(Photo Credit: State Department Photo by Michael Gross)
This post also appears at The Washington Note.
The New York Times, among others, is reporting that Turkey, Brazil, and Iran have agreed “in principle” to a nuclear fuel-swap that the three countries hope can placate the United States and its P5+1 partners at least enough to avoid a new round of Security Council sanctions on Iran.
More details will be available tomorrow, according to the Turkish Foreign Ministry.
The deal was reached after Turkey Prime Minister Erdogan – who said on Friday that he would not attend the talks in Iran this weekend due to insufficient progress in the negotiations – canceled a trip to Azerbaijan and joined his Brazilian and Iranian counterparts in Tehran today.
This is big news and geopolitical drama at its highest – but questions remain: “What precisely is the agreement – and is it something the United States will support?”
If the Obama administration considers the agreement merely what Steve Clemons has called a “political backdoor” that allows Iran to halt the momentum toward further sanctions without making meaningful concessions on its nuclear program, then there will be a very interesting divide between the Western P5+1 powers and the emerging power centers in Ankara and Brasilia.
Given the close coordination between Turkey Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I would be surprised if Davutoglu reached a deal with Tehran that the United States cannot accept. On the other hand, Clinton’s prediction on Friday that he Brazilian effort would fail perhaps suggests otherwise.
More soon.
– Ben Katcher
James,
What hell might have broken loose that was prevented by the invasion? The ruler of Kuwait would have been unelected? Civilians would have died needlessly? Arabs taking offense to foreigners in their midst?(and turning to terrorism as a result)?Saddam continuing his brutal rule? Exactly what was accomplished by the invasion?
Try googling ‘highway of death’ and see what you come up with. Then read a little(or recalling, as i’m sure you probably know all about it) about the ensuing casualties and sanctions in Iraq proper. Margaret Thatcher can bite me.
Masoud
Masoud,
If the US, UK, et al had allowed Iraq to capture Kuwait and annex it as another province, all hell might have broken out in the Middle East down the road. I think Thatcher was absolutely right that the Iraqis had to be driven out if they refused to withdraw. However, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was an act of extreme recklessness and stupidity – - if one is kind.
Infidel,
I don’t know why you’re rehashing thirty year old History, or what your purpose is, but it seems to me you are astutely illustrating the negative traits you try to attribute to applying to Iranians in general– i.e. incessant and pointless whinning and moaning.
The incubator story was assuredly fake, and the war the US fought as consequence of that particular pr campaign wound up killing many more civilians than Saddam did(in Kuwait). I’m quite happy that you and yours didn’t have to live under Saddam’s rule, but that doesn’t make the US ‘liberation’ any more justified than Saddam’s initial invasion.
In 1982 Iran calculated(with plenty of justification) that Saddam couldn’t be trusted to keep the peace and so pressed the war on. You may disagree with that tactical evaluation, but it was by no means an unreasonable position, at least no more unreasonable than welcoming a bloody US ‘liberation’ out of fear of possible/probable future atrocities on the part of Saddam.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that if one is Kuwaiti, one would have reason to be ashamed of Kuwait’s Government, for among other things bankrolling Saddam’s war machine.Flooding the market with oil at the beck and call of Uncle Sam, as repayment for some Sheikh’s installation as absolute ruler is not something I would take particular pride in either. I say that as a Canadian who feels no qualms about saying i feel quite a bit of shame on behalf of Canada’s role in the world.
As for your derision of Iran’s military, technological, and diplomatic state of affairs, I could argue with you, but here’s an objective standard which might hit home: Iran is technologically advanced enough to invite US interference, militarily strong enough to be able to deter the US from attacking, and diplomatically active enough to frustrate US attempts at isolating it. I wonder what your position would be if we were having this conversation sixty decades ago? “Why pick a fight with the empire the sun never sets on! We don’t even have refineries, why nationalize oil, is it really worth getting destroyed over? That Mossadegh dictator really got is in mess with this blockade!Iranians are soooooooooooo stupid.Self inflicted wounds! Self inflicted wounds!”.
“The iraq war, and all other troubles by iran, are all self-inflicted. that’s what iranians do. Keep whining however and wallowing in indignation and righteous anger, stay isolated and backward, we’ll see if in another 30 years you’ll regret anything. Probably not.”
Your ancestry notwithstanding, your implicit justification for Saddam’s war of aggression and the Arab Oil Statelets backing of same is beneath contempt. In thirty years time, if Iran changes course and decides it needs some pointers on the fine art of abject subservience and unquestioning self-subjugation, i guess it’ll know who to ask.
Masoud
Infidel,
I’m sure there are a lot of people who say that taking you or the US leadership out may or may not be worth it. What sort of bankrupt logic or language is that? What right does anyone have to take out or even talk about taking out the leadership of another country?
Fiorangela,
Israel was a vital source of armaments for Iran during its 8-year war with Iraq, as you point out. And the arms were paid for.
Ahmadinejad had a number of friends killed or mutilated during that war.
You apparently share the doubts Colin Powell had, about the merits of driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait by military force. It is a bit ironic that Powell opposed a war that to me made considerable sense, while he failed to go public in opposing the idiotic invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Infidel,
A friend of mine worked at Hill & Knowlton when the case was made for liberating Kuwait.
What I have regarded as amazing incompetence by the US ambassador in Baghdad, did much to bring on the invasion of Kuwait. april Glaspie told Saddam Hussein the US “did not have a position” on the Iraqi-Kuwait dispute about slant-drilling etc etc.
Saddam took it as an indicator that G H W Bush would not use military force to eject the Iraqis – - even though Saddam’s generals warned him the US would use military force and the result would be disaster for Iraq.
Infidel,
Given that Iran’s policy is to keep the Gulf open to shipping from all nations, unless a war erupts, surely Iran’s ability to close the Gulf in the event of war is a good thing. It may restrain Israel from an act of utter lunacy.
Infidel, I did not read your very first comment, the one where you said you are Kuwaiti and had experienced the war. I’m embarrassed and I apologize for the tone I took in presuming to “educate” you; a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Dennis Ross is not good for the US.
Iran has done and will do evil things; many of those things are not for the US to judge or correct. The humanist that Thomas Jefferson viewed as the ultimate arbiter of moral values said, “first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
Pirouz,
sanctions won’t do much to Iran’s missiles. They’ll still be there, and they’ll continue getting better. And iran is nothing like Iraq in 2003, it has agents all over the middle east and will raise hell. Its most important asset is in its ability to close the hormuz strait, that’s what the US is worried about.
I still think the worst case scenarios of attacking Iran won’t happen, this is not an ivasion like Iraq after all, and if a strike would result in a delay in the 4/5 year range then it might be worth it. Taking out the leadership, khamenie/ahmadinejad/etc.., would also be really worth it. I’m not sure the US can do that though.
Persian Gulf,
You voted for AJ, cause he’s ‘tougher’ with the nuke program (like dubya is ‘tough’ on them terrorists I guess), I wonder if you realize how easier his delusional and hateful rhetoric makes it to attack Iran? Nevermind the dangers of having an outright idiot at the top, well almost in the top. It’s amazing how all it takes for a politician to con so many idiots is to just talk like a stubborn donkey and the masses will see courage and wisdom. In the next iranian ‘elections’, if AJ hasn’t taken over and extended a third term, I wonder how other candidates would be able to project toughness for iranians. AJ pretty much took it to the logical extreme, there’s no rhetoric that would outdo him ( I just read that he said god has chosen iranians to spread justice, LOL), and even being prime minister during the war with iraq apparently wasn’t enough for mousaiv to convince people like Persian Gulf that he’s tough. Maybe they could have a fist fight instead of a debate. I’d watch that! And then the winner would challenge President Obama, heh.
This looks really bad right now. We’ll see how it looks in 48 hours, likely things will have settled at least a little.
As a move, just from a PR standpoint, the US has made a terrible move and can no longer claim to be the reasonable party. That moral idea alone will weaken sanctions, except with the West, more than any UNSC resolution strengthens them.
But open hostility between the US and Iran looks like it is beginning, before the US is safely out of Iraq and while it is in the process of vastly expanding its exposure in Afghanistan.
If a resolution passes, all we can do is watch. By then the die will be cast.
Fiorangela Leone,
LOL PR Watch. I’ve read that article, and I’ve wanted to write a reply to it (and post it on the authors’ book on amazon too) for a while. I agree kuwait used PR companies and that woman probably lied, but so what? What country wouldn’t use all its resources to liberate itself? You people are unblievable. I won’t even go into the part where the say there’s no moral case to liberate it. Actually I will, things like appallinlg working conditions for foreigners and it not being a democracy are true, but kuwait is a developing country and improving. None of these ‘reasons’ means it’s ok to invade and annex and terrorize the country anymore tan it’s OK to do to the US in the 50s because of how they treated blacks (much worse than anything in kuwait’s history) and such. Oh, and they talk about ‘kuwaiti playboys’ as if all hundreds of thousands of people were rich sheiks vacationing in europe while kuwait was annexed, unbelievable. Maybe those US college students partying in mexico are a good reason for russia to annex the US and make its citizens live in fear and terror for the rest of their lives. I’m not going over this post and editing or antying, just typing as fast as I can, and just want to get out a general reply because I wouldn’t be able to stop if I posted everything on my mind.
regarding your later reply, yeah, I would be ashamed of many, many things kuwait did. That included supporting saddam against Iran, even though iran was threatning just about everybody – oh those peace-loving eye-ranians, but it does NOT include ’stealing oil’ from saddam or bringing down the price of oil or whatever bullshit your’e spouting. I don’t trust whatever warped reality you live in, kuwait, this tiny country, to steal and abuse iraq – it’s hilarious just thinking about it. And here’s the thing – even if they did, it STILL would not justify the war. Maybe not to your ‘humanist’ and ‘progressive’ values, but to any rational human being with a hint of dignity. And don’t give me that BS about poor iraq ‘recovering’ from war – IT STARTED THE WAR, A WAR OF AGGRESSION. Boo hoo, poor things needed help from their fellow OPEC mafia in bring the price up so they can restock on weapons, how sad!
