No breakthroughs in nuclear talks, but also no communication breakdowns

With the passing of self-imposed deadlines in the nuclear talks between Iran and six major powers, it's easy to see these complex and marathon talks as somehow failing to make progress.

That would be wrong. It's true that there has not as yet been any breakthroughs, but there are no breakdowns either.

We have to remember that only a couple of years ago American and Iranian diplomats would not be in the same room and had to go through third party back channels on many issues from co-operating against so-called Islamic State in Iraq to the situation in Syria.

They are now not only talking face to face - but negotiating on critical issues which have separated them for nearly 40 years.

With each phase of these talks they have made progress and inched forward. It may not deliver a Hollywood style "Kodak moment" signing ceremony and shaking of hands - but they are bridging gaps on key issues.

Full report:

I understand that there are two areas which are proving particularly tough.

Firstly, the US insist that if sanctions are to be lifted in one go - as Iran is demanding, the sanctions have to have a "Snapback" clause which means that if Iran contravenes them - the sanctions are put back straightaway without having to go to a UN vote.

Inevitably the Russians, French and Chinese who are jealously guarding their Security Council position and veto powers are reluctant to accede to this and Washington won't countenance the lifting of sanctions only to see their reimposition being vetoed by a Security Council member.

Secondly the Iranians are reportedly keen to be allowed to be free to conduct scientific research and development in their nuclear facilities.

The problem with this is that if you allow it - it basically makes a mockery of the one year breakout clause for building a bomb, because if you're free to do unlimited R&D this knowledge could be used in learning how to shorten your path to a bomb.

Although there are some Republican voices in the US congress saying Israel could and should consider bombing Iran's nuclear facilities there is a widespread belief even among senior former Israeli intelligence officials that the window of an effective military strike on Iran has long passed.

As Iran has been more forthcoming about the number and scale of it's nuclear facilities - many of which are deeply fortified underground, one would have to contemplate an air campaign possibly stretching into months to be effective, to say nothing of global condemnation and outrage at such an action, and possible Iranian retaliation in such a scenario.

In some ways the self imposed March deadline has come back to haunt the negotiators here. In terms of political theatre it gives the impression that they've somehow failed. They haven't. They are just not quite there on absolutely everything.

It seems likely that at some stage over the next 24 hours a statement outlining the areas of progress and agreement will be issued. It's unlikely the sides will go into details because they don't want opponents of a deal to be able to pick it apart.

As to the question; who needs this agreement more? President Obama or the Iranians. My personal view is that both need it - but I suspect President Obama would want it more.

There's no doubt that being the President that brought to an end one of the world's most dangerous confrontations that's lasted almost 40 years - and has plagued the most volatile region in the world would be an enduring legacy - and what's more important is that having a rapprochement and working relationship with Iran would have be a significant help for US policy in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and beyond.

As for the Iranians - they've lived with sanctions for 36 years and they have shown that they don't need the lifting of sanctions to make them more secure. But given how sanctions are felt to be a humiliation within Iran - their lifting would help ordinary Iranians and give the country more political breathing space.