Roundup: As deadline approaches, what are Iran nuclear negotiators discussing?

As international negotiators gather here to meet with their Iranian counterparts, the nuclear talks enter a crucial stage: they can either make history or leave empty-handed.

After twice missing self-imposed deadlines, the United States and five other major countries have been negotiating with Iran almost nonstop, round after round and meeting after meeting, in an effort to put Iran's nuclear program under international control in return for easing of sanctions.

But the job is by no means easy and the process is full of twists and turns. With the March 31 deadline for a political framework agreement soon approaching, there are mixed signs of hope while gaps remain to be covered.

The six major countries had set a June 30 deadline to forge a final and comprehensive agreement, but the United States said earlier that if they cannot reach a "framework agreement" by the end of March, then maybe there will be no need for further talks.

Since Iran and the world's major countries agreed to come back to the negotiating table in 2013, more than 15 months have passed. The White House is still saying that the chances of clinching a nuclear deal with Iran are "50-50 at best."

So, the question is: why have the talks been so difficult?

A QUESTION OF TRUST

Of course, one can find reasons like the lack of mutual trust and political will. But some details, especially technical ones, have always remained a major obstacle to possible solutions.

While describing the latest talks as being "difficult but constructive," a senior U.S. official on Thursday told reporters that "on the technical side, the discussions have been professional and fruitful in terms of identifying the technical issues, clarifying them, sharpening them, and looking at the options on the table for a potential agreement."

Kelsey Davenport, an expert with the United States-based think tank Arms Control Association, told Xinhua that from the technical perspective, how to define the size and scope of Iran's uranium enrichment is "one of the most difficulties issues to resolve in the talks."

Iran is believed to have about 19,000 first-generation centrifuges installed at two uranium-enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow. Though the country claims it needs 10 times more that amount to produce the nuclear power it needs, U.S. officials want Iran to keep only a third of its present stock.

RESEARCH AND MONITORING

During previous discussions, negotiators have insisted Iran ship most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium out of the country. So Iran may lose as much as 90 percent of its uranium stockpile under any possible deal.

The purpose of doing this is to limit Iran's production and stockpiling of enriched uranium so that it would need at least 12 months of "breakout time" to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.

Another tough issue is to what extent Iran should be allowed to conduct research and development (R&D) over nuclear technology. The United States and other western countries fear that such research might be used for military purposes, but Iran insists it has the right to carry out research.

Ghoroghi Imorteza, a senior correspondent for the Iran State TV, told Xinhua that he considered the R&D issue as the most disputed point in the negotiations.

As regards to international monitoring, what sort of monitoring will be enough and acceptable to both sides?

While the Unites States wants quick and easy access to all related sites, including military sites, Iran has many times denied access even to the United Nations' nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

A LASTING DEAL?

The duration of the deal could also be a problem. The West hopes the deal lasts at least 10 years, but Iran does not want its nuclear program to be limited for that long, saying it was willing to agree to seven years at the most.

Another dispute is how soon the sanctions against Iran should be lifted. Iran said all the sanctions should be eased once and for all immediately after the signing of the deal, while Western countries want to keep substantial sanctions in place for years, which will only lift when Iran fully proves its willingness to observe the deal.

Together with the various economic sanctions, there is also a ban on high-tech goods that could help Iran's capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. So how to deal with this issue and set up the right monitoring channels for Iran to receive technology could also be a point of dispute.

Besides such difficulties, some even argue whether or not the Obama administration should negotiate such a deal with Iran, making things more complicated.

The U.S. side has said at many occasions that a deal that prevents Iran from gaining weapon-level nuclear capability for at least 10 years will provide more security than any sanctions or military strikes.

However, both domestic and outside opponents of the deal, like a number of U.S. congress members and Israel, insist tougher sanctions would do a better job.

The venue of the latest negotiation is in a hotel just besides the Olympic Museum in Lausanne. Will this marathon of the decade-long Iran nuclear talks finally end here in the light of the Olympic torch?

One can only hope both sides are able to make history, rather than miss out on the opportunity. Endit