BTW, your deluded talk about kuwait being able to ’survive’ on its holding and not needing oil should be all one needs to assess your sanity and ignorance. here’s an idea, your country can more than ’survive’ with only a fraction of your GDP, how about you send the rest to charity? Preferabily to blood thirsty tyrants. Kuwait’ ivestments are for its future, not to use when they decide to give their oil money to somebody ese. Seriously, are you drunk.
The sanctions on iraq however shouldn’t have happened, I agree with you on that, the US shoudl have moved on and take out saddam right after kicking him out of kuwait, they should have finished the job. Nobody talking of sanctions actually cares about the dead and those suffering, otherwise saddam would have been the first to blame.
What you say about picco btw doesn’t confirm anything about the US preventing a peaceful end to iraq’s invasion. Again, are you drunk or something. Either way, You’d have to be either an 8 year old or a deluded leftist to believe saddam was going to let go of kuwait and all that oil.
To return to that point about being ashamed of kuwait. I actually am not, I said I would be, because I would be if I considered myself a kuwaiti and belonged here, but I don’t. I don’t like this country or the people and I plan to leave. I’m me, that’s it. What some government did is not me, I’m not ashamed of anything kuwait did – whether it’s something they actually did or saddam’s iraq and peace-loving humanists like you accuse it of doing it – anymore than I’m ashamed of anything iraq did or iran or egypt or pakistan or china or japan or the US or canda or any other damn country.
Lastly, just for some perspective, since this discussion is about Iran, I’d like to mention that I’m actually Persian. About a fifth of kuwaities are ajamis, people in the gulf of iranian ancestry. it’s one of the reasons I dont’ feel attached to kuwait (that doesn’t mean I support suffering and misery for its people like you cute leftists do) and a while ago used to support the reformist and would probably have sided with Iran in a war with the US. The middle east, however, so infinitley rotten in so many way, changed that, as it changed many things. The left, the only thing more rotten than islamists and the middle east, played a pretty pwoerful role in showing me how the world really is and probably also changed my views on Iran.
The proposed sanctions are targeting Iran’s ballistic missile industry. Iran’s ballistic missiles are the cornerstone to the country’s defense. They are primarily responsible for the country’s deterrence against attack. Take that away and the Islamic Republic of Iran is as militarily defenseless as Iraq in 2003.
Once adopted, again, depending on how the sanctions are implemented, this can be the means of initiating war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
well, Infidel, our posts crossed. You’re a Kuwaiti: Do you feel any shame that your country attempted to steal Iraq’s oil by drilling horizontally into Iraq territory? Any twinges of conscience that Iraq bore the brunt of the war against Iran in your name and that of other Arabs; incurred massive debt that YOUR country not only refused to assist Iraq in repaying, but acted far more ignobly: in 1990 Kuwait held hundreds of millions of dollars in off-shore investments; it could live on its dividends and did not require revenue from its oil resources to survive. Iraq, on the other hand, had only oil to sell to generate revenue to pay its war debts and run its country. What did your Kuwait do? Kuwait drove down the price of oil. Does that make you proud?
I feel profound shame that my country suckered Iraq into that war; it did not have to happen. 500,000 Iraqi children did not have to die; my country insisted that they did, and Madeleine Albright said “it was worth it.” That makes me ashamed of my country.
That Baker and Ross pushed the region into war rather than help to resolve, and that they did it to gain access to Arab wealth, is confirmed, to my mind, in the words of Giandomenico Picco, who negotiated the termination of the Iran-Iraq war. You may recall that Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s minister, refused to come to the peace table; Picco was forced to find other powers to press for peace. Drawing on Italian history, Picco sought out the bankers at whose behest the war was waged: Arabs agreed to the peace that ended the Iran-Iraq war.
btw, Iran paid off its debts incident to Iraq’s war on Iran; the major share of Iran’s war debt payout went to Israel.
FOXnews news title:
U.N. Powers Support New Sanctions Against Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/18/powers-support-new-sanctions-iraq/
Freudian slip :-) The morons cannot even tell the difference between Iran and Iraq
Infidel, Mother cautioned me against engaging in a battle of wits with an opponent is not fully armed. Nevertheless, I must, not because you call me names — that says more about you than me, but because your grasp of the facts is wanting.
Read and learn:
” the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 [1990] came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah’s full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. “I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital,” Nayirah said. “While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”83
Three months passed between Nayirah’s testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. “Of all the accusations made against the dictator,” MacArthur observed, “none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City.”84
At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait’s Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis’ own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.
If Nayirah’s outrageous lie had been exposed at the time it was told, it might have at least caused some in Congress and the news media to soberly reevaluate the extent to which they were being skillfully manipulated to support military action. Public opinion was deeply divided on Bush’s Gulf policy. As late as December 1990, a New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that 48 percent of the American people wanted Bush to wait before taking any action if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by Bush’s January 15 deadline.85 ”
when you’ve got this installment under your belt, give a holler and we’ll proceed with your introduction to the real world.
BTW, I assume the ‘rescuing babies tossed from their incubators’ not being a just cause was because you don’t anything like that happened and not because you think it wouldn’t be a just cause if it did happen (cause that would be beyond disturbing).
But yeah, in any case, the gulf war as just as a war can be actually. And I’m pretty sure you’d agree if you were in my place. Just like I’m sure ‘antiwar’ african americans would agree if they were slaves, and ‘antiwar’ jews would agree to WWII if they were in concentration camps themselves, and ‘antiwar’ iranians would agree their defense of iran was a just war (though hopefully not their refusal to end it and invade iraq themselves, heh, now they criticizes the US for doing that), and ‘antiwar’ lebanese fighting israel and ‘antiwar’ [insert just about everybody on earth]. You get the idea.
Knowing that you’d agree if you were in my place doesn’t make it easier to look past how hypocritical and morally repugnant people like you are though.
Fiorangela Leone,
I’m from Kuwait and being invaded, having my country annexed, seeing the fear on my family and my sisters smuggled out and hearing the stories happening to others now that I’m old, I don’t need any more causes for the war. The babies out of incubators story, I’m not sure if it really was fake, but there are a thousand others that would have been powerful enough for a war. Actually, you only need one story: Iraq invades tiny sovereign country and annexes it by force. The Germans were also accused of killing babies and that didn’t turn out to be true, should we mock the ‘warmongers’ and their propaganda and cry for the unnecessary war against Hitler? No. This topic and the reaction and hypocritical of people to it makes me sick and disgusted of humans, what contemptible creatures. This blog is about Iran, so let’s please end this thread here and not get into what I’m sure will be the ‘progressive’ talking points you have in your head about oppressed iraq and their justifications for their war, so please stop it, this really is very painful for me.
Actually wait, the arabs were going to work it out you say, ROFLMAO!!!! Thanks but no thanks, this is the sort of thing people like you – all safe and free – can easily say. if the US listened to them I’d be either dead by now or living like a slave in fear while the’re still ‘working it out.’ What a joke. Saddam was never going to let go, never, the incompetent fools trying to ‘work it out’ couldn’t work out how to pull their heads out of their asses.
Nevermind that there was never an attempt to ‘work it out’, not by any honest brokers at least.
For what it’s worth, I don’t like dennis ross either and don’t think he should be involved in this.
Infidel, The Persian Gulf war was NOT a just war, unless you think rescuing babies tossed from their incubators is a sufficient casus belli.
The war did not have to happen; the Arabs were working diligently to resolve it; James Baker and Dennis Ross flew from East Europe, where they were wrapping up the end of the USSR Cold war, to Egypt and point on the Arab peninsula where they engaged in misdirection and double dealing with the goal of setting the disputants against each other, rather than mind their own damned business and let them solve their own problems their own way.
Seek out Pierre Salinger’s “Secret Dossier.”
Dennis Ross should be driven out of the White House at least; out of the United States would be optimal.
It is interesting to observe that for a Jewish Israeli to write about or discuss Israel’s nuclear project — it’s “Third Temple — is an act so heinous that a Jew in Israel would be punished as harshly as an Arab is punished. There is no other crime one can commit in Israel that is so harshly treated as to violate the sanctity of Israel’s secrets. Avner Cohen, who HAS written about Israel’s nukes, has been forced from Israel into exile in the US because of his transgression of the nuclear ’secret.’
