The Obama administration is preparing the ground for tougher sanctions on Iran by pushing to revive last year's ill-fated fuel swap deal. The renewed proposal to swap Iran's low enriched uranium for research reactor fuel is not a serious attempt at engagement, as the Unites States knows it will likely fail. Instead, it is intended to depict the United States as a reasonable negotiating partner, and Iran as a duplicitous state bent on obtaining the bomb at all costs. This could increase support for harsher international sanctions that are more strictly implemented.
The original fuel swap proposal of October 2009 showed promise. At the time, Iran's stocks of uranium were enriched to 3.5 percent. It claimed it needed enrichment to 20 percent to produce medical isotopes in its Tehran research reactor. However, once uranium is at 20 percent enrichment, it is not too difficult to increase it to the 90 percent required for weapons. Accordingly, the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany) is concerned Iran's enrichment program is a mask for its weapons ambitions.
Under the fuel swap plan, Iran would have shipped 1,200 kilograms of its 3.5 percent enriched uranium to Russia for enrichment to 20 percent. Then, France would have fabricated the enriched uranium into fuel rods for Iran's reactor, which could not have been used for weapons purposes. Shipping the uranium out of Iran would have made it difficult for Iran to rapidly create enough fuel for a weapon, and the swap would obviate Iran's need to enrich to 20 percent. The aim was to halt Iran's progression towards potential weapons-grade material, and allow time for discussions on Iran's program, including on enrichment suspension.
While Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated the deal might be acceptable, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ultimately rejected it -- a sign of Iran's complicated internal dynamics. The P5+1 rebuffed Turkish and Brazilian attempts to broker a deal in May of this year, in part because it would have left Iran with enough fuel to further enrich for a weapon - a fundamental reason for the fuel swap in the first place. Instead, in June, the UN Security Council implemented its toughest round of sanctions, and many states adopted more thorough unilateral sanctions. While these sanctions hurt, they have not compelled Iran to stop enrichment, nor fully cooperate with the IAEA. In the absence of any agreement, Iran has forged ahead, producing an estimated 33kg enriched to almost 20 percent. Roughly twice that amount more would be enough to further enrich for a bomb.
If the new fuel swap deal is a serious attempt at engaging Iran, it is doomed to fail. It will fall prey to the same dynamics that precluded a deal the first time around. Iran has flatly rejected shipping significantly more than 1,200kg of 3.5 percent fuel abroad to account for its enrichment since the original proposal -- a key element of the Administration's new terms. Moreover, Iranian leaders have turned Iran's right to enrich uranium into a matter of national pride, and it is highly unlikely that they will agree to a deal that moves them closer to enrichment suspension negotiations. Both Khamenei and the parliament have sent clear messages to this effect.
The timing is not ripe for such a deal, and the Obama administration cannot be blind to this reality. It is reviving the deal as part of a broader strategy to strengthen support for sanctions implementation, and to further isolate Iran. For an administration that believes in the power of sanctions, they are not as harsh as they could be. Russia and China watered them down in the Security Council, and the United States is disappointed by the less-than-rigorous application by some, most notably Turkey. The more Iran is seen to reject a reasonable deal, the more its peaceful intentions appear questionable. Then, the United States can then push for more thorough and sustained sanctions, with the eventual goal of bringing Iran back to the table.
Whether or not the sanctions will compel Iran to negotiate remains to be seen. But its uranium enrichment program is suffering substantial technical setbacks, which gives time for sanctions and diplomacy to run their course. If the administration's goal is to build support for harsher sanctions by making Iran appear recalcitrant, proposing a stillborn deal disguised as engagement is a shrewd approach.
A more objective assessment would be that the the way Iran's nuclear program has been handled by the West has turned the issue into one of regional if not global pride. "A majority of the Arab public now see a nuclear-armed Iran as being better for the Middle East." See http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx
A key ingedient for causing this blow back has been the perceived western duplicity on NPT generally, and Iran policy in particular where CFR deliberately limits US policy options by trying to convice the world that US only negotiates to make war or collective punishment more palatable.
Emma blithely repeats Ross' and Makovsky's line: "Tougher policies -- either militarily or meaningful containment -- will be easier to sell internationally and domestically if we have diplomatically tried to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion,"
All this make sense if one has leant nothing from the decline of US softpower, is delusional about permeance of hard-power superiority, and most importatly, if one imagines the rest of the world as potted plants incapable of addapting to circumstances foisted on them.
