Gary Samor, Obama’s White House adviser on Iran’s nuclear program and Brookings’ Bruce Reidel had prepared an 18-month study for the joint Zionist think tanks Brookings-CFR during 2007-08. It described in details how the next president (Barack Obama) should stop or set-back Iran’s nuclear program in order to maintain Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Muslim heartland. It was Samor who sold to IAEA and Russia the idea of Iran’s low-enriched uranium being shipped to Russia for conversion into more highly-enriched fuel rods – during his Obama’s visit to Moscow. Thus setting back Iranian breakout capability for a few years.

Both the Conservatives and the Reformist leaders are unanimous in rejecting the idea of LEU stocks being sent to a foreign country. The defeated presidential candidate, Mir Mousavi, has called the IAEA proposal: “If the demands carried out, all the efforts of thousands of scientists will go to the wind”. Conservative parliamentarian Hesmatollah Falahatpisheh said any deal with the West involving the export of Iran’s LEU stocks should be conditioned on ending the economic sanctions on Iran, particularly a lifting of sanctions on raw uranium imports.” And Mohsen Rezai, the conservative secretary of the Expediency Council, said that Iran should retain 1,100 kilograms of the roughly 1,500 kilograms of LEU in its stockpile, rather than sending 1,200 kilograms abroad as called for in the ElBaradei plan.

Gareth Porter, US investigating journalist and author, in his recent article, titled US-Iran Talk: The Road to diplomatic Failure has blamed Obama administration for not being sincere in its dialogue with Iran.

“The talks between the G5 plus 1 and Iran are careening toward a premature breakdown. If they do fall apart, it will be due in large part to a serious diplomatic miscalculation by the Obama administration.”

“Along with its European allies, the Obama administration seized on a plan that cleverly asked Iran to divest itself of the bulk of its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU). It seemed to represent a golden opportunity to set back Iran’s nuclear program, and despite the warning signs that such an objective is not achievable by the West, it lured the West away from a serious effort to find a diplomatic compromise with Iran aimed at defusing the decades-long hostility between Washington and Tehran.”

“The origins of the immediate diplomatic drama surrounding the proposal lay in Iran’s need to supply fuel for its US-built Tehran research reactor producing medical radioisotopes. Iran had obtained 23 kilograms of fuel enriched to 20 percent from Argentina under a cooperation agreement signed in 1988 that ended in 1993. But that supply is expected to run out in late 2010, and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki sent a letter to the IAEA in June requesting its help in purchasing enough 20 percent enriched uranium under the agency’s supervision so that the medical reactor would again have a long-term supply. But that would require a relaxation of the international sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. And when the Obama administration got wind of the Iranian request, it created a new diplomatic strategy aimed at forcing Iran to accept terms that would force it to give up most of its LEU for about a year.”

“Lately, Ahmadinejad advanced yet another proposal to put roughly a quarter of its LEU under seal by the IAEA on Iranian soil until the uranium for its medical reactor is delivered, rather than sending it abroad. But Obama warned November 15, “We are now running out of time” for negotiations on the ElBaradei proposal…….”

Yesterday, Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki, said that his government is willing to exchange most of its uranium for processed nuclear fuel from abroad – as the United Nations has proposed – but only according to a timetable that ZOGs have already rejected. Under the new offer, Iran would handover 882 pounds (34% of its total stocks) of uranium initially – in exchange for an equal amount of enriched material to fuel a medical research reactor.

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/israel-behind-us-iran-nuclear-conflict/

It means of course that the greatest movement in position is required from the US, as it should be. We all know the Iranian terms for an initial deal are out there, and they are not remotely onerous for the US.

Thank you for the link you provided earlier, which I just had the opportunity to read.

For me, the article goes to show how imperative it is for the Green Movement to spread its message across the nation and Iranian people; thus the name of the article is, “The Green Revolution wont come as soon as we think” – it will take time. It shows hows Ahmadinejad and his clan still possess support, despite the endless failures, corruption and brutality of their government. It also shows how the regime has successfully divided the nation into loyalists and enemies, through the use of misinformation, propaganda and old-school populism (as the saying goes, divide and conquer).