Yet in the United States, a Jewish Israeli conducts America’s highest level foreign policy — Dennis Ross. In the United States, a person whose stated loyalty is to Israel, Stuart Levey, (who was placed in a job by WINEP, a think tank spun off of AIPAC, an organization that for over 50 years has defied demands that it register as the foreign agent for Israel that it is) uses his position in the US Treasury Dept to carry out de facto if not de jure foreign policy against Iran — an Israeli Jew bearing the credentials of the highest level of American statecraft, but working AGAINST the interests of the United States and of American taxpayers, just like Dennis Ross did and does.
it gets worse.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/14/The%20State%20Department%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Be%20Trusted%20with%20Iran%20Sanctions?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
Watch this video on Iran’s nculear agreement. It is a very intersting analysis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX9b45EB5Sc&feature=player_embedded
Brazil and Turkey have shown that the “indispensable leader” is in fact the dispensable leader. In the ME this has been known for a long time, since Turkey has brokered deals that the US either opposed or couldn’t be bothered with.
Fiorangela Leone,
Dennis Ross having his hands in the first gulf war is something he should be proud of, and it’s about as much of an insult as saying person x had a hand in liberating europe from the nazis or person x had his hands in just war y. The first gulf war was a just war, the US had other interests, but it’s as just as could be and only the rotten left and islamists and their buddy saddam would disagree.
Persian Gulf,
Oh, such passion in your posts, about begin threatened by the US and bombed by Iraq and going to martyrs funerals.
And yet none of this is directed at khomeini and his guardians of the islamic utopia known as iran, you know, the ones that REFUSED to stop the war and continued it in 82.
None of it also seems directed at other western countries that HAVE EMBASSIES in Iran. or the arabs, you know the ones that actually invaded you and had the support of the masses and not cold calculating politicians thinking of their interests.
The iraq war, and all other troubles by iran, are all self-inflicted. that’s what iranians do. Keep whining however and wallowing in indignation and righteous anger, stay isolated and backward, we’ll see if in another 30 years you’ll regret anything. Probably not.
No, it’s all america. Keep doing what you’re doing, and then when your ‘pride’ project (I have no idea how 60 year old technology, even getting it with help from russians and theft of technology from western companies, is a point of pride, lol) is bombed to pieces you’ll get up and say oh, they wont’ let us live in peace. We only called for death and destruction for 31 years, where did they get the idea that we’re not peaceful people. And cry more and slap your faces and chests over some bearded idol for another generation.
The P5+1, mostly former colonial powers, are rapidly moving the goal posts, more intent on sanctions and preserving their nuclear fuel monopoly than on doing a real deal. But sanctions will mean nothing if Iran’s neighbor, Turkey, does not enforce them, which begs the question: why is the US now intent on insulting Turkey?
Turkish FM Davutoğlu’s response:
“With the agreement yesterday, an important psychological threshold has been crossed toward establishing mutual trust,” Davutoğlu said. “This is the first indirect deal signed by Iran with the West in 30 years.
Davutoğlu … objected to criticism over the amount of fuel that will be swapped. Critics of the deal argue that the 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium that Iran agreed to have stored in Turkey was an amount set in October, when the idea of a swap first about. Since then, they say, Iran has continued to produce more low-enriched uranium.
According to Davutoğlu, U.S. President Barack Obama recently sent a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan regarding the negotiations and the quantity mentioned in this letter was exactly 1,200 kilograms. The foreign minister said all relevant parties were kept informed at all stages of the negotiations with Iran and claimed that the early skeptical reactions stem from the fact that a successful deal was not expected.”
http://justworldnews.org/archives/003987.html
One thing to remember is that Clinton reports to Obama. Barack Obama was never a foreign policy strategist, and came into office without solidly held positions on any particular foreign policy issue – which makes him impressionable and easy to maneuver or manipulate by people who do have firm agendas.
This is not Clinton’s responsibility. The failure of US foreign policy under Barack Obama is the responsibility of Barack Obama.
Funny
‘Prince of Persia’ Is Present-Day Iran on ‘Colbert Report’ (VIDEO)
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/05/18/prince-of-persia-is-present-day-iran-on-colbert-report-vide/
Well, Fiorengela, that optimism was short lived, and we are back to “tragic tragic”.
I also believe the nuclear issue is a front to a desired embargo on Iran to economically weaken the country prior to a desired regime change, wherein the support of Hamas and Hezbollah will cease, the country decentralized, and its markets privatized and made available to international (read Western) business. I think we should consider more openly the target of the Secretary of State being the ’slowing down’ and ‘rolling back’ of the economic development of certain countries and groups. It is a pattern, and not happenstance.
But the American dismissal of the efforts of Turkey and Brazil will have consequences, and there is enough savvy in these countries to continue working together along a wide, if not necessarily overt, front. That is the historical message of the moment: power configurations are changing.
In the meantime, HRC continues to run for President, and will, I believe, succeed in this goal specifically due to her raising tensions with Iran. It delivers to her the funding base she will require, and the popular cause to back. Don’t two-thirds of the American populace already believe that Iran has nuclear weapons? And the WSJ article is carefully worded to disparage Obama personally, creating the desire for a leader more firm on the issue.
But will Russia and China really go along with HRC. Why, in heaven’s name?
James, Rehmat, You may be well aware of this Israel-North Korea connection; I just stumbled upon this 1995 reporting by Ma’Ariv’s Oded Granot, North Korea – Iran Missile Deal.
Apparently, as far back as 1993, Israel began to suspect that Iran was purchasing nuclear technology from North Korea.
Two concepts leapt from Granot’s report:
1. this passage: “. In the name of a common ideology — to fight the West and all that it stands for — these two outcast, radical states have joined forces to obtain a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver it: long-range ballistic missiles that can carry a warhead from North Korea to Osaka, Japan, or from Tehran to Tel Aviv.”
Israel has talked itself into a state of hysteria on the basis of irrational thinking. Iran seeks to “fight the West and all that it stands for???” On the basis of what evidence? Iran shares an ideological agenda with North Korea?? (I assume Granot is referring to North Korea’s Shi’ia population. /s)
2. This passage suggests to me the full range of Israeli irrationality. Here’s what Granot wrote:
“The fact was, Israel was still maintaining contacts with China even though China was providing Iran assistance in nuclear technology.”
If you read Granot’s report, you will learn that Israel was so disturbed by N. Korea’s sale to Iran of missiles that it sent two teams of Israelis to negotiate with N Korea, and Israeli engaged in high-profile talks to try to force the US to do something about N Korea. Because Israel felt existentially threatened by N. Korea’s sale of military hardware to Iran.
Israel was not, apparently, similarly disturbed that China was selling nuclear technology to Iran.
Likewise, Israel surely was not concerned that Iran STILL possessed the millions of dollars in weapons/materiel that Israel had sold to Iran throughout the reign of the Shah and through the course of Iraq’s war on Iran.
I submit that something far more important than a mere ‘existential threat’ concerned Israel when the subject was N Korea selling weapons to Iran. Israel HAD a piece of the China action; it either wanted a piece of the N Korea action or the project should be shut down to force Iran’s business with N Korea to go to China, to whom Israel is a major purveyor of weapons systems.
The same rationale applies to Iran today. Israelis from the highest levels have declared that they are not afraid of Iranian nukes; that’s not the problem. And Israelis and Israeli-Americans at the highest levels know with a certainty that sanctions will NOT derail Iran’s quest for nuclear development. Yet the drive to impose sanctions on Iran continues, with special attention to Iran’s banking system and to the most important element in running Iran’s industrial economic activity, the Revolutionary Guard.
FOLLOW THE FR*%$ing money; this kabuki is all about who controls wealth, and how it is controlled. To understand it, one must understand what is meant by Dutch disease, in which a monetary system is based on resources and those resources are in the hands of a sovereign government.
One must also be alert to the difference between capitalism a la Adam Smith and capitalism a la Rothschild. Whereas Dutch disease refers to wealth based on resources, the predatory capitalism employed by Rothschild is casino capitalism: it’s based on air, on ‘derivatives,’ on forms of moving baseless assets around under walnut shells in movements so complex that even their inventors do not understand them. Elizabeth Warren and Michael Greenberger have defined and condemned these “tricks and traps” forms of “casino capitalism.”
Shar’ia law does not permit the forms of excess and predation that are the hallmark of casino capitalism. Shar’ia forms of finance are gaining acceptability in the US, and it’s scaring the bejabbers out of bankers who are accustomed to having their way with US congress. Israel benefits from status quo in US financial arrangements: Israel, alone among foreign nations, has access to the US Federal Reserve’s overnight window, and enjoys loan guarantees from US.
This debacle is not about nukes, it’s not about a fulminated existential threat.
It’s about money.
Israel’s and (to a lesser extent) the US bid to sanction Iran has a closer connection to the US and European financial crisis, and to Wall Street and Too Big to Fail banks, than it does to anything resembling a pious wish to strengthen a nonproliferation regime in the Middle East or to make the region and world safe from threat of nuclear weapons.
Iran is convinced and has been convinced for some time that the west is not sincere. This message has been relayed by all levels of the IRI — the latest one by the Khamenei to Lula.
Iran’s intent in signing this deal was to lay bare the insincerity of the west. It has now done so — clear for almost everyone to see. That is, for everyone outside of the western circle of MSM.
Having said that, I think that this was rushed in order to force China’s hand and to stop the momentum from shifting — it was a bit hasty. I predict that China will put the brakes on this sanctions deal; at least for a while.
