After  two days of intense negotiations, P5+1 countries and Iran ended their  meetings in Baghdad and decided to meet again on June 18 in Moscow. The  meetings cannot be called either a success or a failure. It was not  successful in essence, for it did not produce positive substantive  results as anticipated following the Istanbul meeting last month. It was  not a failure because both sides agreed on the continuation of the  talks and decided to reconvene in three weeks.
At the end of negotiations in Baghdad, Ms. Catherine Ashton, the EU  representative in the talks, showed neither optimism nor pessimism, and  said, "We both want to make progress, and there is some common ground.  However, significant differences remain. Nonetheless, we do agree on the  need for further discussion to expand that common ground." For his  part, Dr. Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief negotiator, sounded more  optimistic, and said, "In this round of negotiations, we witnessed a  good atmosphere where the two sides discussed their issues in a  transparent and frank manner and both sides were acquainted with the  positions of others better."
When the Istanbul talks ended last month, an atmosphere of hope was  created, indicating the desire of both sides to make some compromises in  order to prepare the ground for further negotiations. Western officials  suggested that, in return for Iran's readiness to suspend all  operations at Fordow enrichment facility, there could be some relaxation  of economic sanctions against Iran. However, a few days before the  Baghdad meeting, the US and some Western countries took a harder line  and rejected any notion of easing the sanctions in this round of  negotiations. 
As soon as the Baghdad talks started, it became clear that the P5+1 was  not prepared to engage in discussions on sanctions, a point Iran has  been insisting on for quite some time. The best Western countries were  ready to offer was to furnish fuel plates for the Tehran research  reactor, help with nuclear safety at Iranian reactors, and provide spare  parts for Iranian commercial planes. This offer fell far short of  Iran's expectations and was rejected, because, as far as Iran was  concerned, giving up the 20 percent enrichment should have produced  something tangible in return on sanctions, such as a delay of the EU  boycott of Iranian oil.
It is an open secret that Israel is vehemently against the resumption of  talks between Iran and P5+1 countries and has called for the  dismantlement of Iranian nuclear facilities. Furthermore, various  Israeli officials have openly threatened to attack Iran militarily.  Following the successful visit by the head of the IAEA to Tehran last  week, in which the two sides agreed to expand their cooperation, the  Israeli defense minister said, "Even possible moves by Iran to open its  nuclear facilities to greater UN inspection does not rule out a possible  Israeli military strike." That, by itself, shows that Israel is not  after the peaceful solution of the Iranian nuclear program. Rather, all  it is interested in is to deprive regional countries from scientific  advancement, while keeping its nuclear arsenal intact.
In addition to Israeli officials, neoconservatives in the US have  stepped up their campaign against any compromise with Iran. They have  sided with Israel in opposing agreement with Iran that would allow any  enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil. On Thursday, three prominent  pro-Israeli senators wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Iran "cannot  be trusted to maintain enrichment or reprocessing activities on its  territory for the foreseeable future." The same pattern of behavior is  being followed by other Israeli lobbyists in Washington and some other  Western capitals.
What is unfortunate is the fact that the US government is showing some  weakness under Israeli pressure. The US Secretary of State, Hillary  Clinton, said on Thursday, "As we lay the groundwork for these talks, we  will keep up the pressure. All of our sanctions will remain in place  and continue to move forward during this period." In an election year,  US officials are cautious not to alienate Jewish voters, hence the  rationale behind Clinton's statement. The question is why the US should  put interests of Israeli warmongers ahead of its own interests and those  of the region. Sanctions and threat of military action against Iran  have been the two most important tools Washington and its allies have  employed in order to put pressure on Iran to put aside its peaceful  nuclear program. While sanctions have affected Iran's economy, the  threat of military action is considered by Tehran as a hollow threat,  bearing in mind Iranian military capabilities as well as vulnerabilities  of Israel and the US in the region. Iran has said time and again that  its NPT membership should bring with it all privileges associated with  the treaty, including the right to enrichment. If, due to any reason  such as Israeli pressure or unwise decisions by the American  establishment, the West continues to not acknowledge Iran's rights under  the NPT, Iran has no choice but to reconsider its membership in that  treaty. Therefore, in order to save the region from unwanted  consequences, the US and its allies are well-advised to take the  opportunity and negotiate in good faith before and during the next round  of negotiations.