As expected, the Iran nuclear talks in Istanbul last weekend failed to produce any agreement. The nuclear impasse will most probably continue without new approaches, but the current setbacks do not mean that the negotiations were not useful. As a matter of fact, the talks, as a part of the general interactions between Iran and the six parties, have made it more difficult for Iran to cross the red line of a potential nuclear test or bomb-making.

Over the years, the negotiations have highlighted the Iran nuclear issue in the international community. Every time before a negotiation, Iran had to repeatedly declare that its nuclear program is peaceful. Honest or not, these statements form a certain kind of moral restriction, along with Iran's membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for Iran's future behavior. In such a case, any behavior that might lead to the military use of its nuclear program will undermine Iran's international image and raise the potential cost of such behavior.

The talks also serve as a clearinghouse between parties, in which Iran and the P5+1 countries (the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) can make clear their positions and acknowledge those of the other party. It is least likely that Iran will give up its independent capability to enrich uranium out of suspicion of nuclear fuel supply disruption because of political reasons. It is just as likely that the U.S. and the West will tolerate Iran's uranium enrichment capability because of security concerns.

Understanding the other side's positions is certainly better than not. It is unreasonable to expect the gap in desires to narrow overnight. But such understanding will serve to push the two sides to think about the deeper logic behind the opposite's positions. Such thinking will help both sides consider the issue in a longer and more strategic term. Otherwise, full and comprehensive solution will never be obtainable.