Seamorgh:
I agree an am very disappointed in the Obama administration today. But oh well, like the Bush administration, it looks like it will have to learn the hard way.
I am confident that if US were to introduce a new round of sanctions on Iran, even if it fails, that would have the same effect rejecting the 2003 proposal had; Iran will become convinced that US/Obama is not interested in a change of behaviour but a change in regime. And you all know what that would mean; Iran will become more hostile, less cooperative, and a lot more aggressive on all fronts. If US introduced the sanction today, which it will 4:30pm today, from this day on, anybody in Iran supporting a cooperative conciliatory policy is just going to shut up. This is indeed the best gift anyone could have possibly given to the hardliners. The developments are indeed very sad.
Rehmat,
The CIA has confirmed it has zero intelligence that the Iranian government secretly wishes to develop nuclear weapons. The supposed “threat” of nuclear weapons is a cover story used by the “Greater Israel” proponents to discredit Iran in an effort to force Iran to stop supporting Syria (and Hezbollah, and Hamas) – - to enable the “Greater Israel” project to proceed further. Even if it means more war in the Middle East.
Iranian@Iran,
I heartily agree that Iran needs to formulate and execute the most sophisticated foreign policy of which it is capable. The greatest need, to my thinking, is to leep the moral high ground, and I would argue this means Iran should cease enriching to 20%. The US is not the enemy of Iran, but clearly a powerful cabal operating at high levels within the American national security structure wants to “protect” Israel by damaging Iran.
Fiorangela,
I concer that Dennis Ross is an insidious influence on the president, operating within the White House. Is he in effect the continuation of Elliott Abrams (#2 in national security council under G W Bush)? From what I can ascertain, Abrams tried to prevent a peace agreement between Syria and Israel.
Hillary Rahab Clinton’s statement that sanctions will proceed as planned suggests to me that Brazil and Turkey were NOT carrying water for the US in negotiating this deal: HRC has as much as said to them, “To the extent you are not actually interfering, you are invisible. You don’t count.” Hard to imagine Erdogan would have willingly/knowingly put himself in that situation; he and Lula were looking for quite the opposite outcome — to enhance the prestige of Southern Hemisphere NAMs.
There’s got to be a battle raging in Washington between State and White House, that much was implied in Kinzer’s dispatch yesterday. Dennis Ross functions in both camps (HRC’s assistant for international communications is Alec Ross. Son of Dennis? Who knows?) Dennis Ross played a part in the first Gulf war; Dennis Ross played a part in Iraq war. Dennis Ross has the blood of at least a million people on his hands; we Americans enable Dennis Ross’s warmongering.
What will it take to stop this? Hunger strikes, like the Suffragettes? What can we do???
Hillary Rahab Clinton does not represent me, nor does she negotiate in furtherance of the interests of the US. How shall we make it come about that her influence, and that of Dennis Ross, are removed from a place in the US?
otoh, to read the comments to NYT article linked by kooshy is to realize that my view is in the minority. tragic tragic
What amazes me is how the western media shamelessly tows the line.
Major Powers Have a Deal on Sanctions for Iran, U.S. Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/world/19sanctions.html?hp
This will eventually create the great civil disobedience of “international community” by south vs. north
Looks like Hillary won the argument in the administration.
NY Times is reporting “Major Powers Have a Deal on Sanctions for Iran, U.S. Says”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/world/19sanctions.html?hp
Maybe she convinced Russia and China that it was in their interest to not let second-raters like Turkey and Brazil get away with keeping the peace.
Iranian Iran
The U.S. all ready over through a democratically elected leader in Iran. No reason for the Iranians to trust us.
Aipac has been pushing the go get Iran agenda for 8 years. Every time they meet in D.C. their lobbying efforts are relentless.
Israel wants Iranian leaders taken out and lackeys put in.
Have folks noticed all the new commercials about how the US needs to get off the oil teat in the middle east and in every commercial they show American equipments and soldiers getting blown up and then flash to the Iranian President and call him a madman.
The new not so subtle pr campaign for why we may need to take action against Iran Ahmadenejad is the devil and we have to take him out. This is clearly the message.
Lots of these commercials these days. Why is that we hear nothing about Dennis Ross
At Cspan this morning Clinton and Gibbs are testifying about getting China and Russia on the bus for more sanctions.
Why is that they never bring up that under the IAEA Iran has the right to enrich uranium
I figure we could all use a dose of political humor:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4069/podborochkakartinok3886.png
I wouldn’t agree that Iran is a theocracy, but that’s another issue. I believe the declaration is in line with Iran’s interests, it protects its sovereignty, and it was a very very sophisticated move to weaken the west’s confrontational position. In an ideal world Iran should just say “we do what we want to do”, but in reality the US is a real threat to the Iranian people and it must be “defeated” through, among other things, a sophisticated foreign policy.
The Iranians are politically united on the agreement/declaration:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126876§ionid=351020104
Iranian@Iran
Facts and propaganda are entirely two different things.
1. It was the US which agreed with the Shah to build over two dozens of small nuclear plants in Iran under the supervision of Israeli scientists. The existing 2 mW research reactor in Iran is “Made in USA”.
2. It’s not Iranian nuclear program which bothers the US (Ooops! the Jewish Lobby) but it also ran similar smear propaganda against Pakistan and Turkey’s bids to buy nuclear reactors from Canada and enrichment plants from France.
3. Iran as a signatory of NPT – has every legal right to construct as many nuclear plants as it need to meet its power-generation and other civilian demands. How many people are aware of the fact that France’s entire power supply comes from nuclear plants as compared to 17% in the USA?
4. Turkey and Brazil are not on Iranian side because they love a ‘theocracy’ – but both being the emerging regional powers – needs allies at various international forums.
5. Brazil had run its secret military nuclear program under its military rule – and who knows, like the Zionist regime, it too have some nuclear bombs in the closet.
“The only enemy Israel is talking about now is Iran. Friends who know nuclear weapons tell me there is no reasonable proof Iran is developing weapons at all and that the news stories we see are “plants,” misrepresentations of fact just like all the Bush era terror alerts and the phony bin Laden tapes,” Gordon Duff, Vietnam War veteran and senior editor ‘Veterans Today’.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/the-pesky-little-nation/
I agree with Iranian.
“After reading the text, it seems that Iran basically got what it wanted. There was an interesting debate on Iranian TV today and this is basically what I concluded:
1- Iran has increased its stockpile significantly. Hence, the US can’t say that it’s succeeded in taking 80% of its stock out of the country.
2- According to the declaration, Iran will continue enriching Uranium.
3- Since western countries failed to cooperate with Iran, it is now enriching Uranium at 20% as well and it is producing nuclear fuel plates.
4- Iran has succeeded in enhancing the role of non-western countries (at the expense of the US) in dealing with global issues and it now has Brazil and Turkey firmly on its side.
5- Iran has ignored two deadlines set by Obama (the end of 2009 and the end of April).
6- While the US has spent a great deal of time and energy to put pressure on Iran and just as it seemed it was going to get watered down sanctions imposed on Iran, Obama was outmaneuvered by Iran.
7- In the eyes of Iranian public the ball is clearly in the US court.
8- Because of presence of the high level delegations from Turkey and Brazil and as it’s clear that they are on Iran’s side, they will be pushing hard for it to be accepted by Iran’s enemies (the US, UK, and French governments).
9- Iran has effectively received the objective guarantees that it was looking for. The Turkish government would be humiliated at this stage if as a result of US pressure it refuses to return Iran’s Uranium (which according to the declaration, it would be forced to do if western countries refuse to abide by their side of the bargain.
10- Over the past 8 months, Iran has succeeded in shifting the debate from enrichment to a swap.
11- If Iran’s adversaries accepts the declaration, it has major implications (read the first 4 paragraphs)”
I agree. However, I would add that US opposition to the trip made by the Brazilian president was a poor PR move and also makes the declaration look more significant and it makes the US and its allies look weak. It also shows that the Islamic Republic is not isolated, especially as this all took place in Tehran during the G-15 summit.
PG
I respect your opinion ant certainly you are entitled to one, but you are not going to convince me, with I don’t like this deal but I don’t have a better alternative.
Further I really don’t feel like I want to change your opinion, especially if you have not done that in past 9 months.
Thanks
Iran’s Nuclear Coup
Ahmadinejad and Lula expose Obama’s hapless diplomacy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250172000040654.html
kooshy:
http://www.mardomak.org/news/reaction_to_new_nuclear_fuel_swap_deal_inside_iran
به گزارش پایگاه خبری جرس، محمد بسته نگار، حسین رفیعی ، رضا رئیس طوسی، تقی رحمانی، عزت الله سحابی، حسین شاه حسینی، اعظم طالقانی، رضا علیجانی و نظام الدین قهاری با صدور بیانیهای تاکید کردهاند که «در مسئله هستهای منافع «عام» کوتاه مدت و درازمدت ملی بر منافع «خاص» جناحی و فردی و… کاملا ترجیح دارد.»
امضاء کنندگان این بیانیه برخورداری از انرژی هستهای را حق مردم ایران دانسته و از «اصولگرایان منتقد» خواسته اند «با برخوردهای غیرمدبرانه و یا ترجیح رقابتهای فردی بر منافع ملی، در مسیر تبادل سوخت کارشکنی نکرده و با برخی جناحهای افراطی همپیوند نشوند.»
