More

Iran Offers To Return To Nuclear Talks

GEORGE JAHN   10/29/10 07:46 PM ET   AP

Iran Nuclear Talks

VIENNA — Iran offered on Friday to negotiate with six world powers about its disputed nuclear program in a new bid to end growing concern that it could be used to produce weapons.

The move, following a hiatus of more than a year, was anticipated in the wake of an invitation to the Iranian leadership last month by chief EU envoy Catherine Ashton and following repeated statements by Tehran officials that they were ready for talks.

Ashton called the Iranian offer "a very important" development. Still, after eight years of Tehran refusing to halt uranium enrichment, despite U.N. Security Council sanctions, officials from the main countries trying to engage Iran expressed little hope of a breakthrough.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the readiness to talk should be viewed positively, "but out of the signals ... must come really concrete talks."

Tehran has said its uranium enrichment is designed only to generate nuclear power. But it also could be used to manufacture weapons-grade uranium as fissile warhead material.

While Tehran argues that it has a right to enrich for peaceful purposes, international concern is building over Tehran's nuclear secrecy and its refusal to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to follow up on U.S. and other intelligence detailing alleged Iranian experiments geared at making nuclear arms.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council said in a letter to the EU's foreign policy chief that Iran is ready to hold talks after Nov. 10 "in a place and on a date convenient to both sides," the country's news agency reported.

Ashton had suggested Vienna, but the venue remained undetermined.

According to a U.N. diplomat familiar with the talks, the two sides are exchanging letters now on the date and place of the November meeting.

With expectations modest, Washington appears keen to use the talks to demonstrate unity among the six powers – the U.S. Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – in trying to bring Tehran to a nuclear compromise. Unity has been strained by disagreement over Iran's earlier offer to resume talks that are separate from the six-nation negotiations.

Those talks involving the U.S., Russia, France and Iran stalled last year after Tehran refused an offer to ship out most of its low-enriched uranium and have it turned into fuel rods for its isotope-making research reactor.

Moscow and Paris are ready to resume those talks, but the U.S. has said they have outlived their usefulness in reducing Iran's potential to make nuclear weapons.

The plan was meant to delay that capacity by stripping Iran of most of the enriched uranium, while providing it with the fuel needed to continue making medical isotopes. But Tehran first balked at shipping its enriched uranium, then started enriching uranium to a higher level.

Tehran has said it is enriching uranium to 20 percent to make fuel for its research reactor, but the move alarmed the international community because Iran could get nuclear fuel for the Tehran research reactor from other countries.

The level is also much higher than the 5 percent enrichment needed for a civil nuclear energy program. Uranium enriched to 20 percent can be turned into weapons-grade material enriched to 90 percent much more quickly than low-enriched uranium.

The U.N. diplomat said the six parties are going to work on their "proposals of substance" to put to the Iranians in light of Tehran's enrichment of uranium to 20 percent. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity in New York because the discussions are private.

Tehran also has continued to stockpile low-enriched uranium to the point where experts say it has enough for roughly two bombs after higher enrichment, as compared to one when the talks first began about a year ago.

A senior U.S. official told The Associated Press that an offer for new talks on a fuel swap deal could be revived in discussions between the six powers and Iran, but only if Iran agrees to ship out substantially more low-enriched uranium than when the offer was first made over a year ago and to halt its production of higher-enriched uranium.

Considering Iran's staunch stonewalling of the original plan, it is unlikely to agree to do that, the official said on anonymity because his information was confidential. Still, the Russians and the French want to keep discussing such an option and it could promote wider discussions, including international demands that Iran freeze all uranium enrichment, the official said.

If Iran then continues its defiance, there might be enough political will within the six powers to "go for the jugular" he said, suggesting a new round of tougher U.N. sanctions.

Such penalties – and existing sanctions imposed unilaterally by the EU, the U.S. and other countries – already show signs of biting, with dozens of major international companies in the banking, energy and industrial sectors curtailing business with Iran over the past year.

This week, the EU published its own sanctions against Iran, which prohibit investing in Iran's oil and gas industries, including the transfer of equipment and technology. Also targeted are shipping, air freight, insurance and banking, and companies and individuals linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which plays a major role in the country's politics and economy.

In addition, EU governments will monitor the activities of Iranian financial institutions on their territory. The EU is Iran's largest trading partner. Germany, Austria and Italy also have significant economic ties with Tehran.