Iran is a very diverse nation, one that is also struggling to balance traditionalism with modernism, so a flexible and pluralistic government is essential. It does not need a government that provokes peaceful protests into riots and then lays the blame on the peaceful protests. Or insults fiercely independent and patriotic Iranians by labelling them as agents of foreign powers. Divide and conquer… divide and conquer… Why are many Iranians so passionately loyal to a regime that has a record worse than the one it replaced and so suspicious of a grass-roots campaign to bring about real democracy and human rights? Divide and conquer…

We all need to work together, Iranian and non-Iranian, to help the Green Movement achieve its aims. We must always remember that it is a movement for democracy and human rights. It does not need to be a movement for regime change; the way in which the regime reacts will decide their own fate. And, crucially, we cannot blindfold ourselves to the crimes being committed by the regime in order to pursue different agendas. Finally, a truly democratic Iran that adheres to the basic rights of its people cannot be denied its right to a peaceful civilian nuclear program, while it will also spread real influence throughout the region by setting an example to others (especially Egypt and a number of Arab states that have burgeoning civil rights movements).

We have been handed another opportunity by fate to change the landscape of politics in Iran. Let us not miss this opportunity, as we have done so before so many times.

Hello and thank you both for a civil debate,

Almost all of the regular commentators on this board are hoping and looking forward for a rapprochement between the Iranian and American governments. Personally, I am not too optimistic, since for the longest time I believe there are many complications for both sides that have previously prevented a political realignment of the two competing nations in the region. Unfortunately, these same conditions still not only exist but also have become more complicated.

In case of an Iranian policy realignment with the US’s regional policy without a resolution of the I/P Iran will encounter great complications with its established posture and image among the Sunni Arabs, this will immediately reduce Iran’s hard gained balance of power in the region.

If we look from the US side, it will first require for US to settle the I/P issue in a fair and acceptable way for the Arab community. Which that means a complete revision of the US current regional policy, one can imagine how impossible that will be, considering the current US internal politics, as well as the insecurity that will be or perhaps is felt among pro Israel community, besides the US military strategic architecture that will also need to be restructured.

Therefore, an easy and inexpensive way out of this ever-complicating impasse would have been a change; yes, I did not mean change of the politics and policy but rather I meant the change of politicians of

Thanks and good luck

Yes, you are right. The animosity that exists between both nations is a problem that needs to be resolved. However, neither side is innocent. Both Iran and the US recognise the stand-off is as beneficial as it is dangerous; i.e. the US can continue to use the Iranian threat promote American hegemony and Iran can continue use the US and western threat to suppress domestic political reform.

The Iranians continue to make clear they want to do the exchange (their LEU for the 20% U). The issue for them is how to ensure the bargain is carried out. Which raises the question: Since the US knows Iran still wants to do the exchange, why does the Obama administration not even disclose to the American public that Iran is willing, if safeguards are arranged? Ergo, have Turkey hold the Iranian LEU until the 20% U arrives, then pass the 20% U on to Iran, and send the LEU to Russia (or wherever).

To me, there is an obvious issue of good faith on the part of the Americans.

Thank you for your response and I will keep your thoughts in consideration. I accept that Obama’s Nowruz message was part of a package aimed at changing peoples’ perceptions of US foreign policy. However, I do not attribute this to a regime change policy. And as far as I am aware, a swap deal was agreed to by both the US and Iran, but internal politics in Iran stopped the deal from progressing.

Regarding my point about Afghanisatan, I was trying to point out how they have effectively capitulated, where as Iran is a relatively rich, powerful and independent nation that is still standing, with a huge and educated population. Furthermore, Iran has a functioning government and carries influence throughout the region.

The outcome would be a further entrenching of the Israeli grip over the Palestinians and a dramatic deterioration in US relations with Iran. It would be a disaster.

To do it the other way round as Flynt and Hillary say would mean warming relations with Iran while exposing Israel as acting specifically against US interests if they choose to take matters into their own hands.

Judging by the way Obama has been feeding Netanyahu the rope to hang himself with, you still have to fancy the second way is favourite, but things remain as opaque as ever.