THAT they have agreed to meet again next month in Moscow is the only positive outcome of the two-day talks in Baghdad between Iran and P5+1. Apparently, the two sides stuck to their guns. On the 20 per cent uranium enrichment issue, Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said nothing that could satisfy the Six, nor did the other side indicate a willingness to lift sanctions or at least make them a little less biting to induce Tehran into negotiating more meaningfully. If Iran can enrich uranium up to 20 per cent, so goes the reasoning, it could take it up to 90 per cent, and that would be weapons-grade. At the last meeting in Istanbul, the Turkish hosts were asked by President Barack Obama to tell Iran to consider the event its last chance to agree to a settlement. Fortunately, the Istanbul conference didn’t turn out to be the last chance, and the talks in the Iraqi capital did indeed take place, though after a 15-month gap.

Iran has a point when it says it has every right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is, therefore, duty-bound not to manufacture nuclear weapons. Tehran insists that it has no intention of doing so, and has thrown open its installations to international inspection. At issue, however, is the underground site at Fardow, which is not easy to bomb and where the West fears Iran could quickly enhance its enrichment capability. Given the consensus that exists among the six main players on Iran’s nuclear issue, it is time Tehran became a little more transparent on the programme to satisfy them and make a success of the Moscow talks next month. In return, P5+1 should realise that sanctions have been counterproductive and have only made Iran more adamant.