My fellow Americans, is it right that someone who is influential over our foreign policy can make such an inaccurate statement? Does no one from the Council of Foreign Relations read the many statements from Iran's SUPREME LEADER, PRESIDENT or OTHER OFFICIALS directly answering Emma Belcher's confusion? Here are just a FEW (there are HUNDREDS!!!!!!!):
"Iran's Supreme Leader Says No Negotiations Until Sanctions Lifted" Aug 18, 2010 http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/iran-s-supreme-leader-no-nuclear-talks-with-u-s-until-sanctions-lifted-1.308783
"A senior Iranian lawmaker says the world's major powers had better change their many-tried and failed "negotiations-sanctions" strategy towards Iran in upcoming multifaceted talks." Sun Nov 7, 2010 1:36PM http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/150004.html
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Iran will never negotiate on its absolute rights. Iran is ready to hold talks based on an equal footing to help settle ongoing problems, ease international concerns and establish peace and security in the world." http://www.presstv.ir/detail/150365.html
Google for the Iranian reaction to the sanctions and you will get one clear message that Emma Belcher is somehow confused over. This is who makes recommendations to our administration over foreign policy. You've now been informed.
It's about more wa rs so some can continue with filling their pockets with money from the US treasury, and also for the sake of that country which wants any and all distractions and diversions so they will never have to address a serious and fair peace process, they love the status quo with more land grabbing.
Iran's nuc. issues is about these two, oil and gas is already taken care of.
Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."
Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with US global designs.
Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).
" Iranian leaders have turned Iran's right to enrich uranium into a matter of national pride"
A more objective assessment would be that the the way Iran's nuclear program has been handled by the West has turned the issue into one of regional if not global pride. "A majority of the Arab public now see a nuclear-armed Iran as being better for the Middle East." See http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx
A key ingedient for causing this blow back has been the perceived western duplicity on NPT generally, and Iran policy in particular where CFR deliberately limits US policy options by trying to convice the world that US only negotiates to make war or collective punishment more palatable.
Emma blithely repeats Ross' and Makovsky's line: "Tougher policies -- either militarily or meaningful containment -- will be easier to sell internationally and domestically if we have diplomatically tried to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion,"
All this make sense if one has leant nothing from the decline of US softpower, is delusional about permeance of hard-power superiority, and most importatly, if one imagines the rest of the world as potted plants incapable of addapting to circumstances foisted on them.
In an interview I did with the IAEA a few months ago, they very clearly stated that the agency would know immediately if Iran embarked on a program of enriching uranium to 90%+ levels - or even levels north of 3.5%. The safeguards are tremendous - every significant part of the enrichment process is monitored 24/7, with an inspections team dropping in every two weeks or so, half of the time unannounced. And this has been going on for six years.
With people like Elliott Abrams, Henry Kissinger and Benjamin Netanyahu as CFR Members, it is no wonder you folks cannot stop this tired, old, discredited refrain.
Can't fan you twice!
"However, once uranium is at 20 percent enrichment, it is not too difficult to increase it to the 90 percent required for weapons."
Riiight... about nuclear technology within this context, for Iran to even attempt to enrich any uranium past the declared and LEGAL 20% level, Iran would have to kick out, in a VERY overt way, all of the IAEA inspectors in the country and remove the inspection seals. Then it would need many more months to actually create a weapon. Once a weapon is made, Iran would still need a delivery system, which it doesn't have. That would take many more months. The end result? Antiquated nuclear payload and delivery technology. When North Korea threatened to nuke Hawaii, the US said, "Go ahead, we'll shoot that junk out of the sky before it leaves your country's borders." The US has been improving this technology for over 60 years now... Iran has quite a few decades to leap through even AFTER kicking out inspectors and taking a year to make something that even sputters out sparks.
The conflict benefits China. “China’s investors and traders are now filling a vacuum in Iran as businesses from many other nations, especially in Europe, pull out,” Clayton Jones reports in The Christian Science Monitor. In particular, China is expanding its dominant role in Iran’s energy industries.
Washington is reacting with a touch of desperation. In August, the State Department warned that “If China wants to do business around the world it will also have to protect its own reputation, and if you acquire a reputation as a country that is willing to skirt and evade international responsibilities that will have a long-term impact … their international responsibilities are clear”—namely, to follow U.S. orders. Chinese leaders are unlikely to be impressed by such talk, the language of an imperial power desperately trying to cling to authority it no longer has."
