Brazilian President Lula, Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan, and their foreign ministers have been too polite in their characterization of President Obama's role in the nuclear deal they mediated with Iran last week. For we now have documentary evidence that President Obama's Secretary of State and his White House spokesman are simply not telling the truth when they say that the Brazil-Turkey deal does not meet the standards that the United States has defined for an acceptable international arrangement on refueling the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).
That documentary evidence comes in the form of a letter from Obama, dated April 20, 2010, to President Lula.
The bottom line: On April 20, roughly a month before the Joint Declaration between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil was announced in Tehran, President Obama conveyed, in writing, to President Lula that, to be acceptable to the United States, a deal to refuel the TRR would need to include Iran's shipment of 1,200 kg of LEU to Turkey for "escrow" for one year, pending the delivery of new fuel. In the deal they brokered with Iran, Brazil and Turkey delivered on every one of those points. Obama's letter says nothing about a U.S. requirement that Iran halt its enrichment program, or even stop enriching uranium at near-20 percent levels, which Obama Administration officials now claim are irredeemable flaws in the Brazil-Turkey deal.
In his letter, Obama notes that he had promised his Brazilian counterpart a detailed response to Lula and Erdoğan's proposal to try to mediate an agreement on refueling the TRR, reaffirming that "the TRR is an opportunity to pave the way for a broader dialogue dealing with the more fundamental concerns of the international community regarding Iran's overall nuclear program." In Obama's own words, his letter is meant "to offer a detailed explanation of my perspective and suggest a way ahead."
Specifically, Obama states that "for us, Iran's agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran's low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran's LEU stockpile. I want to underscore that this element is of fundamental importance for the United States" (emphasis added). The Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal, of course, stipulates that Iran will transfer 1,200 kg of LEU out of the country.
On the issue of timing for a fuel swap and third-country custody of the Iranian LEU, Obama writes:
We understand from you, Turkey, and others that Iran continues to propose that Iran would retain its LEU on its territory until there is a simultaneous exchange of its LEU for nuclear fuel. As General Jones noted during our meeting, it will require one year for any amount of nuclear fuel to be produced... There is a potentially important compromise that has already been offered. Last November, the IAEA conveyed to Iran our offer to allow Iran to ship its 1,200kg of LEU to a third country--specifically Turkey--at the outset of the process to be held 'in escrow' as a guarantee during the fuel production process that Iran would get back its uranium if we failed to deliver the fuel. Iran has never pursued the 'escrow' compromise and has provided no credible explanation for its rejection. I believe that this raises real questions about Iran's nuclear intentions, if Iran is unwilling to accept an offer to demonstrate that its LEU is for peaceful civilian purposes. I would urge Brazil to impress upon Iran the opportunity presented by this offer to 'escrow' its uranium in Turkey while the nuclear fuel is being produced (again, emphasis added).As part of the Brazil-Turkey deal, Iran has agreed to take the "opportunity" presented to "escrow" its uranium in Turkey, for one year, pending the delivery of new fuel for the TRR.
Finally, Obama notes:
throughout this process, instead of building confidence Iran has undermined confidence in the way it has approached this opportunity. That is why I question whether Iran is prepared to engage Brazil in good faith, and why I cautioned you during our meeting. To begin a constructive diplomatic process, Iran has to convey to the IAEA a constructive commitment to engagement through official channels--something it has failed to do. Meanwhile, we will pursue sanctions on the timeline that I have outlined. I have also made clear that I will leave the door open to engagement with Iran.Pursuant to the Brazil-Turkey nuclear deal, Iran has, of course, now conveyed a "constructive commitment to engagement through official channels" to the IAEA.
And, with regard to enrichment, Obama had written earlier in the letter:
notwithstanding Iran's continuing defiance of five United Nations Security Council resolutions mandating that it cease its enrichment of uranium, we were prepared to support and facilitate action on a proposal that would provide Iran nuclear fuel using uranium enriched by Iran--a demonstration of our willingness to be creative in pursuing a way to build mutual confidence.
