iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Iran Nuclear Talks: Proposal Outlines Possible Compromise

By NASSER KARIMI and BRIAN MURPHY 04/ 9/12 03:08 PM ET AP

Iran Nuclear
In this Feb. 15, 2012, file photo, provided by the Iranian President's Office, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, right, is escorted by technicians during a tour of Tehran's research reactor center in northern Tehran, Iran. (AP Photo/Iranian President's Office, File)

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran is signaling a possible compromise offer heading into critical talks with world powers deeply suspicious of its nuclear program: offering to scale back uranium enrichment but not abandon the ability to make nuclear fuel.

The proposal – floated by the country's nuclear chief as part of the early parrying in various capitals before negotiations get under way Friday – suggested that sanctions-battered Iran is ready to bargain.

But this gambit, at least, appeared to fall short of Western demands that Iran hand over its most potent nuclear material and ease a standoff that has rattled nerves and spooked markets with seesaw oil prices and threats of Israeli military strikes.

"It is important for Iran to understand that the window is closing and that these talks are an opportunity," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday. "The decision rests with Iran."

The talks involving Iran and the five permanent U.N. Security Council nations plus Germany, to be held in Istanbul, are the first direct negotiations on Tehran's nuclear program since a swift collapse more than 14 months ago.

Despite far-reaching complexities, the dispute effectively boils down to one issue: Iran's stated refusal to close down its uranium enrichment labs.

For Iran, uranium enrichment is a proud symbol of its scientific advances and technological self-sufficiency. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called the nuclear program on Sunday "a locomotive" for other showcase projects such as Iran's space effort.

The U.S. and its allies contend that the same sites that make fuel for reactors could also eventually churn out weapons-grade material. Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

The ideas put forth late Sunday by the nuclear chief, Fereidoun Abbasi, are an attempt to at least acknowledge this huge divide.

Abbasi said Tehran could eventually stop its production of the 20 percent enriched uranium needed for a research reactor, used for medical research and treatments. But, he added, Iran would continue enriching uranium to lower levels of about 3.5 percent for power generation.

The framework addresses one key Western concern. The U.S. and others worry the higher-enriched uranium could be turned into warhead strength – more than 90 percent enriched – in a matter of months.

Yet Abbasi also directly snubbed a demand backed by the U.S. and some other countries. They want Iran's stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium to be transferred out of the country. Abbasi indicated that it would remain in Iran.

"Such a stockpile could enable Iran to make a bomb in the future, should it decide to do so," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born political analyst now based in Israel.

"Unless an agreement is reached whereby this stockpile is transferred abroad for conversion into nuclear fuel or, at the very minimum, placed under international supervision in an another country, it will be very difficult for the (world powers) to accept Iran's current offer," he said.

The U.S. and its allies have sought to press Iran to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for receiving reactor-ready fuel from abroad. Iran has pushed back by refusing to curtail enrichment, which is permitted under the U.N. treaty overseeing the spread of nuclear technology.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was up to Iran to show that its claim of rejecting nuclear weapons is "not an abstract belief but it is a government policy."

"And that government policy can be demonstrated in a number of ways, by ending the enrichment of highly enriched uranium to 20 percent, by shipping out such highly enriched uranium out of the country, by opening up to constant inspections and verifications," she said at a conference in Istanbul to seek ways to aid opposition forces in Syria – Iran's main Arab ally.

Clinton will not be attending Friday's conference on Iran. The State Department's third-ranking diplomat, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, will lead the U.S. delegation. The Iranians have not yet announced whom they will be sending to Istanbul.

Abbasi also insisted that Iran will never close down its new underground enrichment facilities south of Tehran, saying it would be "illogical" for the West to raise such a demand.

It's unclear, however, whether Abbasi was conveying a real negotiating position or simply testing the waters.

The proposal came from an unconventional venue, airing just before midnight on a state-run TV channel for Iranians and other Farsi-speakers abroad. Iran has used its array of government-controlled media, such as its Arabic-language Al-Alam channel, to make regional and international policy statements.

Abbasi said production of uranium enriched up to 20 percent is not part of the nation's long-term program – beyond amounts needed for its research reactor in Tehran – and insisted that Iran "doesn't need" to enrich beyond the 20 percent levels.

"The job is being carried out based on need," he said. "When the need is met, we will decrease production and it is even possible to completely reverse to only 3.5 percent" enrichment levels.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted on the Iranian parliament's website Monday as saying he hopes for some progress in the talks. But he warned that Iran would not accept preconditions – an apparent reference to last year's impasse.