امضاء کنندگان این بیانیهای تبادل سوخت هستهای را از نظر« اقتصادی» و « سیاسی» در راستای منافع ملت ایران ارزیابی کردهاند.
kooshy:
you pathetic, for greens, I mean!. not everybody is what you think. this shows your detachment of the reality on the ground. there is a sea of difference between greens inside and outside, and I am proud to say many of my close friends are greens, I am not obviously, and I do criticize them so often. many of them are proud Iranians. what you say is not fair. not everybody is like ex-Mojahedin and Saltanat-Talaban and….(turned to green these days).
http://www.rahesabz.net/story/15619/
p.s, I don’t like Mohajerani, make no mistake.
Lysander
Like you said, it wasn’t about the uranium, it was about this wedge all the time, and now that wedge is there no matter if the deal is accepted or rejected, further is no more 1 vs. the rest, in reality now is 3+ vs. the rest that is worth more than any uranium Iran may give up.
Persian Gulf, thanks I read the IR article and can’t agree with that, you should know that IR has openly supported the Greens.
I don’t suppose any of the greens would be happy with improving Ahmadinijad’s domestic or international position regardless of whether if it will enhances Iran’s national interest or not, if they did, they would have denounced foreign intervention in Iranian internal affairs and wouldn’t have shed tears for executing convicted separatist terrorist. Sorry, I think Iran just improved its position by bringing in couple of more guys from the south.
Kooshy and PG,
Let us keep in mind that Iran has not given up any uranium as of now, and will not until the US gives its ok to the deal. My guess is, it will not. The deal will be sabotaged and we will be back at square one. With the exception that Iran has stolen America’s thunder and put a wedge between the west and the rest of the world.
So no one need worry about the 1200kg of Uranium. Chances are it will never leave Iran.
Persian Gulf
You may want to read this article; even Fred’s WP can’t escape the new realties that have started as of today
Iran and Turkey reach unexpected accord on enriched uranium
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051700105.html?hpid=moreheadlines
kooshy:
as I said before, i really don’t have any other alternative exactly based on the current situation. and I don’t think it’s a chess game anymore. we were boxed in a corner as you explained.
I think, your explanation of 3=4+2, even though genuine, is somehow imaginary. NAM was always supportive of Iran. if you put all 4+2 in same basket, then who is left, other than and NAM and 4+2, to represent international community? why didn’t Iran accept the deal 6 months ago, and instead be harshly criticized? what is new in a essence this time? if sanctions don’t matter, why not going all the way along? to me , it seems, the deal is to defensive, to prevent the worse from happening.
and Look, I strongly supported Ahmadinejad in the last election somehow for his nuclear policy (and I got hatred even among some of close people!), at the time he was harshly dismissive of reformists’s nuclear deal. to be honest, Ahmadinejad did the same thing now comparatively. and this is really not fair. there is also another big question, why is Iran that lonely? and for years, we were talking about a rising power, and now suddenly you are trying to realistically convince people the opposite, especially with the U.S economy in shambles. what is going on here?
I don’t think that the nuclear issue was made solely as a bargaining cheap, or at least at this stage. if so, then IR better to explain it more clearly to the public.well, IR seems to have started this process: http://www.jomhourieslami.com/1389/13890228/13890228_01_jomhori_islami_sar_magaleh_0001.html
and, the biggest mistake of people like you is to compare today’s Iran with the Shah’s era.
Persian Gulf
I admire your name, but I still can’t understand your dissatisfaction with the new 3 = 4 +2 deal
At this current momentum even if the fuel is not returned that would be more beneficial to Iran at a relatively low cost
Whatever nagging the west makes it will enhance the position of the new 3 (IBT)
This deal suddenly changed the lone Iran to a new 3 power house that will have a better chance standing up to 5+1 or 4+2
There is this exact chess move called zugzwang, otherwise whatever move the other side takes will loose
If the west agrees to an exchange of fuel with what it perceives as an illegal unauthorized manufactured LEU, therefore hard to convince the world that Iran is doing something illegal if it’s illegal why you trade with them, if no exchange than Iran can claim west wants to limit nuclear no haves and monopolize the fuel cycle. See now there will be more nagging but nagging with weaker hand. So it will be a cheap if you can weaken their voice with just 1200KG of LEU that you have to store anyway.
Forget about the US sanctions they wouldn’t go away, short of making shah alive and having him to call “Cyrus you can sleep, since I am awake”
Sanctions have nothing to do with nuclear issue sanctions are there to contain Iran’s growth with comparison to the rest of the neighborhood.
There is no current use for the 5% nuclear fuel inside Iran, it was always made as a bargaining tool and it is serving its intended purpose,
Kooshy:
I really can’t think of a credible alternative at the moment. that was the reason I said, the deal is still ok.
I think, it is pretty clear what Iran loses; hard gained 1200 kg LEU (the production of ~400 days) for something she could simply buy as she did years ago. we were not supposed to hand them over. technically, the cost of these LEU were extraordinary high. it was the matter of pride, so Iran spent unusual amount of capital for it. I would personally prefer for 600 kg (60kg 20% was enough for 5 years and till then we say in Farsi خدا کریمه!). it could be in two swaps at least. Iran is gonna hand over 1200kg in one month, and get 20% in one year. is this really promising for something she introduced at the first place? this is a serious back down from what Iran’s gov. had projected.
strategically, Iran has now little more than 2000 kg LEU. after this deal, she is still in the range but not in a very safe horizon given the resources. the previous sanctions are not gonna be removed, nor does other obstacles of Iran-U.S (is this deal going to solve other differences between Iran and the west? I don’t see anything there to tell it explicitly http://www.irna.ir/View/FullStory/?NewsId=1120822), so we are actually back to the end of Bush era.
I understand that the events of the past 11 months (Fardow scandal, internal rifts (greens…)…. and I also don’t see any new venue on the regional front) have seriously put Iran on the defensive and this could be an acceptable deal, not an outstanding one (there are also other internal issues anyhow). I also understand that the U.S also doesn’t have many options but that is something else. and another issue is the relative importance of a country like Turkey compare to Germany…. Brazil is fine, but I am convinced with Turkey.
I love your optimism of the moment, Fiorangela, and I appreciate your comment, James. I’ve discovered that my cynicism knows no bounds. With your insights, perhaps I can reign it in!
Castellio,
The entire Arab League, plus Turkey and Iran, want a Middle East free of nukes. I think the Obama admin feels pressure from Egypt on this issue, rather than the other way around.
I think Iran will work against its own best interests if it continues to enrich uranium to 20%, even if an exchange is available to procure it. The White House press release focuses attention on this issue.
Reza
“……. I also doubt that, unless you are Kurdish, you yourself would support “freedom” for Iranian Kurdistan.”
Reza I seriously doubt majority of Iranian Kurds, as well as Azaris would support separation from Iran; in fact I have Iranian Kurd relatives that have no sympathy for this guys
Fiorangela
Good observation I had completely forgotten about “that lonely flag”
http://www.themajlis.org/2010/01/12/ayalon-and-celikkol.jpg
Alan,
Agreed!
I thought that in your earlier post you were suggesting that Iran’s enrichment is illegal and I was pointing out that it is not technically correct to say so.
kooshy, It’s Brazil’s flag. www dot daylife dot com/photo/07Ftdc96xlaUK This photo shows Erdogan and Davotoglu in Iran, seated at a table with their flag and a vase of flowers in front of them — Iranians extending hospitality to their guests.
inescapable to note this comparison: http://www.themajlis.org/2010/01/12/ayalon-and-celikkol.jpg
Interesting,
As India warms up, Iran cold
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/As-India-warms-up–Iran-cold/620189
Perhaps Indians should have seen it coming, Brazil, didn’t want to eat the lotus
Dear all,
You’ve done well shining the spotlight on the hypocrisies of the political world!
I hear it’s nice and sunny outside. Savor this one, and get out and soak up the sun.
Oh, listen to me, what am typi …. BRB.
Jay – I see what you mean, but equally Iran’s continuing enrichment does give the international community the legal right to impose sanctions upon them, and escalate it to Article 39 if they so desire. Neither would be the case if Iran stopped enriching, and of course it only got to this situation in the first place because Iran was found to be in non-compliance with their NPT obligations by the IAEA.
The process by which Iran arrived at this point needs to be addressed in order to get the steps reversed. Iran vigorously disputes the legitimacy of that process, and it is not clear how that dispute can be heard. Alternatively, the grounds for the non-compliance finding must be removed, and that needs to either be Iran providing the requested information, or the US withdrawing the evidence upon which the non-compliance was based.
Iran has proposed two steps at the NPT Review so far which addresses this – the first that third party intelligence should be excluded from IAEA inspection regimes, and the second that an independent arbiter be provided for in the event of disputes.
I would not be the least bit surprised if the Iranian deal with Brazil and Turkey was orchestrated to maximize the egg on Uncle Sam’s face. I think this same deal could have been reached, perhaps without Brazil, months ago.
If so, the egg on Uncle Sam’s face is richly deserved for the disingenuous, hypocritical campaign it has been waging. The last thing we need is for a nuclear power to be playing games with nuclear proliferation, which is just what the US has been doing (using nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes as a weapon, turning a blind eye to Israeli nukes, etc).
