Iran Talks Conclude with Cautious Optimism

Iran Will Grant Quick Access to International Weapons Inspectors; Further Meetings Seen as a Good Sign

(CBS/AP)  Updated 6:50 p.m. EDT

Iran and six world powers ended a landmark meeting Thursday with an agreement to take a new stab at overcoming years of mistrust generated by Tehran's nuclear program and meet again this month for wide-ranging discussions on the two sides' concerns.

Adding to the optimism generated by the decision to hold follow-up talks was a rare bilateral meeting between the senior U.S. and Iranian delegates to the meeting. In addition, diplomats said Iran will open its newly disclosed nuclear plant to U.N. inspectors, probably within a few weeks.

In comments late Thursday, President Barack Obama on Thursday called the talks "a constructive beginning" but said that Iran must match its promises of cooperation with deeds.

Now that Iran has agreed to open it’s the newly disclosed enrichment facility to international inspectors, it "must grant unfettered access" to those inspectors within two weeks, Mr. Obama said.

"Talk is no substitute for action," Mr. Obama said. "Our patience is not unlimited." He added said that if Iran follows through with concrete steps "there is a path to a better relationship" with the United States and the international community.

(Read more in CBSNews.com's Political Hotsheet blog.)

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking in Washington shortly after the talks ended, called the day productive but sounded a pragmatic note, as well.

"I will count it as a positive sign when it moves from gestures and engagements to actions and results," she said. "That's a necessary pathway and I think we're on it. We've always said we would engage. But we're not talking for the sake of talking," she said, adding, "Today's meeting opened the door, but let's see what happens."

At the same time that the talks were taking place in Switzerland, "Iran’s foreign minister was at U.N. headquarters in New York, saying that diplomacy needs more time, that the talks are constructive, and that Iran wants a summit-level meeting with world leaders," reports CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk from the U.N.

But the foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, "Stonewalled any questions about Iran’s non-compliance on nuclear issues and about the recent disputed elections," Falk reports.

U.S. Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Undersecretary of State William Burns used the meeting with chief Iranian delegate Saeed Jalili "to reiterate the international community's concerns about Iran's nuclear program.

"He addressed the need for Iran to take concrete and practical steps that are consistent with its international obligations and that will build international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its program.

"While the focus of the discussion was on Iran's nuclear program, both sides had a frank exchange on other issues, including human rights," said Wood.

The encounter appeared to be concrete proof of President Barack Obama's commitment to engage Iran directly on nuclear and other issues — a sharp break from the policy under the Bush administration.

More broadly, the meeting suggested that Obama was putting his concept of U.S. foreign policy into action, with its emphasis on negotiating even with the nations that are most hostile to the United States.

CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported before the meeting that that the most tangible indicator of success would be a scheduled follow-up round of negotiations by the same parties.

Senior EU envoy Javier Solana confirmed that the seven nations did indeed plan to meet again.

And they appear to have got much more than that, including an unprecedented 45 minute one-on-one talk between the head of the U.S. delegation William Burns - and Iran's head nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, Palmer reports.

Solana also said Iran had pledged to open its newly revealed uranium enrichment plant to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection soon.

"The major breakthrough from the first diplomatic talks in decades between Iran and the U.S., is that the Iranian government will allow international inspectors into the newly discovered nuclear facility in Qom," Falk said.

Iran also agreed to a deal that would send most of its enriched uranium - already theoretically enough to make a bomb - out of the country for reprocessing in Russia and France. It would return to Iran in a different form for medical use, Palmer reports, with the whole process supervised by the IAEA.

Iran's disclosure of the new plant had threatened to poison the atmosphere of the talks, with the West saying Tehran only revealed it because it feared it would found out. Uranium enrichment can make both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Solana said Iran had pledged to "cooperate fully and immediately with the IAEA," and said he expected Tehran to invite agency inspectors looking for signs of covert nuclear weapons activity to visit "in the next couple of weeks."

At the United Nations, Mottaki confirmed the plant would be opened to inspectors.

"The letter from the IAEA to the Islamic Republic of Iran, in response to the information we have provided in this respect, and with regard to the new facilities that are under construction, indicate the fact that the agency has appreciated Iran's move and dialogue for arranging a visit by the IAEA official is under way," Mottaki said.

The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — plus Germany hope to persuade Tehran to freeze the enrichment program.

CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk wrote in the World Watch blog Wednesday that China's seemingly endless need for oil - and their massive investment in Iran's oil infrastructure - may end up blocking any meaningful economic sanctions against Tehran.

Going into Thursday's talks, one of the top U.S. goals was to get the Iranians to commit to a second round of talks within a couple of weeks in order to keep the dialogue in a compact timeframe. The U.S. assumption was that if Iran was willing to engage seriously on the nuclear issue, a positive sign would be its agreement to have a second meeting shortly.

A senior Obama administration official told Palmer ahead of the talks that an eventual deal could include an Iranian enrichment program inside Iran, provided that it was well-monitored by international nuclear authorities.

Palmer, who has covered Iran extensively in recent years and traveled to the country on multiple occasions, says the Iranians genuinely seem interested in engaging the international community in these talks. "They don't want to be the ones to adjourn and walk out. They are too aware of pressure at home."

[mikevetman]

Obama has called us arrogant and all the other digs against the US, un-american as hell, and now he goes over there with guns blazing, demanding Mr. Iran to conform or..... Is that not the US trying to impose our demands on the poor little country of Iran, just like Obama has belitteled the US from doing in the past. Because he does it it is good. I thought that is why we pay all the money to the UN. If we don't need the UN, quit paying them. Let Mr. President solve all our problems. Look what he has done for economy so far. Nice job, still putting down the US.

[rexrox2]

"A Babe in the Woods". China and Putin are dead set against sanctions. This has a snowball's chance in hell. While the world watches the latest Obama Naivete play out, Iran moves inextricably closer to becoming a Nuclear Terrorist State. Most folks growned, as Obama's GREENESS, with diplomacy and international etiquette were on display earlier in the year,(England gets Obama's Speeches and Books on Tape, and declaring that he doesn't speak "Austrian"),I think most people now are becoming increasingly enraged and frightened by this man. Our soldiers are being killed at an alarming rate in Afghanistan,(many say due to the shortage of people), and he dithers to change his New Plan for Afghanistan(end of March),"A War That Must Be Won". His weakness was furher exposed, if there were any doubts, by his pathetic presentation to the Olympic Committe, and it's equally pathetic result,CHICAGO IS FIRST OUT OF OLYMPICS. People are still saying things like, THE YOUTH IN IRAN PROBABLY LIKE OBAMA MORE THAN THE MULLAHS. He really "stood up for them" after their election,(meddling??) I just hope all this doesn't produce some tragedy of global proportions.

[NewYork-Joey]

by jwesel1 October 2, 2009 10:14 AM EDT
One should appreciate Iran as the only non-aligned country to stand up to world powers and not scared of "Either you are with us or against us" tactics.
__________________________

Why would you "appreciate" a rogue terrorist dictatorship, who thumbs their nose at the rest of the civilized world ??? why should we "appreciate" a radical terrorist republic of Iran ??? are you from Iran ?

[NewYork-Joey]

by salmoc44 October 2, 2009 11:08 AM EDT
The Iranian President is weak in Iran, by design. Do any Cons actually know that Ahmadinejad isn't really the leader of Iran? It seems not.
____________________

Ahmadinejad IS the "leader" or President, according to the recent election.....there is however a Supreme Spiritual Leader - Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei who has the last say.

In reality, the Ayatollah really makes the final decision.

[NewYork-Joey]

by democracy1 October 2, 2009 6:58 AM EDT
First of all, learn how to write a coherent sentence in English
_____________

Have some compassion, obviously he has difficulties in English, as many in this country do.

[pensacola8-2009]

The Iranian president doesn't want to appear weak or be compared to Saddam Hussein, who was capture, tried and executed by his own people.

The defiance we see is a cultural exhibition of power with roots tracing all the way back to prehistoric times when a full show of force was present during a negotiation.

We have to remember that Iran is between two nations that are currently occupied by the USA.

[democracy1]

Good point. A lot of people seem to be too caught up in their own "power issues" to take a momentary calm step back to realize this, They'd rather jump the gun and sey off WWIII.

[salmoc44]

The Iranian President is weak in Iran, by design. Do any Cons actually know that Ahmadinejad isn't really the leader of Iran? It seems not.

[armik80]

Stop appeasement policy toward fundamentalist & terrorist regime of Iran now.obama's talks with regime Are very dangers to whole world?that makes iran's gov to be sure that they can have atoumic bomb. Stop it now. Iranian are dying very day and being killed by this gov and you are talking about ?Cautious Optimism? shame, shame, shame on appeasement and friend ship with terrorist gov of Iran.help & support NCR to bring peace & freedom to the whole mid east.