A European Union diplomat said some of the credit for the new Iranian offer should go to China and Turkey, which recently sent officials to Tehran to persuade the leadership to accept the talks offer. China is Iran's closest ally among permanent U.N. Security Council members, and Turkey has stepped up trying to mediate the dispute.

In Friday's message regarding new talks, Iran referred to an earlier letter that included conditions for restarting talks. Sent in July, it asked the six nations to clarify their position on Israel's nuclear program, which is widely believed to have included the production of a sizable nuclear arsenal. Iran failed in a push in September for the U.N. nuclear agency to censure Israel for shielding its nuclear programs from inspection.

Earlier this month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad endorsed the idea of new talks but warned they would fail if the West does not oppose Israel's suspected nuclear arsenal.

Friday's letter, however, did not list those conditions, which also included a demand to know when sanctions would be lifted and when the U.S. would give up its nuclear weapons.

Officials talking to the AP said the upcoming talks would likely include non-nuclear subjects, but the agenda was still being set.

___

AP writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran; Matthew Lee in Washington; Geir Moulson in Berlin; David Stringer in London; Mike Corder in Brussels, and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

VIENNA — Iran offered on Friday to negotiate with six world powers about its disputed nuclear program in a new bid to end growing concern that it could be used to produce weapons. The move, fol...
VIENNA — Iran offered on Friday to negotiate with six world powers about its disputed nuclear program in a new bid to end growing concern that it could be used to produce weapons. The move, fol...
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 374
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
06:57 PM on 11/02/2010
i think I know why Mahmoud is so ticked off. This interview is pretty revealing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdPmKBE84lI
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vulpecula762mm
12:47 PM on 11/01/2010
This Akmadinna whatever guy has go to stop shopping at the local thrift store. he looks like a bum.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce
Atheistic-agnostic Canadian polymath
07:59 PM on 11/01/2010
Well, that 'bum' is someone who traded in an executive jet for a cargo plane to serve as his Air Force One, brownbags his lunch, and has occasionally slipped his security to pick up trash in the streets.

His house is the house he inherited from his father (it is located in one of the more humble areas of Tehran) his car is an old beater, and when he decides to go to prayer, he takes the place that was empty before anyone saw who had walked in.

Which is why the attempts by the US to make him and his government out to be some sort of self-enriching clique goes nowhere in Iran (and why when he, in the live TV debates, took his main opponent to task for the self-enrichment that went on under his administration, it was a knockout blow).

And before you get the notion of 'country bumpkin', his previous career was teaching at a university.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
02:10 PM on 11/02/2010
He's just the front man for the tyrants who squash free elections and won't alllow any dissent.

( He does look scuzzy)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
10:14 AM on 11/03/2010
He also served in the Revolutionary Guards militia, and he has been involved in covert operations.
Former hostages also claimed he was one of their captors with a group of student radicals that seized the U.S. embassy and held its 53 occupants hostage from 1979 until January 1981. You see, it is nice that when you include things about this man, you use all the information, and not just what you need to believe yourself.

I agree that we should always question what US involvement is, but I would never just scream against the US because I don't agree with everything, and I would never smash another leader just because - I usually have some real reasons. Been around for a while, and I am not easily swayed either way. Do not get all fuzzy for this man, he is not to be trusted.
01:06 AM on 11/01/2010
Sanity is a foolish "Western" construct, the study of which is illegal in some countries.
photo
realitycitizen
Proud American, Proud Gentile
10:35 PM on 10/31/2010
Time to cut to the heart of the matter, again. Israel is a small fajita shaped country on the coast of the Mediterranean, with a total population size smaller than than of New York City. Israel is just not that important in any strategic sense of the word.

Think long and hard about all the sacrifices the United States has to make by being Israel's sole ally in the world. Now think about all the benefits the United States gets from being Israel's sole ally in the world. Do you get it now?

Its a big wide world out there full of wonderful opportunities for the United States. All we have to do as a nation is shift away from the Israel Paradigm.

We would no longer have to bottle up a billion Muslims inside pro-Israel dictatorships.
We would no longer have to defend the indefensible when Israel acts out.
We would no longer have to dole out billions of dollars in government welfare to Israel.
We would no longer be on a war footing with all the enemies Israel has made in its short existence.

So how do we shift from the Israel Paradigm?

Forget protests; the hippie on the street corner bit wont work.

