John Mundy, the last Canadian ambassador to Iran, writes that the Canadian Foreign Minister Baird's hawkish position on Iran has prevented real solutions from being considered, and notes that Iran had already accepted many of the demands placed on its nuclear program:
Imagine if Iran’s current rulers agreed to suspend further fuel enrichment, implemented an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency and began negotiating a trade and cooperation agreement with the West that included enhanced people-to-people contacts and a dialogue on human rights. If you listened to Foreign Minister Baird last week you would dismiss this as a pipe dream.
In fact the Iranian government, led by its current leader Ayatollah Khamenei, actually did this. In 2003, after years of patient negotiation between Iran and the European Union, Iran agreed to all of this and also made a direct overture to the United States. The agreement lasted until 2005 when Ayatollah Khamenei became convinced that Europe was negotiating in bad faith and only acting for the United States, who remained unambiguously hostile.
This of course is a reference to the period in which Iran voluntarily suspended enrichment as a good faith gesture, conditional on the EU-3's recognition of Iran's nuclear rights under the NPT pursuant to the Paris Agreement deal...which the EU-3 ended up violating. And we know why the US remained "unambiguously hostile" to resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran thanks to Peter Osborne who writes about the Paris Agreement deal:
The answer is that a different agenda is at work, which we believe has little or nothing to do with Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. The US and its European clients are driven by a different compulsion: the humiliation and eventual destruction of Iran’s Islamic regime.