The failure to reach agreement appeared likely to trigger new European and UN sanctions and to raise tensions in the Gulf. An Iranian rejection would also represent a rebuff to conciliatory moves from Washington, including the dispatch of a senior diplomat to Geneva to attend high-level talks with the Iranians for the first time in nearly three decades. The diplomat, William Burns, left Geneva without making any public comments.
Threats are NOT 'Conciliatory gestures.' What looked like a possibility to avoid yet another disastrous war for the US is apparently only a repeat of the cheap theatrics the US engaged in just prior to the invasion of Iraq, where the US tried to look like it was searching for a peaceful solution even as the bombs were being loaded onto the airplanes.
The tip off is Condi's statement that Iran would have to suspend enrichment prior to any negotiations. This is a classic tactic intended to wreck the possability of a solution by giving the other side the choice of total capitulation to US demands before any negotiations (with the guaratnee that any subsequent negotiations would not produce anything in return) or being portrayed as the bad guy for "sabotaging" the "negotiations".
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a legal right, recognized by the US Government, to build nuclear power plants and to make fuel rods for them, and NOBODY has produced an iota of evidence that Iran is doing anything else.