Brazil's president Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva travels to Iran this weekend to continue his quixotic quest to mediate peace in the Middle East. He is positioning himself and his nation as a go-between with a nuclear-minded Iran on one side, and on the other, much of the rest of the global community. This visit reciprocates the one made to Brazil by Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in late 2009, which focused on energy and commercial exchange. More importantly, that visit provided crucial political space from the popular leader of an emerging nation at just the time that sanctions against Iran were under active consideration.
Since then, the situation has only intensified, with China and Russia, two of the so-called BRIC nations that just gathered for a summit in Brazil, expressing flexibility in working with the United States, Europe, and others to determine and implement sanctions against the Iranian regime. That leaves Brazil flying virtually solo, along with Turkey.
It's a risky move by Brazil's leader, who is putting his own credibility, if not his impressive legacy, on the line for a regime that has been identified as the top state sponsor of global terrorism. Yes, a delegation of business leaders and others will accompany Lula to Iran, but if the primary purpose of the trip were commercial, it could easily have been accomplished at a ministerial or even sub-ministerial level. President Lula's participation changes the dynamic, and makes the visit fundamentally political.
There is a chance -- however minute -- that in fact Lula and his advisors will be able to broker a deal that will satisfy all parties and convince the Iranians to climb down from their nuclear ambitions, agreeing on a path forward that will reduce regional tensions and offer all parties a face-saving solution. But that's unlikely, particularly given the nature of the Iranian regime.
More likely, Presidents Lula and Ahmadinejad and their foreign ministers have pre-cooked a scenario whereby Lula can come home with something that will justify the reputational risk he is taking, for example an agreement on nuclear reprocessing through third countries such as Russia and France. This would give Brazil a diplomatic "win," embarrass the United States which is pushing hard for sanctions and would be upstaged by another hemispheric nation, and buy Iran additional time to continue its apparent breakneck effort to develop a nuclear option. Lula will look like a peacemaker, and it will be difficult under the circumstances to agree globally on a sanctions regime without allowing the new circumstances time to play out.
Unfortunately, most observers believe that Iran's primary purpose is to play for time, and by using Brazil as a foil to divide the West, much as Iran was able to play Europe off for a number of years against the United States, Lula's end-of-term diplomatic initiative could well backfire. His trip is a political life-line to the Iranian regime. Rather than working with the United States, Europe, and the other BRIC nations to build a more secure global environment, Lula's gambit risks enabling an outcome that could dramatically heighten regional and indeed global tensions.
Nonetheless, expect Lula to return to Brasilia with a gift from Iran, no matter how ephemeral, that will allow him to claim the mantle, temporarily perhaps, of peacemaker. It only makes sense. In return, he's giving the leader of Iran's regime the greatest gift he possibly could -- time.
It sure beats the national soccer team jersey he gave to President Obama.
Rafsanjani: We are certain that we will never use such weapons, therefore they have no utility for us. Even during our war with Iraq, we could have employed chemical weapons but we refrained. I'm sure you must be aware of the casualties we faced (some 750,000 dead or wounded over eight years). It is unfortunate that I have to stress that your country is among those that have to share part of the guilt (because the United States supplied chemical munitions to Saddam Hussein during 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war).
Slavin: Is there anything more you want to tell American people about your views on United States?
Rafsanjani: The mere fact that I am sitting here talking to you is an indication that we have no differences with the American people. This would not happen with an Israeli journalist. We want good relations with the American people. There has to be a dialogue between the governments, but what can one do when your government has always wronged us? We need to see evidence that this process will be reversed.
Referring to leaders of the Mujaheddin Khalq, an anti-Iranian regime group that is on the State Department's terrorist list but many of whose members are under U.S. protection in Iraq. (Go back to question
so from the sidelines of power, along with the rest of humanity that is not "the west", let me say that "most" observers leaves out the qualification : "most 'western' observers" and "identified as....terrorism ' leaves out "identified 'by the west (and only the west)'..." and "apparent breakneck effort.." leaves out " apparent.... 'only to the west' "
the world is the rest of the world, "the international community" does not include us
Tough to take, isn't it, when they no longer do what we tell them.
Lula, Chavez - they think they're leaders of sovereign nations, for chrisake.
Really? Is Iran a country who has it's troops invading countries halfway around the globe on false pretense that has been proven??? It's transparent now Mr. Farnsworth. No amount of articles like these can convince the majority of the people of this world who know what the truth is... Keep pandering. It's a good laugh at best
Your inferred characterization of why the U.S. did what it does is laughable in its simplicity.
