Paris agreement on November 15, 2004

The Iran-EU3 talks, and therefore the Paris agreement, seems to be on the verge of a collapse, because both side seem to be strict on their stance. If this is the case, who is responsible for its collapse?

The following link reviews the Paris agreement and why the talks cannot be contained in one framework.

Asia Times' Iran nuclear talks: It's time to shut up

There are few other sides to the EU-Iran talks that may or may not be affected by the collapse of the nuclear talks. Economic and trade talks are tasty to both parties. Contrary to the implied meaning of "trade incentives for Iran" (which implies that Europe is doing a favour), Europe would benefit more than Iran from the trade.

The question is whether or not the other aspects of the talks would continue if the nuclear talks collapse. I think both sides should be stupid not to do it.

No one would benefit if the talks collapse, not even the US. If Iran's case is taken to the security council (let's forget Chinese and Russian veto for now) and sanctions are enforced, everyone would lose:

• Stability in the region will be threatened
• Oil prices grows higher
• Iran's parliment will not ratify the additional protocol (which has been operational for a while as a confidence-building measure)
• The NPT may lose some of its members such as South Africa and Egypt (as they have expressed that the unjust standards in treating different members makes the NPT weak and unacceptable)

Hope it doesn't happen. My ideal solution that can make everyone happy is Iran be allowed to have partial enrichment program with intensive IAEA inspections. In my opinion Iran has played the game so well that this solution seems to be the unique solution.