Join the military. Move up the ranks.
Join the federal security services. Move up the ranks.
Catapult America First politicians to positions of power in the civilian government.
photo
karim banned
A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue and a
12:00 PM on 11/01/2010
They do not let you to move up the ranks and if you get there they make an example from you, look at Carter for example. What they have done to him?
08:00 PM on 10/31/2010
Iran won't stop in their drive to go nuclear, regardless of costs. A-Jad and the mullahs are just playing for time. War with Iran is unavoidable.
photo
Amryxx
politeness rules, but with sharpened edges
08:04 PM on 10/31/2010
"Iran won't stop in their drive to go nuclear"
Energy or weapons?

"War with Iran is unavoidable"
Who will be fighting this war?
08:09 PM on 10/31/2010
Weapons.

USA, Britain, France and the Gulf Arabs, with unacknowledged support from Israel vs. Iran
photo
Amryxx
politeness rules, but with sharpened edges
07:54 PM on 10/31/2010
"it asked the six nations to clarify their position on Israel's nuclear program"

Sounds like a reasonable demand. Why would anyone oppose this?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SGTDBK
you don't much look like a steer to me
02:01 PM on 11/01/2010
because the talks were in regard to Iran. They are doing a form of blame shifting/stalling tactic.

Right or wrong the matter at hand is Iran not Israel.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce
Atheistic-agnostic Canadian polymath
08:02 PM on 11/01/2010
Actually, the matter at hand is what should be done to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, so the issue of what the nations who want to dictate a new set of rules without all the bother of going through changing the NNPT are doing about that particular problem child IS something that needs to be discussed.
07:29 PM on 10/31/2010
Sounds like Iran is working from the Israeli play book
05:52 PM on 10/31/2010
Ahmadinejad is merely a point man for the real power in Iran....people like Khameini and Revolutionary Guard strong man General Jafari.
photo
Whinger
I'm Just Me!
01:37 PM on 10/31/2010
Why waste time talking to a regime that is fully intent on building a bomb, enough already!
02:32 PM on 10/31/2010
We not only talk to a regime that has nukes, but we support them with billions of taxpayer dollars and let them make deadly enemies for us. Iran has done nothing to us, actually, nor have they threatened to. It's Israel that is the enemy of the best interests of the USA.
05:53 PM on 10/31/2010
Who pays Hezbollah's bills? They've killed plenty Americans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
10:24 AM on 11/03/2010
riverhouse, Iran has done plenty - and do not be so quick to show Iran as peace loving - they are not. I could list reasons, but I don't have time - I have to run shortly, and I would rather you take a look. I know you would - you sound like you are trying to understand, but who knows?
photo
karim banned
A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue and a
05:49 PM on 10/31/2010
So what do you suggest? Bombing Iran?

Or sending our jobs to nuclear India and send our money to nuclear Israel? Already done.

None of them are members of NNPT and both have illegally made nukes.

Iran is not the problem, we are our own worst enemy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cybersense
10:29 AM on 11/03/2010
US does have it's own issues, but never mistake Iran as a peace loving country. There are people there who are - but the government there - no way. Just because US has made mistakes, doesn't mean they are wrong to want to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. There are many countries that have them, but the goal here is two fold. One is to stop a country from having that threat to the other surrounding Iran, and the other is stoping any other country from having them. I add here - they would not follow any rules about not using them either. US would be their first target. Think not?
No matter what you think the US has done, you should understand you should never trust the Iranian gov.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeffrey A Beard
CCHS, WKU, Bonanza Steak House, Iowa, Old Creamery
02:00 AM on 10/31/2010
I'm surprised the Israeli Air Force hasn't already blasted the nuclear pile to smithereens.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Hirnlego
07:27 AM on 10/31/2010
During Bush:

Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran
US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1

Sometimes it's not all war propaganda:

"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday that he believed the threat against Israel of Iranian nukes is overrated and can be resolved diplomatically rather than by force.
"The Iranians are not as close to the technological threshold as they purport to be," Olmert said" http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=11701

The consequences would be bad:
'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1510382/10000-would-die-in-A-plant-attack-on-Iran.html
02:34 PM on 10/31/2010
Israel is a coward at heart. They never attack anyone who can fight back. Look what no army, no tanks, no fighter jets, no attack helicopters, no missiles Hezbollah did to Israel in Lebanon. Sent them packing, tail between their legs. Israel like to have its puppet state, the USA, do the heavy fighting for them. Bush took on Iraq for them, but Obama is not going to attack Iran.
01:15 AM on 10/31/2010
Too late, Bubba. We're going to sick Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin on you and yours.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:27 AM on 11/02/2010
Could we just put those three on a Saturn 5 rocket and aim it for Mars?