Fiorangela
I don’t’ know, who that flag belongs to, but never less I have seen this flag constantly is being waved in stadiums as a sign of V
Castellio, while true that Egypt did not take a place in the sun today, consider that Turkey is going to face some serious headwinds. Erdogan’s acts were quite courageous; he could take those bold moves only because Turkey is much stronger internally, politically, economically, than is Egypt, where, if I understand correctly, the people are seriously at odds with their government, the lines of succession are not clear but are near, and Israel exerts significant pressure and can, if it takes a notion to do so, alienate Egypt from the US and US financial contributions to Egypt’s wellbeing. In short, Turkey was in the right place politically and, zeus be praised, the right person took advantage of that space. This is truly a momentous event. It will hasten Egypt’s moment to rise and shine.
terrific photo, kooshy, thanks.
whose flag is that?
Alan suggest:
“Jay – yes, but it is NOT legal for Iran to be enriching uranium under the current state of play with the IAEA and the UNSC.”
Your statement may be politically correct but it is technically incorrect.
I am not a legal scholar, but I’ve heard and read scholarly work on this issue. All resolutions against Iran are adopted under article 40 (see below) and the scholarly work suggests differently. Legal work on this resolution (as I have seen it explained) suggests that the sentence before the final sentence (“Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.”) makes it perfectly legal for Iran to continue. By the way, this is the main distinction between article 39 and 40. Of course, the final sentence allows the UNSC to “take account” and impose more sanctions.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
The official US response to the deal:
——————————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 17, 2010
Statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Iran
We acknowledge the efforts that have been made by Turkey and Brazil. The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and authoritatively to the IAEA before it can be considered by the international community. Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns. While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20% enrichment, which is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions and which the Iranian government originally justified by pointing to the need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. Furthermore, the Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October.
The United States will continue to work with our international partners, and through the United Nations Security Council, to make it clear to the Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds – and not simply words – its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions. Iran must take the steps necessary to assure the international community that its nuclear program is intended exclusively for peaceful purposes, including by complying with U.N. Security Council resolutions and cooperating fully with the IAEA. We remain committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program, as part of the P5+1 dual track approach, and will be consulting closely with our partners on these developments going forward.
——————————————–
James:
I don’t believe Egypt is at the forefront of any movement for a nuclear free Middle East. I think it is supporting the American initiative as outlined by Obama, without any teeth in relation to Israel.
El Baradei worked hard to keep the dossier on Iran clean, in spite of American pressure. Interestingly, he is now the main opponent of Mubarak in a very rigged system. Egypt’s recent “backbone” is simply a reaction to the popularity of El Baradei, and the domestic disgust at the pro-Israeli position of the Egyptian government in relation to Gaza. It is show, not conviction, for a government gone very stale.
It was last Wednesday that Egypt renewed the “State of Emergency” for another two years… a policy dating from the death of Sadat.
Kooshy:
What can I say? Yours wasn’t there when I started writing mine.
Persian Gulf:
Please explain your concerns with the agreement in detail. What negative outcome do you see resulting from the deal, and what alternative would you prefer?
Persian Gulf
What was your alternative and can you point out what did Iran loose, technically and tactically and strategically what are the short comings in this deal?
Pirouz:
I suggest you look at your American passport first before giving lectures and calling people insecure (you are by no means in the position to define what is purely in Iran’s interests). if you were bombed for 8 years and attending the funerals of the war martyrs (especially in your childhood) and worse were constantly threatening for military attack while LIVING in Iran (and even worse were somehow forced to live outside mainly because of the lack of opportunity due to the economic damage of a war), you would definitely have a different view right now. it is not just the relationship with the west as you have tried to portray nicely, Mr.Secure.
Arnold Evans:
it is not surprising that you can’t see anything wrong with the deal. giving such an important and hard gained asset is not something very delightful. but it is still fine anyway.
Mr. Lucas considering events of the last 24 hours, would you recommend to congratulate the Greens for Iran’s new forward diplomacy, or you rather belive this new initiatives are not productive for forwarding the Green movement’s agenda?
This from FT with regard to the world politics shift of today
“Most important is the role played by Turkey and to a lesser degree Brazil. Both are currently sitting on the UN Security Council, where they have resisted the nonetheless rising pressure for sanctions. It is in these emerging powers’ interest to show they have an alternative. Both are positioning themselves as independent players bridging the mistrust between the west and the Muslim world (in Ankara’s case) and the developing world generally (in Brasilia’s).”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9304584a-61e2-11df-998c-00144feab49a.html
Yet again the western media is still resilient to take note that Iran actually is the instigator of the new shift in global politics
I agree, Arnold. From the Iranian perspective, it’s been well played. What luck Brazil and Turkey (and Lebanon) happen to be on the Security Council.
Certain Iranians depict what’s good news for the Islamic Republic as bad news for them. These are mainly the subversive groups (predominantly in the diaspora), so they’ll never be satisfied. And there are those that are insecure and somewhat timid in their perceptions of Iran’s relationship with the West. This is to be expected given Iran’s traumatic history.
Personally, I’m delighted with the turn of events. Even though the odds are still stacked against Iran, the playing field has now shifted nearer to level, if that can ever be achieved in the current US-Western oriented world.
Interesting times.
His most be an striking image for team Hillary
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0feh4Do0YR28R
James – the Russian proposal to get Bushehr up and running was fine, but is see no reason to allow them to control nuclear fuel beyond that. Strategically, it would be unwise for Iran to be dependent on any foreign sponsor, particularly when it is not necessary. Iran needs to play it straight down the NPT line because that should always be defensible in the international community, as I think the US is beginning to see.
Persian Gulf 1:14pm:
I don’t see anything wrong with this at all from Iran’s point of view, except the inherent problem that Iran is not yet self sufficient on fuel for its medical reactor. What do you see as the downside for Iran?
This seems to me to be as big a step as was possible towards putting the nuclear issue behind Iran, at least in effective terms if not on paper, and doing so without compromising Iran’s rights or limiting Iran’s freedom of movement on the nuclear issue.
Castellio,
Egypt is taking the lead in the effort to achieve a Middle East free of nukes. Nothing sad or backward-looking about that.
Alan,
Do you think the Russian proposal was the wrong way forward? If Iran ceases to enrich uranium, its isolation (such as it is) would be reduced substantially. And then we could see if the real game plan was to attempt to force Iran to stop supporting Syria. So Israelis wanting to pressure Syria into giving up a portion (or all) of the Golan Heights will have any easier time of it.
Turkey is playing the role that, at one time, was open to Egypt. How sad, now, Egypt looks on the international stage. How backwards looking.
James – surely it doesn’t really matter what Russia wants? There is simply no way Iran will let the Russians control their nuclear fuel in the future, and the existing contract for Bushehr is only until 2015. There would be no point in Natanz at all if the Iranians viewed their future fuel needs that way.
The secretary general of the Arab League has praised the proposed exchange. Iran should continue to work with Arab countries and Turkey in pursuit of a nuke-free Middle East.
Alan,
I understand that Russia would prefer to control the nuclear fuel cycle for all of the Iranian nuclear power plants. I realise that the Russian plan failed to obtain support from the foolish G W Bush administration, and that Iran decided to enrich its own fuel for the power plants.
There are significant economic issues involved.
Jay,
Yes, what a surprise, that MSM would try to portray the “goal” of US policy as further isolation of Iran. Sheer stupidity, if one is kind. The truth is more sinister.
Dan,
A more prominent role for Brazil in the Middle East would be welcomed by many of us on this site. An Iran more fully inegrated into the global community is a good thing for the Iranians and for the rest of the world.
Fiorangela Leone
Thanks for this link: http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/10033
The dramatic news from Tehran that a last-minute breakthrough may have been reached to avert a global crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme is a highly positive development for everybody – except those in Washington and Tel Aviv who have been looking for an excuse to isolate or attack Iran.
It also marks the debut of a highly promising new force on the world stage: the Turkey-Brazil axis.
Khamenei said the “fuss” made by the U.S. ahead of Silva’s visit showed that “some powers and countries are opposed to cooperation between Iran and Brazil” because it could change the world order, according to state television.
No matter what Iran does, the west, is hell bent on imposing sanctions on Iran and will reject any deal in order to satisfy their masters “the Israel power configurations”.
Fiorangela’post dated May 16, 2010 at 9:44 am touched upon this reality,
He wrote and I quote:
“The US is not bargaining in good faith, it never has and it never will.
If Iran agrees to a certain standard, US will move the bar.”
Lysander:
I understand the difficulties on the U.S side (at the minimum it could be considered a lose-lose) and the fact that Iran almost did the best it could do. however, this is not all an ideal situation for Iran, and that makes me disappointed a bit. for the first time after 4-5 years of optimism, I found it difficult for Iran to move beyond the expectations. after all, it was a great move by Ahmadinejad in the NPT review before making the current deal if it could go through. it is still fine if it can remove the tension and accelerate the rapprochement process.
It is somewhat amusing that the “free” MSM sometimes loose their composure and forget to mask their agenda behind the facade of just being good apples!
The majority of stories appearing in these outlets have framed the story, directly in the headline or indirectly in the body of the store, in the context of “how it may impede the sanctions drive”!
But wait! I thought the sanctions were not the goal?! I thought the goal was (at least the stated goal) to make sure that Iran was complying with the NPT (as if it was not already) and to remove concerns about its program.