What is best for other countries is their business, not ours.
It is already clear, worldwide, to anyone who has open eyes, that presently there are just two countries who actually threaten peace. Their names are 'Israel' and 'USA'.
Of course no one from the USA officiality is willing to admit that peace or at least reasonable coexistence are possible: this would anihilate the pretexts that are being used to go on implementing the PNAC, which is the only serious threaten to peace, freedom and democracy in today's world. It is quite visible that Obama has surrendered to the PNAC ideology some few months after his innauguration - that if is was not just cheating before -, so the most dramatic question for the world is: who really commands the USA, the country that does not WANT peace to be possible.
Once we join the rest of the planet, we won't need a welcome mat of our own. We will be walking on the welcome mats of everyone else.
The nuclear-fuel swap deal was signed by Iran, Turkey and Brazil and is now official. Details will be fully disclosed at a joint statement by Ahmadinejad, Erdogan and Lula later today. So far what has come out is:
1. Thirty days after the deal is accepted by the Vienna Group, Iran will ship *all* of the required 1,200 kilos of LEU - 70% of its stockpile and enough to build one bomb - to Turkey, where it will be held in custody under Iranian and IAEA supervision.
2. The swap will be at least partly simultaneous - here are my 1,200 kilos of LEU, give me XX kilos of nuclear fuel rods enriched to 20%.
3. Turkey and Brazil will be the guarantors, for Iran, that the swap will take place as agreed.
The *essence* of the October 2009 Vienna Group proposal is preserved. Iran will be deprived of the material needed to make a bomb but will keep enough uranium to pursue its *civilian* nuclear-power research program while negotiations proceed. If Iran upholds its side of this agreement, it will be a demonstration of good faith and good will that *will* have to be taken into account in subsequent negotiations about its uranium enrichment program and its alleged military purposes.
If, as some said, Iran is "manipulating" Brazil ad Turkey and vying for time, it will have paid a very high price for 720 more hours.
How disingenuous! By using the qualifier "apparent" and the code words "nuclear option" to mean "nuclear weapons" this sentence is intended to contradict the National Intelligence Estimate while not doing so literally.
"The Brazilian president has warned against efforts by some members of the UN Security Council to force their decision on others regarding Iran's nuclear issue.
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who is on a visit to Iran, reaffirmed his support for a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear issue.
As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Brazil has been leading efforts to end a standoff between Iran and the West over a nuclear fuel swap deal.
"The Security Council is not the place for some of its members to take a one-sided decision," IRNA quoted Lula as saying in a Sunday meeting with Iranian Parliament (Majlis) Speaker Ali Larijani.
"Brazil affirms Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology and stresses that a solution should be found through dialogue," he added.
Iran has welcomed Brazil's efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/Lula-urges-unbiased-UN-decision-on-Iran.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_15
I can't see how calling for dialogue and diplomacy and talking to both sides would endanger Lula's legacy.
Lula seeks balance and is a fair broker. If the elected leadership in Iran and the theocracy want to continue using nuclear issues as a bargaining chip to move forward on other fronts there is nothing anybody can do but acquiesce or escalate. And Lula and Sarkozy and Putin and Medvedev aren't going to cave. Israel and the US have all the intelligence resources required to track Tehran violations but prefer to string things out their way for the own ends. And don't forget, the NPT was designed to promote nuclear commerce, not restrict it. The only thing sanctions will do is drive oil prices up, cause instability among an already disunified OPEC furthering the agendas of Iran and Venezuela because some will back door even more oil than they do now, exacerbating the economic crisis.
Lula is working with the people you say he is not working with.
And
Iran and the theocracy want to continue using nuclear issues as a bargaining chip to move forward on other fronts
And
Israel and the US have all the intelligence resources required to track Tehran violations but prefer to string things out their way for the own ends
Thanks
Co-opt success: Lula was working for US/Israel even though on Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton predicted that Mr. da Silva’s mediation effort would fail. She said Iran could be forced to prove its nuclear program was peaceful only with a new round of United Nations sanctions.
Lula is insignificant: US/Israel certain knowledge of violations gleaned by their superduper intelligence is being kept secret for a secret reason to suit their secret agenda, which plebs like Lula have no clue about.
Not bad for a first attempt at co-option, and later diversion. But I think Ehrmann needs a bit more work on the details to be remotely credible. The truth he is twisting is Lula's & Erdogan's independent initiative to take advantage of the 'global community' lack of credibility.
Now, whether you regard that as a 'bargaining chip' is up to you.