of its international sanctions in return for concessions on its part. In this regard a more flexible position is taken by the European Union, which has extended its suspension of sanctions until June 30, 2015 - that is, until the end of the new round of talks.

However, influential forces in the American political elite support a harsher approach to the issue. Expressing their position, a number of American congressmen has come out against agreements on the extension of talks on the Iranian nuclear program, calling for new sanctions against Tehran.

"Any agreement that does not require the full and complete halting of the Iranian nuclear program is worse than no deal at all," declared former House of Representatives majority leader Eric Cantor (Republican). He is backed by Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte, who have demanded increased sanctions against Iran, as well as that "any agreement with Iran must be sent to Congress for approval."

House of Representatives speaker John Boehner has come out with a more frank threat of the use of force: "Instead of giving Iran more flexibility, we should be holding this regime accountable for the threat it poses to the region."

The administration of president Barack Obama, though giving priority to a diplomatic solution of the Iran issue, still needs to take into account the "war party's" position. US Secretary of State John Kerry has admitted that if an agreement is not reached with Iran by the new deadline for the implementation of the Geneva agreements, Washington will reconsider its position on the issue of further talks. At the same time he was hopeful that the new US Congress that will begin its work in January will not affect the debate on Iran's nuclear dossier, "will act wisely and give a few months for continued talks."

Despite the pressure from part of Congress, the Obama administration is still counting on a successful end to the talks with Tehran. A statement from the White House testifies to this, saying that during the negotiations with Iran "enough progress has been made to warrant giving the Iranian regime more time to answer the international community's concerns about their nuclear program."

By considering the possibility of a final agreement with Tehran, the White House comes out against the implementation of additional anti-Iran sanctions. Washington is giving a clear signal to supporters of harsher sanctions, asserting that holding that position will be counterproductive during talks with Iran since, as White House Press Secretary John Earnest has officially stated that "…Additional sanctions could leave some of our partners with the impression that the sanctions regime is more punitive in nature than anything else. That could cause some cracks in that international coordination to appear."

The guarded optimism expressed by Tehran's main opponent on the international arena - the United States - shows that the Geneva plan to settle the Iran issue has, over all, proved its effectiveness. Another indicator is the willingness to allow Iran to receive up to 700 million dollars a month from its frozen account, which goes to show that the sanctions against Iran are continuing to weaken. At the same time, it is obvious that the negotiations' results will depend how the Middle East's other conflicts develop. In particular, the situation in war-stricken Iraq and Syria remains exceedingly complex. The West realizes that Iran can objectively act as an ally in countering religious extremism in the region. Moreover, Tehran is being considered as an important future partner of the West in overcoming Europe's energy dependence on Russia. In this sense the vital issue lies in whether Iran will take the West's side, taking a final step towards confrontation with Russia?

As for the latter possibility, Moscow is counting on strengthening its partnership with Iran, which is rooted, among other things, in the fact that Russia and Iran's strategic interests in the Caspian/Caucasus region largely coinciding. The primary factor capable of ensuring the mutual support of the two countries remains their determination to not allow the West to dominate Moscow and Tehran's traditional spheres of influence. This will undoubtedly influence the further course of talks on the issue of Iran's nuclear program.