In their angry distaste for this diplomatic success, it appears that our favorites (NYT,WP,CSM,NPR,…) bypassed the newspeak recdep (1984 reference) and exposed the real inspiration for their stories.
James – Russia has a contract to supply fuel for Bushehr until 2015. The point of Natanz is to make Iran self-sufficient in nuclear fuel thereafter, for Bushehr and new plants.
Yes, “Russia believes that it should control the nuclear fuel cycle for the Iranian nuclear power plants.”
Now there’s are reliable partner for you! Never known to threaten Iran! And never known to use energy as a weapon!
But it is interesting to note that Turkey has just agreed to have Russia construct a number of nuclear power plants, which would operate under Russian management. However, Turkey currently has more leverage with Russia because of its strategic position as a competitive pipeline corridor.
A big win for Iran. The picture of The two presidents and the PM of Turkey standing together with raised hands is very symbolic.
Jay,
Good points. That Iran should limit its enrichment of U to 5% seems clear, because if the US objects to any enrichment by Iran of uranium, this fact should be made clear. Previously, the Obama admin has indicated enrichment under 5% would be OK.
Fiorangela,
Bravo! Iran has conventiently served as the bogeyman for armaments manufacturers to employ, to frighten the US public into supporting idiotic missile defence system.
Richard Haass, writing in the Financial Times several days ago, argued for a new mission for NATO. Clearly, the program is a scheme intended to “protect” Israel or enable Israel to stall for many more years on ending the occupation of the Golan Heights and the West Bank.
My understanding all along was that the 20% U rods would come from France, and that the Iranian LEU would be shipped to Russia.
Russia believes that it should control the nuclear fuel cycel for the Iranian nuclear power plants. Russia is providing the fuel for the initial plant at Bushehr.
Jay, Add another Front to your list: Madeleine Albright chaired a group tasked with producing “NATO’s New Strategic Concept.” Their product was released today. Under Albright’s guidance, NATO would expand, the US would be
The new NATO Concept requires an enemey; Iran fills the bill. The NATO document includes this statement:
“The New Mission of Missile Defence. Defending against the threat of a possible
ballistic missile attack from Iran has given birth to what has become, for NATO, an
essential military mission. President Obama’s decision to deploy a phased adaptive
missile defence will provide more effective, rapid and reliable coverage than earlier
proposals. It also puts missile defence fully within a NATO context, with participation
open to all Allies and all Allies to be protected. Missile defence is most effective when it is a joint enterprise and so cooperation throughout the Alliance and between NATO and its partners (especially Russia) is highly desirable. ”
David Petraeus and Bob Gates have spent the past three or four years working the Manama Dialog to form a “joint enterprise” of “defence” among Arab/Gulf states, united against Iran. Coincidentally, Petraeus and Gates have sold Arab states billions of dollars in weaponry against the Iranian threat.
Erdogan, Lula, and Iran have done a brave and important thing, genuine game changing.
But that does not mean the game is over; NATO and the US military-industrial complex AND Israel will not exit the field quietly.
Exactly, the the Western members of the P5+1 are now trying to redefine the terms of the original deal. And they probably will succeed, but only in the Western media.
Liz
“After reading the text, it seems that Iran basically got what it wanted. There was an interesting debate on Iranian TV today and this is basically what I concluded:
1- Iran has increased its stockpile significantly. Hence, the US can’t say that it’s succeeded in taking 80% of its stock out of the country.
2- According to the declaration, Iran will continue enriching Uranium.
3- Since western countries failed to cooperate with Iran, it is now enriching Uranium at 20% as well and it is producing nuclear fuel plates.
4- Iran has succeeded in enhancing the role of non-western countries (at the expense of the US) in dealing with global issues and it now has Brazil and Turkey firmly on its side.
5- Iran has ignored two deadlines set by Obama (the end of 2009 and the end of April).
6- While the US has spent a great deal of time and energy to put pressure on Iran and just as it seemed it was going to get watered down sanctions imposed on Iran, Obama was outmaneuvered by Iran.
7- In the eyes of Iranian public the ball is clearly in the US court.
8- Because of presence of the high level delegations from Turkey and Brazil and as it’s clear that they are on Iran’s side, they will be pushing hard for it to be accepted by Iran’s enemies (the US, UK, and French governments).
9- Iran has effectively received the objective guarantees that it was looking for. The Turkish government would be humiliated at this stage if as a result of US pressure it refuses to return Iran’s Uranium (which according to the declaration, it would be forced to do if western countries refuse to abide by their side of the bargain.
10- Over the past 8 months, Iran has succeeded in shifting the debate from enrichment to a swap.
11- If Iran’s adversaries accepts the declaration, it has major implications (read the first 4 paragraphs)”
I agree. However, I would add that US opposition to the trip made by the Brazilian president was a poor PR move and also makes the declaration look more significant and it makes the US and its allies look weak. It also shows that the Islamic Republic is not isolated, especially as this all took place in Tehran during the G-15 summit.
Robert Naiman at Just Foreign Policy observed that Germany is complaining about the deal:
” “The key question is whether the agreement fulfills the demands that U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency has made of Tehran, German government spokesman Christoph Steegmans said.
“Steegmans noted that the point remains whether Iran suspends enrichment of nuclear material at home, raising a possible sticking point since the agreement reaffirmed Tehran’s right to enrichment activities for peaceful purposes.”
But the demand that Iran suspend the enrichment of nuclear material was never part of the fuel swap deal, and indeed the whole point of the fuel swap deal was to deescalate tensions around Iran’s growing stockpile of enriched uranium without recourse to the politically unachievable demand that Iran suspend enrichment of uranium.”
JohnH
“The problem is that Washington wanted to have its cake and eat it too. It wanted to control the spread of nuclear weapons by restricting enrichment to the nine companies that currently are currently capable of it, a laudable and entirely justifiable goal.”
In a bigger picture, even if under the surface this deal was encouraged by both sides to deescalate the crises, but on the surface what evolved to what it implies as the end of hegemonic WWII decision making process and begging of a new collective powers of regional independent states.
JohnH – what do you make of the assertion that Obama was supporting a deal while Clinton was opposing one?
Jay – yes, but it is NOT legal for Iran to be enriching uranium under the current state of play with the IAEA and the UNSC. However, the intertwining of the TRR with the enrichment question is becoming counterproductive for the US – Iran is on a winner with the TRR. The US would surely be best off splitting the TRR issue from the nuclear issue, and settling the TRR thing to kill it off.
After reading the text, it seems that Iran basically got what it wanted. There was an interesting debate on Iranian TV today and this is basically what I concluded:
1- Iran has increased its stockpile significantly. Hence, the US can’t say that it’s succeeded in taking 80% of its stock out of the country.
2- According to the declaration, Iran will continue enriching Uranium.
3- Since western countries failed to cooperate with Iran, it is now enriching Uranium at 20% as well and it is producing nuclear fuel plates.
4- Iran has succeeded in enhancing the role of non-western countries (at the expense of the US) in dealing with global issues and it now has Brazil and Turkey firmly on its side.
5- Iran has ignored two deadlines set by Obama (the end of 2009 and the end of April).
6- While the US has spent a great deal of time and energy to put pressure on Iran and just as it seemed it was going to get watered down sanctions imposed on Iran, Obama was outmaneuvered by Iran.
7- In the eyes of Iranian public the ball is clearly in the US court.
8- Because of presence of the high level delegations from Turkey and Brazil and as it’s clear that they are on Iran’s side, they will be pushing hard for it to be accepted by Iran’s enemies (the US, UK, and French governments).
9- Iran has effectively received the objective guarantees that it was looking for. The Turkish government would be humiliated at this stage if as a result of US pressure it refuses to return Iran’s Uranium (which according to the declaration, it would be forced to do if western countries refuse to abide by their side of the bargain.
10- Over the past 8 months, Iran has succeeded in shifting the debate from enrichment to a swap.
11- If Iran’s adversaries accepts the declaration, it has major implications (read the first 4 paragraphs)
Brace yourselves for new demands!
As this charade was never about the NPT or Iran’s nuclear program, the PR campaign will now shift to what Carl Rove called “creating new realities”. Multiple new fronts to divert public opinion will be launched.
Two of these are already emerging: a) “the situation has changed” front and b) “the deal does not answer our concerns” front. Front a) will push on the idea that Iran now has more uranium and is enriching to higher levels — both legal under NPT. Front b) will concentrate on vague ideas — “concerns” about a “nuclear Iran”.
As I said earlier, Obama has really painted himself into a corner. His campaign was premised entirely on Iran’s unwillingness to “take it or leave it” on the TRR trade. Now Iran appears to have taken it, leaving the PR campaign in shambles. Now it is clear that Washington is the unreasonable party. If Obama goes to the UNSC he will either lose or end up with a win without consensus, which is essentially a loss.
Iran has exposed Washington’s ploy for what it is–an attempt to hold the world’s nuclear power supply hostage to the nuclear cartel, AKA the P5+1, mostly former colonial powers. Naturally the large number of nations outside the nuclear cartel are not enthralled by the prospect of that.
The problem is that Washington wanted to have its cake and eat it too. It wanted to control the spread of nuclear weapons by restricting enrichment to the nine companies that currently are currently capable of it, a laudable and entirely justifiable goal.