[democracy1]

First of all, learn how to write a coherent sentence in English! Secondly, the US is not going to jump the gun and set off WWIII just to satisfy Israel and the rabid right. That is NOT appeasement (look up the word in the dictionary). Get a grip!

[armik80]

first of all regime in iran is not represent the majority of iranian,no legitimacy. so who is paying the price of talks with terrorist gov of iran? of course iranian ppl & opposition? this talk only give time to regime for more killing and press the ppl.any one who shacke hand with them is part of this coappration to do so. at same time that meeting in geneva was going on, iranian popet factions in iraqi gov attacked the 36 iranian hostages in iraq.this is the resault of talks. iranian will not allways accept such agreement betveen west & mullahs.

[TrishaL59]

CBS News: And they appear to have got much more than that, including an unprecedented 45 minute one-on-one talk between the head of the U.S. delegation William Burns - and Iran's head nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, Palmer reports.


Well Republicans/NeoAIPACONS got to be toooorrrrmented seeing this young and bright Democrat president, OBAMA, getting such success with the arch-foes evilistic Iranians as they used to be described by the tale telling Zionists/AIPACONS. Barack will be the one president overturning the rightwing way of rumbling their warrrr Drrrummms. Forever. America does not believe the war mongers anymore! Amen.

[SocietysNightmare]

The US nor Israel can continue to police the Middle East. In fact, no nation has the right to dictate to another. I applaud the courage of the Iranian government. The US is perceived internationally as a bully. Russia invaded Georgia, and the world stood and watched. North Korea is still developing their program despite world opposition. But we as a nation want to target Iran. A nation that is not as technologically advanced. Home of the brave ...... right.

[msimamaji]

Three cheers for Obama!

Here are a few facts that apparently a lot of people have forgotten

The current regime of the mullahs in Iran has declared war against Iran's young - and demographically Iran is a very young country. Obama probably has a lot more appeal than the mullahs. A society that hates its young cannot survive.

Secondly, according to articles I read last year in the Los Angeles Times, Iran's economy is in serious trouble. I can even remember reading reports about gasoline riots breaking out in Iran. Obama's decision to impose economic sanctions are likely to cause a replay of those events. Although Iran can try to show off it's military might by firing missiles right and left, the Iranian government cannot escape a cold economic reality. Military spending is an excellent way to bankrupt an economy.

In addition, no one considers the risks of nuclear energy - not to Israel, but to Iran. We have no guarantee that Iran's nuclear facilities are safe. I realize that the Russians have been assisting Iran's nuclear endeavors and that should be further cause for alarm. Remember Chernobyl.

Furthermore, nuclear energy is a very expensive form of power. In most cases, nuclear energy cannot survive without massive government subsidies. Iran's government is already broke. Where will it get the subsidies? Even Iran's neighbors across the Persian Gulf, the famous oil sheikdoms, have realized that the petro-party is over, and they now investing heavily in solar, not nuclear, energy. What does this tells about the competence of Iran's leaders?

Obama's policy on Iran shows that Obama is a bona-fide baller that would put Michael Jordan to shame. To be sure, we do not know if this policy will preclude military action. But it is a welcome relief to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

[ajayvee]

Two questions:
1. The five permanent members and Germany .... Why Germany? Since when is Germany so important? Why not Italy or Australia or Japan?
2. Does anyone truly believe that anything short of bombing Iran back to the Stone Age will satisfy Israel?

[shazmiforce]

Please let iran wipe out israel from the face of the Earth...It will save you billions that you send that welfare state american tax payers hard earned money....country of fools iran is doing you a big favour that you will never be able to return...

[underdogus09]

The Ezekiel war is coming very soon...
Soon war is going to break out in the Middle East and you will enter into the seven year tribulation...stay tuned!

[NewYork-Joey]

by rickyg2 October 1, 2009 11:56 AM EDT
shut up BaghdadsHere99.let them meet and talk.stop your warmongering bull.peoplelike you who are against peace and talk sent us to war in iraq i the first place.
______________

The problem Rickyg, is these types of rogue terrorist dictatorships don't accept "peace" so easily as you think.....they want to develop their weapons and nothing will stop them, except extreme force....nothing....no talking, no hillary, no sanctions, no silly liberal feel good do nothing efforts will stop their abitions....only brute force do they understand.....sorry to break it to you....but the liberal feel-good peacenick method just won't cut it, in the hostile region.