- Noam Chomsky
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6499/chinas_growing_independence_and_the_new_world_order/
When it succeeded, the US was furious, and quickly undermined it by ramming through a Security Council resolution with new sanctions against Iran that were so meaningless that China cheerfully joined at once -- recognizing that at most the sanctions would impede Western interests in competing with China for Iran's resources. Once again, Washington acted forthrightly to ensure that others would not interfere with US control of the region.
Not surprisingly, Turkey (along with Brazil) voted against the US sanctions motion in the Security Council. The other regional member, Lebanon, abstained. These actions aroused further consternation in Washington.
Philip Gordon, the Obama administration's top diplomat on European affairs, warned Turkey that its actions are not understood in the US and that it must "demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West," AP reported, "a rare admonishment of a crucial NATO ally."
The political class understands as well. Steven A. Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations, observed that the critical question now is "How do we keep the Turks in their lane?" -- following orders like good democrats.
What parallel universe do these people think we live in?
Which nation shows itself to be a responsible member of the community of nations:
A. A nation that is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, that has cooperated heretofore satisfactorily with the agency charged with establishing and carryin out the inspection protocols provided for by the treaty, the IAEA?
A nation that the IAEA has concluded is abiding by the protocols and not diverting nuclear materials for weapons grade enrichment. A nation whose supreme leader has stated that nuclear weapons violate the constitutional principles of the nation.
B. A nation that categorically refuses to become a signatory to the NPT, refuses to allow any international inspectors access to any of its nuclear facilities, yet whose government insists other members of the international community must abide by international laws to the letter, which it itself cynically refuses to submit to.
In a world of international law, universal principles of jurisprudence, logic and empirical facts, nation A would be the obvious choice.
In a world characterized by cynical political corruption, diplomatic duplicity, double standards, manifest hypocrisy and double standards, B is the choice.
Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, proposed that the conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations in 2011 on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the US, at the 1995 review conference on the NPT.
Washington still formally agrees, but insists that Israel be exempted --The time is not yet ripe for creating the zone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the NPT conference, while Washington insisted that no proposal can be accepted that calls for Israel's nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the IAEA or that calls on signers of the NPT,
Obama's technique of evasion is to adopt Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with rare and temporary exceptions.
At the same time, Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, asked foreign ministers of its 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel "accede to" the NPT and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight,
The USA has no respect for international law. As long as we hold people illegally and torture them, as long as we don't prosecute OUR OWN WAR CRIMINALS, we are in no position to be wagging our fat fingers at Iran.
Iran already implemented the Additional Protocol. It already allowed anytime-anywhere inspections. It has already exceeded the AP in responding to the Modalities Agreement issues and those have been resolved. The only issue remaining is the so-called Laptop of Death. And even then Iran has addressed some of the allegations, to the extent that it has been provided the necessary documentation to respond to them.
No other country on the face of the earth has been as intensively scrutinized by the IAEA as Iran, and there has yet to be an iota of evidence of any nuclear weapons program found. Under these circumstances, the Iranians are wise not to fall into the trap. They have already lessen the believability of the US claims substantially, for anyone who actually bothers to read the details. The unwashed masses who rely on Fox News may continue to believe the allgations, but they’re the sheep and canon fodder who will always be misled.
Forcing Turkey and others to abide by unilateral US sanctions that the UN rejected isn't civilized, it's bullying and violating sovereignty.
Faramarz Fathi
Regardless of what the civilian population of the US believes, it has absolutely no control over what its government actually does. An election every couple of years which removes a handful of Congressional members and replaces them with new ones totally subservient to the same campaign contributors and Israel provides no means to actually enforce “democratic control” of the state.
Even if it did have such control, the US electorate is so unconcerned about the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the current economic conditions, that US threats to start another war in Iran seem to be completely off their radar. I can assure you that the average American really has NO accurate idea what is going on in terms of Iran. Given the total control of the mainstream media by the Israel Lobby and the military-industrial complex, there is absolutely no way the US electorate is going to be persuaded to take the kind of massive action it would require to force the US government to not pursue the course it is pursuing.
In other words, stay tuned for another disastrous war for the benefit of the American Corporatocracy courtesy of warmongers like Parker Skule.
It's still be better to be friends.