The problem arises with Washington’s second goal, which is to use its the supply of enriched uranium as a weapon, forcing countries to bend to their will if they want their enriched uranium. The TRR was a perfect illustration of that strategy put into practice, exposing it for the whole world to see.
The NPT makes it clear that signatory nations are entitled to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. There is no stipulation that says that nations must also be a friend of Uncle Sam to enjoy that right.
Now Obama will have to retool the message of his campaign, which will be unquestioningly accepted in the Western media. He will change the terms of the initial deal and explain that the new terms were actually the original terms. The P5+1 will all applaud, except perhaps Russia and China.
What Obama cannot do is openly state his true intentions–hold the non-nuclear world hostage. And for political purposes, Obama cannot agree to give up the prerogative to use nuclear fuel as a weapon. In any case, the world would not believe him if he did.
Pirouz – yes, but it also looks as though Turkey and Brazil have exerted a certain amount of pressure on Iran to bring them into line.
It seems to me that Turkey and Brazil may be looking for a certain outcome from the NPT Review, and didn’t want Iran, as the outlier, upsetting it. To be sure, what they seek is likely to be substantially down the road Iran wanted to go, just not so far. The Middle East Nuclear Free Zone looms large in it, but I get the impression that it may have more to do with the working framework of the NPT.
It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in Isfehan today. The Armenian Cathedral Vank, the heart of Isfehan’s Armenian quarter, is outspoken in its condemnation of the Armenian genocide.
_____
On another note: just listened to C Span’s morning news round-up(at 9:30 am). No mention of the Iran nuclear deal, but the reader did recite that a new NATO review was released today, which listed the challenges that NATO intended to confront in the next decade. On the agenda was the looming “threat of Iran’s missiles….” The report noted that EU had urged that NATO maintain only its traditional defensive role rather than the more forward-leaning posture that today’s review proposes.
So that suggests what Dennis Ross has been up to this weekend: while Clinton was holding the AIPAC fort against assaults by the Obama admin, I’m guessing Ross was closeted with Robert Kagan, who lived in Brussels from 2000-2003 where Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, represented US at NATO. Nuland moved from that position to become national security advisor to Dick Cheney. With neocon flagship William Kristol, Kagan authored the infamous PNAC letter to William Clinton. While in Europe, Kagan wrote a comparison of US and European styles: US believes in, as it should, militarized means of achieving its goals; pansy Europe relies on persuasion.
It’s no longer the P5+1 and just Iran. Now it’s the P5+1 and Iran+Turkey+Brazil.
To remind the NED AGENT, SCOTT LUCAS:
More than 60 Pakistanis were killy by the US, the war criminals, today. Are you goingt to place the news at your web site and condemned it or contitue with your propaganda against Iran for the deaths of PEJAK terrorists, Israeli’s pawn? Shame on propagandist. Down with the phony ‘War on Terror’.
Steven Kinzer’s analysis of the dealmaking includes Hillary Clinton’s tone-deaf role in the deal: According to Kinzer, she warned Davutoglu to stand down, spouting her usual rhetoric. Meanwhile, Kinzer reported, Turkey’s diplomats leaked that they were in communication with the White House, which provided quiet encouragement for the deal.
Kinzer opines that this diconnect between Obama and Clinton reveals the increasing marginalization of the Clinton faction, which is good news.
But don’t let your guard down; this ain’t over ’til Dennis Ross sings.
Interesting analysis here from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/iran-nuclear-brazil-turkey-deal
An intriguing charting of Brazil/Turkey co-operation and even more intriguing suggestion the Hillary and Obama were on different pages over this.
No matter what has reached “in principle” will never stop Israel Lobby groups to push Washington into another military humiliation. The problem is not the remote possibility of Tehran acquiring an nuclear bomb – but its support for the Islamist resistance groups (Hizb’Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) and Tehran’s increasing political influence in the region and the Latin America. Both Israeli and American Generals and political analyst have admitted that a nuclear Iran doesn’t pose a future threat to either the US, Israel or any other country in the region – but as they say “Shoah” must go on…..
Hague: I will fight Iran for Israel
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/hague-i-will-fight-iran-for-israel/
Iran’s declaration on nuclear swap deal
Press TV
Mon, 17 May 2010 10:09:07 GMT
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki
Tehran has agreed to a draft proposal whereby Iran will ship its domestic low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for 20 percent enriched uranium in return.
After several hours of intense negotiations on Monday, the trilateral meeting between Iran, Brazil and Turkey ends with Tehran agreeing to send some 1,200 kilograms of its 3.5 percent enriched uranium over to Turkey in exchange for a total of 120 kilogram of 20 percent enriched uranium, Press TV reported.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki read the ten-point detailed deceleration on the nuclear swap deal at a press conference held in the Iranian capital Tehran.
1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and in accordance with the related articles of the NPT, recall the right of all state parties, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination.
2. We express our strong conviction that we have the opportunity now to begin a forward looking process that will create a positive, constructive, non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.
3. We believe that the nuclear fuel exchange is instrumental in initiating cooperation in different areas, especially with regard to peaceful nuclear cooperation including nuclear power plant and research reactors construction.
4. Based on this point, the nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations. Such a move should lead to positive interaction and cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear activities replacing and avoiding all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize Iran’s rights and obligations under the NPT.
5. Based on the above, in order to facilitate the nuclear cooperation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to deposit 1200 kilograms LEU in Turkey. While in Turkey this LEU will continue to be the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA may station observers to monitor the safekeeping of the LEU in Turkey.
6. Iran will notify the IAEA in writing through official channels of its agreement with the above within seven days following the date of this declaration. Upon the positive response of the Vienna Group (US, Russia, France and the IAEA) further details of the exchange will be elaborated through a written agreement and proper arrangement between Iran and the Vienna Group that specifically committed themselves to deliver 120 kilograms of fuel needed for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).
7. When the Vienna Group declares its commitment to this provision, then both parties would commit themselves to the implementation of the agreement mentioned in item 6. The Islamic Republic of Iran expressed its readiness to deposit its LEU (1200 kilograms) within one month. On the basis of the same agreement the Vienna Group should deliver 120 kilograms fuel required for TRR in no later than one year.
8. In case the provisions of this Declaration are not respected, Turkey, upon the request of Iran, will return swiftly and unconditionally Iran’s LEU to Iran.
9. We welcome the decision of the Islamic Republic of Iran to continue as in the past their talks with the 5+1 countries in Turkey on the common concerns based on collective commitments according to the common points of their proposals.
10. Turkey and Brazil appreciated Iran’s commitment to the NPT and its constructive role in pursuing the realization of nuclear rights of its member states. The Islamic Republic of Iran likewise appreciated the constructive efforts of the friendly countries Turkey and Brazil in creating the conducive environment for realization of Iran’s nuclear rights.
According to the BBC, the deal is for 1200kg, although the BBC also seem to be saying that Turkish foreign ministry officials are sceptical. It seems to me Erdogan was only prepared to go to Iran if Iran agreed beforehand that they would definitely agree to do a swap on Turkish soil. I think that was well played by Erdogan, but the devil will be in the detail. The 1200kg puts the ball firmly back in the US court, but judging by their panicky response, the Israelis are certainly concerned the US may be OK with it as Arnold suggests.
If so, what will be the impact at the NPT Review, what will be the US stance over a comprehensive nuclear settlement with Iran, and most interestingly, what will be the next US step on I/P?
@seamorgh H.
“Brazil will provide the LEU for making the fuel rods.”
No. Low enrichment Uranium will not be used to make the TRR fuel rods. That was only a pretense for the unwashed masses.
20% enriched Uranium will be made from 95% enriched Uranium of which Russia has tons laying around from dismantling cold war weapons. A lot of today’s 5% reactor fuel is made that way.
The exchange fuel for fuel has nothing do do with technically making the needed fuel rods.
Iran, Turkey agree on nuclear swap deal
Mon, 17 May 2010 05:28:44 GMT
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Monday that the Tehran government has agreed to a draft proposal whereby Iran will send some 1200 kg of its 3.5 percent enriched uranium over to Turkey in exchange for a total of 120 kg 20 percent, Press TV reported.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will officially receive a letter with regards to the swap deal “within a week”.
According to a Press TV correspondent, the swap will take place nearly a month after receiving official approval from the Vienna Group, which consists of representatives from Iran, France, Russia and the US and the IAEA.
1200 KG of Iran’s 5% uranium to be exchanged for 120 KG of 20% uranium in turkey(the 5% will be held in turkey under IAEA/Iran supervision) upon final agreement with the Vienna group.
I don’t think the United States ever really wanted sanctions. So I think this deal arranges a transfer of uranium but does not require Iran to restrict the size of its LEU stock to a level beneath one ton which is the US’ definition up to now of “weapons capability”.
The US will complain about how the deal prevents or delays sanctions, but if the US really wanted sanctions it would have gotten them in February.
My guess: Iran sends LEU to Turkey for storage only. Brazil will provide the LEU for making the fuel rods. Once Iran’s gets the fuel rods, the LEU in Turkey is shipped to Brazil. There is going to be a deadline by which time if Iran does not get the rods, Turkey would be required to give back the LEU. If Turkey reneges, Iran would cut off its export of natural gas to Turkey.