[democracy1]

NY-Joey--You may be right that talk and sanctions won't work. Liverals are aware of that as well.

But pardon us if the adults in the room (who know how much is at stake by blindly setting off a powder keg as if it was an M-80) want to at least attempt diplomacy, sanctions, etc. before engaging in hostilities that may very well spark off a WWIII scenario. We're already at was on two fronts after taking out Saddam Hussein (who, as horrible as he was, at least served as a buffer against Iran). Where do you suggest we get the resources for a third front? I guess it's nice for you to be a condescending know-it-all, but you really don't seem to have thought out the answers to the more complicated questions, have you?

[NewYork-Joey]

by slownewsday_5 October 1, 2009 12:58 PM EDT
"by HaroldR1074
The problem with you liberals is that YOU would rather Iran destroy Israel than have the US bomb Iran."


Truth is, I just don't want another pre-emptive strike, and I am no liberal.

And you can't be much of a conservative if you think we have the funds to attack Iran.
__________________________

I'm not in favor of directly attacking Iran's facilities or all-out war with Iran, but I'd like to see something done.....even a slight notch above doing nothing !

Sanctions ? laughable

Maybe Clinton didn't want to spend money in addressing Al Qaeda during the 90's, but do you know what the cost of inaction was ?? 9/11 cost our economy BILLIONS in losses to property and life....how much will it cost us, if Iran obtains and sells a nuclear device and one is detonated inside our cities....how much does that cost, conservatively ? something to consider...the cost of inaction

[slownewsday_5]

The cost of inaction, respectfully, Joe, was Bush's for allowing 9/11 to take place. I don't think it was any conspiracy, I think it was just his idiocy.

Keep stringing out our military and our budget with paranoid world-police "what if"s and we'll be so weak we won't be able to respond to actual threats. If it's important enough, let our allies share the burden equally, or we don't go; I'd support that course.

[msimamaji]

Three cheers for Obama!

Here are a few facts that apparently a lot of people have forgotten

The current regime of the mullahs in Iran has declared war against Iran's young - and demographically Iran is a very young country. Obama probably has a lot more appeal than the mullahs. A society that hates its young cannot survive.

Secondly, according to articles I read last year in the Los Angeles Times, Iran's economy is in serious trouble. I can even remember reading reports about gasoline riots breaking out in Iran. Obama's decision to impose economic sanctions could cause a replay of those events.

Although Iran can try to show off it's military might by firing missiles right and left, the Iranian government forgets a cold economic reality. Military spending is an excellent way to bankrupt an economy.

In addition, no one considers the risks of nuclear energy - not to Israel, but to Iran. We have no guarantee that Iran's nuclear facilities are safe. I realize that the Russians have been assisting Iran's nuclear endeavors and that should be further cause for alarm. Remember Chernobyl.

Furthermore, nuclear energy is a very expensive form of power. In most cases, nuclear energy cannot survive without massive government subsidies. Iran's government is already broke. Where will it get the subsidies? Even Iran's neighbors across the Persian Gulf, the famous oil sheikdoms, have realized that the petro-party is over, and they now investing heavily in solar - not nuclear - emergy. What does this tell us about the competence of Iran's leaders?

Obama's policy on Iran shows that Obama is a bona-fide baller that would put Michael Jordan to shame. To be sure, we do not know if this policy will preclude military action. But it is a welcome relief to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

[rickyg2]

shut up BaghdadsHere99.let them meet and talk.stop your warmongering bull.peoplelike you who are against peace and talk sent us to war in iraq i the first place.

[bubbadubba]

<<<<the biggest threat to world peace are the Zionist entities now occupying Palestine....>>>>

Well maybe on some planet in the Universe but the major problem with your statement is, this is Earth.
LOL

[bubbadubba]

Ooops.
I now realize I misread the headline.
I thought it said " Iran kicks world's rear and tells world to kiss off at Geneva talks".
My bad.

[NewYork-Joey]

by charlie4481 October 1, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
"Sorry to tell you Lib, countries attack each other every day, without the almighty U.N.'s blessing"
-------------
But they have to pay for it themselves.
___________

No kidding.....who else pays for warfare other then the waring countries ???