"We will honestly try to have the two sides conclude with a win-win situation in which Iran achieves its rights while removing concerns of five-plus-one group," Salehi said, using the name often used for the five permanent Security Council members and Germany. "But imposing any conditions before the talks would be meaningless."

Carney, the White House spokesman, said that "we are not drawing lines in the sand before the meeting takes place. But we are very clear-eyed about what Iran needs to do to fulfill its international obligations."

Abbasi's remarks could be an effort to tone down the rhetoric.

Last week, Iranian lawmaker Gholam Reza Mesbahi Moghadam claimed Tehran has the know-how and the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, but would never do so. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also has said that Iran does not seek nuclear arms and described them as against the tenets of Islam.

"The Iranians themselves have said, at the level of the supreme leader, that they don't have any weapons intention," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Monday. "Well, if that is in fact the case, then it ought be relatively straightforward for them to demonstrate that to the international community's satisfaction, and that's what we're talking about when we see them."

After a protracted flap over the venue for the talks, Iranian state TV reported Sunday that both sides had agreed on Istanbul. It said a second round would be held in Baghdad, and that its timing would be decided during the meeting in Turkey. This suggested that Iran views the process as a potential slow, step-by-step series of talks.

The venue still has to be formally confirmed by the European Union's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton. But a diplomat familiar with the preparations for the talks confirmed to The Associated Press on Monday that Istanbul had been chosen for the first round.

The diplomat demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the information ahead of the formal announcement.

___

Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Mark S. Smith in Washington and George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.

FOLLOW WORLD

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran is signaling a possible compromise offer heading into critical talks with world powers deeply suspicious of its nuclear program: offering to scale back uranium enrichment but not ...
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran is signaling a possible compromise offer heading into critical talks with world powers deeply suspicious of its nuclear program: offering to scale back uranium enrichment but not ...
Filed by Clare Richardson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 350
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
06:10 PM on 04/12/2012
There won't be a settlement or compromise no matter what how many last chance ultimatums
and threats the West hurls at Iran. For more than a decade, Iran has rejected every proposal to limit nuclear development, even some from its closest allies. Prepare for hopeful reports of breakthroughs to make headlines, with oil prices falling in tune, only to be reversed with Iran's objections and oil prices rising. History tells us what to expect.
IndependentBurgeoise
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man.
09:59 PM on 04/11/2012
Why should we let an unstable government that abuses its people have the capabilities to make nuclear weapons. The Iranian government is run by homophobic sexist extremist nutjobs. This is a mistake in my opinion. I would/will support Iran's right to uranium enrichment and thereby the capability to make nuclear weapons when it treats its own people better, proves it wants peace, and reforms its government. None of which will happen for a long long time.
11:48 PM on 04/10/2012
When SWIFT sanctions kick in Iran will roll over.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
09:29 PM on 04/10/2012
now this is what I find laughable...."and threats of Israeli military strikes."

Israel who obtained nukes with USA complicity has never joined NPT or IAEA and is never inspected seems to be chomping at the bit wanting to attack IRAN. who is an accredited member of NPT and not only is inspected every several months has CAMERAS everywhere in their enrichment stations.The media resound with warnings about a likely Israeli attack on Iran while the U.S. hesitates, keeping open the option of aggression—thus again routinely violating the U.N. Charter, the foundation of international law.

The nonaligned countries, a movement with 120 member nations, has vigorously supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium—an opinion shared by the majority of Americans (as surveyed by WorldPublicOpinion.org) before the massive propaganda onslaught of the past two years.

China and Russia oppose U.S. policy on Iran, as does India, which announced that it would disregard U.S. sanctions and increase trade with Iran. Turkey has followed a similar course.

Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. In the Arab world, Iran is disliked but seen as a threat only by a very small minority. Rather, Israel and the U.S. are regarded as the pre-eminent threat. A majority think that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons: In Egypt on the eve of the Arab Spring, 90 percent held this opinion
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/03-1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
miz-ribble
Some will rob you with a six gun, other's with a f
06:29 PM on 04/10/2012
Ot, but it is about Iran. Kind of a feel good story of sorts... :)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blackspeare
01:14 PM on 04/10/2012
Two questions that have to be answered; why did Iran sign the NPT and why are the uranium concentration sites located in hardened sites. The Iranians are a clever bunch and signing the NPT gives them legitimacy. The hardened sites provide security. After witnessing the demise of Hussein and Qaddafi and the security of the PRNK, it is almost mandatory that a country needs a nuclear deterrent purely for defensive measures.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
streetmagik
You can't fight in here this is the war room!!
01:36 PM on 04/10/2012
manditory? so I guess all countries should have nukes - reghardless of ideology, ambition or track record.

that should make for a safer world - heck why are we trying to discourage the North Korea - let lil' Kim jr have an arsinal - what could go wrong?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
03:07 PM on 04/10/2012
excellent post,FF: The most popular refrain in Israel (and Congress) today is that Iran poses an existential threat to the small Jewish-majority state. That is because Iran is apparently pursuing a nuclear weapon. Once that supposed nuclear weapon has been manufactured, Iranian mullahs will order that it be employed and await their own annihilation in rapturous, convulsive ecstasy (Israel possesses about 200 nuclear weapons).

In reality, however, the Israelis understand that Iran will not pursue anyone's eradication - their more honest leaders say so regularly. . The Israelis possess a qualitative military advantage which the Iranians seek to neutralise. One very effective way of doing so has been to nurture asymmetrical guerrilla organisations such as the Lebanese Hezbollah. Another way of shrinking the Israeli advantage is by pursuing nuclear weapons.

To be sure, it is far from clear that the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapon. Their nuclear enrichment programme is legal under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, which they have signed and ratified. But Iranians have no doubt taken note of two recent and relevant case studies: North Korea and Libya. Kim Jong-Il died of natural causes. Muammar Gadaffi did not.

Netanyahu made a two-fold calculation when he ordered Ahmadi-Roshan's murder. First, Iranians may react - or overreact - to the assassination. That would provide the US and the Israelis with the kind of flimsy political cover they require to attack. Ahmed Moor
more,good short read: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212194348390751.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:14 PM on 04/10/2012
FIRST have ISRAEL declare all its nuclear weapons to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for inspection, THEN negotiate with non-nuclear IRAN!

Let' us now get EVERYTHING out in the open, in particular Israel's secret nuclear arsenal estimated to contain up to 400 deadly nuclear warheads.

Otherwise, these negotiations are ludicrous, farcical and intended to treat the international community as fools and idiots. We, and they, are not.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dogpaddle47
Cui Bono
03:21 PM on 04/10/2012
In Israel's privileged position, as the US's client, they will never be honest about nuclear weapons or anything else. And, they will do everything in their power to remain the only country with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Or, is the US Israel's client. Frequently, it seems that the tail is wagging the dog in our relationship with Israel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
analyse this
Everything is temporary anyway
11:49 AM on 04/10/2012
Iran should completely agree to removing all fissile material, closing Fordo, allowing inspectors everywhere...on the condition that Israel does the same and removes their nuke arsenal.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KIVPossum
Moldova Marsupial
12:27 PM on 04/10/2012
If that is what the west demands, then the west should supply free electricity in the amounts necessary to replace what they can not produce internally
11:43 AM on 04/10/2012
If the negotiations cover Iran's security and regional power, we might have a chance to succeed insted of offering war for no nuke
11:36 AM on 04/10/2012
Instead of focusing on uranium enrichment (not nuclear bomb making), all parties interested in resolving the issue should consider the other side's prospective: Iran's rhetoric did not help in the past. Iran's involvment in terrorism does not help either. Iran's regional ambitions somehow freighten its neighbors. Conversely, Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. Iran is under constant threat from Israel and the US. Iran has been isolated from the US since 1979. In a nutshell, it makes sense for Iran to seek nuclear weapons in more and more hostile environment (Iran witnessed first hand what happened to Iraq and what did not happen to North Korea). Instead of just talking about nuclear fuel, the negotiations should cover Iran's security as well as regional stability. Iran and Saudi Arabia are currently competing for dominance in the Gulf. We obviously act as Saudi Arabia's proxy. So, maybe, just maybe by considering Iran's view we might offer a more attractive package than war.
photo
audioenhanced
If wanting to keep all of human race alive is raci
12:17 PM on 04/10/2012
Iran is not the only natiion in the world that succumbs to terrorism, some tend to hide it better than others, take the sanctioning of executions for the black watch group of the Olympics for example, no trial just death, and at least 1 totally innocent person killed in the process that we know for sure of, all of these executions also took place outside of the nation that sanctioned them. Being constantly in the press it is difficult for Iran to hide their indiscretions where as when a nation basically owns the majority of the media around the word it is much easier to keep indiscretions of terrorism to a minimal.
IndependentBurgeoise
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man.
09:57 PM on 04/11/2012
You say Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. Personally, if I were Iranian I'd care less about my nuclear power neighbors and more about my looney government.The Iranian people are backed into a corner by their own tyrannical government. Personally, I think any country should have equal civil rights, stability, and the power to defend itself from terrorism and terrorist ideals. Iran has none of these three things and is in fact the opposite of all three.
09:03 AM on 04/12/2012
One important concept that we seem to forget is sovereignty. Each Country is entitled to choose its own Government. Even if the values we claim to be what people need, it is not up to us (non Iranians living in Iran) to decide for Iranians living in Iran what is best. The moment we believe we have any superior value, we intrude in a foreign country's affairs. Let's not forget that many wars were waged under the pretenses or doing what was right. (The last of such wars I can think of is Iraq).
Also, bringing geo political stability in a region will certainly to improve people living in this region life conditions. Threats of war and war does not do any good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
heikhali
10:28 AM on 04/10/2012
13th Century man seeks foreign aid to control the 20th Century's atom in the 21st Century.
09:15 AM on 04/10/2012
DONT GIVE THEM A PENNY !!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dogpaddle47
Cui Bono
10:58 AM on 04/10/2012
The same should apply to Israel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
09:01 AM on 04/10/2012
Iran and Turkey reach unexpected accord on enriched uranium