Joe Cirincione: A Better National Security Strategy for Stopping Iran
The Brookings Institution President calls the new US National Security Strategy introduced on Thursday "the most comprehensive National Security Strategy ever." The new strategy offers a more realistic path to stopping Iran, but it won't be easy.
Were going to war with Iran.
be prepared for more useless death and destruction.
It was stupid of him to put his position in writing and then a few weeks later make a 180 degree change in policy!
The bosses in US have put their sight on Iran. We will have a major war with Iran with possibility of starting a third world war.
It is clear what will happen from now on!
US congress will pass laws to authorize US navy to search Iranian ships. On one occasion, one of US ships will be sunken like the South Koran ship. It is not even difficult false flag operation since three Israelis nuclear subs are currently in Persian Gulf area right now.
The rest will go into the history books as the start of WW III possibly involving nukes!
I hope we all realize how much our passivity in the face of active influence of MIC will cost us in the long run.
The price tags will not even be comparable to Iraq and Afghanistan war and is at least ten times higher at around ten trillion dollars and a war for the next 20 years or so!
A war with no clear victor as the previous US wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan!
“Iran has never pursued the ‘escrow’ compromise and has provided no credible explanation for its rejection. I believe that this raises REAL questions about Iran’s nuclear intentions, if Iran is unwilling to accept an offer to demonstrate that its LEU is for peaceful, civilian purposes."
REAL? If that raises REAL questions, then all the other accusations aren't as REAL?
Is the President of the US, when privately addressing someone that cannot be hoodwinked dispenses with all the nonsense about the 'alleged weapon studies'' -- interesting!
Question is why not. If you are trying to convince Lula that Iran is a cheater, why not thow in a couple of juicy intelligence nuggets?
Not only he does not mentio any of the rich assortment of 'suspicions' about Iran, Obama confines himself to only calling Iran's refusing to put the uranium in "escrow" as raising "REAL questions".
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Hillary Clinton - May 2009 - "NO EXCEPTIONS to settlement expansion" - Present day: nothing has changed.
AIPAC is the only lobby that actually writes text into bills that end up dictating America's foreign policy in the Middle East. They have tried endlessly to make sure that Iran and the US never become friends, but rather, irreversible enemies to the bitter end. AIPAC has tried to pass, TWICE, a bill that would have been tantamount to an act of war against Iran. Thanks to a coalition of peace activists, this bill, a naval blockade of Iran by the US, was not passed. But the truth is, if we didn't act, it would have gone through!!!!!
America, this lobby is powerful BECAUSE it is an agent of Israel. Why do you think our politicians call Israel our "stalwart ally" and say we "share unbreakable bonds with Israel"? Did you ever think that maybe American policy has become one where we are being used by a supposed ally to achieve ends that AREN'T in line with our interests?
ISRAEL'S INTERESTS AREN'T AMERICAN INTERESTS! Look up the UN resolutions we have voted down on their behalves. Google: "UN Resolutions Against Israel" - it's the most out of any country.
Hint: only two of those countries can be labled as 'democracies'.
When a debate is about nukes, given UNSC structure, anything short of unanimity should be looked upon with suspicion.
Speaking May 27 at a forum in Washington, Clinton said the Obama administration sees the deal as helping Iran avoid international unity against the Iranian nuclear program.
She said that the Brazil-Turkish approach makes the world "more dangerous, not less," and said the U.S. had voiced its "serious disagreements" to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
"Certainly, we have very serious disagreements with Brazil's diplomacy vis-a-vis Iran,” Clinton said. “And we have told President Lula, I have told my counterpart, the foreign minister, that we think buying time for Iran, enabling Iran to avoid international unity with respect to their nuclear program, makes the world more dangerous, not less."
Under the Brazil-Turkish deal announced May 17, Iran would send some low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for higher-grade nuclear fuel for a Tehran research reactor -- but Iran has not agreed to halt enriching uranium, a process that could be directed toward nuclear weapons production.