Thank You!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tinyrainbows
11:34 PM on 10/30/2010
Of corse he wants talk. He knows Republicans are taking power back this election and will have the presidency again in two years. He had two years to do whatever he wanted. The party's over.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ergon
Man From Atlan
01:06 AM on 10/31/2010
How many generals did Bush have to fire when they refused to attack Iran?
It would be really cool if the Army mutinied against a stoopid GOP president. Not that the GOP will win the White House until 2016 or so.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce
Atheistic-agnostic Canadian polymath
01:24 AM on 10/31/2010
You do realise that Ahmadinejad stood up to Bush, and the Iranian people stood up to having the US use a proxy to slaughter them.

And putting another President in the White House who is unable to put a layer of gloss over the US imperialist tendancies will not get the US any more support, indeed, it will get it less, and create so many other trouble spots around the world that there would be no way of the US scrapingup enough forces to even think about attacking Iran (let alone dealing with the consequences of such an attack)
07:37 PM on 11/01/2010
Talk about warped morality: so which Iranian people stood up to the US using a hypothetical proxy to slaughter them? Last time i checked, when the Iranian people stood up to your God Ahmanutjob, the result was a senseless massacre that not even Bush could make up.

As for your paranoid theories of American megalomania, no I'm pretty sure the US isn't hated in the world as you insinuate polls shows how America's image has been rebounding since Obama (http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbccntryview08/). I'm also sure that the US won't attack Iran: why should they attack Iran when Ahmanutjob's helping them kill the country himself!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce
Atheistic-agnostic Canadian polymath
08:44 PM on 11/01/2010
Well, I see PFE believes in throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, into his postings will make them more convincing (I guess the 'debating' verison of confusing the jury strikes a cord with him).

So, somehow mass arrests (and quick releases) of those taking part in a riot, and the arrests and trials of those who egged on the rioters, but not those who supported the losing candidates in the election (or those who were initially taken in by the unsubstantiated allegations of one of those losing candidates) becomes the equivalent of using arrests like the one detailed here http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/how-do-you-translate-innocent-into-arabic-1.322210 to intimidate any who dare to even say boo about being oppressed.

BTW, I guess you missed that as soon as the difference between what Obama seemed to represent (the US backing away from its more insane policies) and what he could actually do (not much, other than put a gloss on them) those polls took a turn for the worse.
09:37 PM on 10/30/2010
Any country that doesn't have nuclear weapons, can be the next Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
worker beenumbed
09:30 PM on 10/30/2010
The Expand Israel lobby wants to muddle the problem in the eyes of Americans.Most Iranians want the techncal capability of producing usable uranium.Iran has deposits of ore.Iran increases its barganing position with the capability.I am for enhanced inspection rules and on- call capability
photo
karim banned
A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue and a
12:10 AM on 10/31/2010
Also Israel does want us to focus on Iran and forget all the dictators around Persian Gulf.

http://freeabdulemam.wordpress.com/
02:36 PM on 10/31/2010
I don't care what Israel wants. I want the USA to do what's in their best interest and that would be to step away from support for Israel.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:46 PM on 10/30/2010
When is I s r a e l going to return to talks? Oh I forgot their nukes don't exist. Nevermind that they refuse to sign nnpt n BBC has reported they tried to sell nukes to south Africa in the 80's.smh
photo
booboo111
micro-bio
08:52 PM on 10/30/2010
The Iranians don't really care about Israel. The govt. uses Israel to divert attention from problems at home. Sound familiar? Think (Bush-Iraq) They just want a little freedom for themselves. Ask an Iranian who's not connected to this government, you'll see.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce
Atheistic-agnostic Canadian polymath
09:14 PM on 10/30/2010
Why stop at one, ask who rafts of them.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb10/IranianPublic_Feb10_rpt.pdf

Other than a small group that gets inordinate attention form the American news media, you'll find they like most of what their government is doing (at least, they like it enough that there is little need to try and divert their attention elsewhere)
photo
karim banned
A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue and a
11:04 PM on 10/30/2010
I think it is other way around.

Israel uses Iran to divert world's attention from its nuclear arsenal.