Iran deal 'could ease nuclear standoff'
Iran has agreed to ship most of its enriched uranium to Turkey, in a nuclear fuel swap that could ease the crisis over the country's disputed nuclear programme. Turkey says the deal removes the need for further UN sanctions.

By Glenn Kessler and Thomas Erdbrink
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Iran reached a surprise nuclear agreement with Brazil and Turkey on Monday, a deal that threatens to undermine the Obama administration's efforts to stem the Iranians' nuclear ambitions -- and, more broadly, the U.S. diplomatic strategy.
ISREAEL apparently has more say on this even tho it built NUKES with the USA silent approval without ever joining NPT or IAEA. the microscope needs to be moved to Israel not IRAN.
It is easy to see that no matter that Iran belongs to NPT and IAEA and is inspected with cameras everywhere and takes direction on getting enrichment out of country was STILL NOT good enough for Israel and USA.
more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051700105.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dogpaddle47
Cui Bono
11:00 AM on 04/10/2012
Excellent posts and link.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KIVPossum
Moldova Marsupial
12:28 PM on 04/10/2012
Spot on
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
08:53 AM on 04/10/2012
FACTS ON THE GROUND:Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection by the IAEA. Iran is under inspection, though not under the strictest rules allowed because it will not agree to them. Only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the higher level needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends to enrich only for power station fuel or other peaceful purposes. It says the UN resolutions are politically motivated. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights."

What does Iran say about developing nuclear weapons?

It says it will not make a nuclear bomb. Following the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad declared: "We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads."

more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428
07:58 AM on 04/10/2012
We overthrow their liberal democracy, help Hussein slaughter their people, train rebel Iranian terrorists, surround them with dozens of military bases, impose sanctions, fly drones in their airspace, and cause a global crisis over an internationally legal and supervised nuclear program, yet they still are more willing to talk and compromise than we.
photo
audioenhanced
If wanting to keep all of human race alive is raci
08:48 AM on 04/10/2012
Yes, and we claim they are the enemy.
Here's one to thiink about, USS Liberty, even giving the benefit of the doubt, who had the most to gain by it's sinking?
Who had the most to gain by the war with Iraq?
Who had the most to gain by 9/11, certainly not the Arabs, if in fact it was, considering the Mossad that were filming the spectacle the moment it happened, I wonder how they knew the exact time and place the event was going to happen
And how about the newest implication of a nuclear bomb? Which was found out later they knew better even while they were throwing out the allegations Iran had one,
So in every one of these cases
"Who had the most to Lose...
both the Arab nations and the US. .......
Who in every case had the most to win?
Just something to ponder over............
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dogpaddle47
Cui Bono
11:13 AM on 04/10/2012
Very well said.
Israel, of course, had the most to gain and gained from each.
And, Israel has, the greatest capacity/inclination for dirty tricks and has, by far, the best spy network in the ME.