Americans Don't Know: There's a Plan on the Table to Resolve the Nuclear Standoff with Iran

In recent weeks we've again seen an escalation of US/Israeli threats to attack Iran. Among many other examples, the House of Representatives is currently considering a resolution promoted by AIPAC that would effectively demand a blockade against Iran. This resolution has over 200 co-sponsors, although a surge of opposition has prevented it from being passed so far. (The resolution is H. Con. Res. 362; you can ask your Representatives to oppose it here.)

Here's what those promoting military attacks and blockades on Iran don't want Americans to know: there's an offer on the table that could resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and allow both sides to claim victory.

In this short interview, former US Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering makes the case for talks with Iran without pre-conditions on multilateral uranium enrichment in Iran.

In March, Ambassador Pickering co-authored "A Solution for the US-Iran Nuclear Standoff" in the New York Review of Books. Pickering and his co-authors wrote:

"We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the US-Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran's sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well. "

On May 31, the Boston Globe interviewed Iran's Ambassador to the UN, who said that Iran "would not suspend its own enrichment program, but would consider establishing an internationally owned consortium inside Iran that could produce nuclear fuel with Iranian participation." The Globe noted in a follow-up piece on June 10 that Iran had proposed this idea in its May 13 letter to the UN calling for comprehensive negotiations, that the proposal was broadly similar to the Pickering proposal, and that Iran's UN Ambassador had said that the details should be negotiated.

Unfortunately, most Americans don't read the New York Review of Books or the Boston Globe. So, while polls consistently show most Americans want negotiations with Iran to resolve the nuclear dispute, most Americans don't know that there's an offer on the table right now to resolve the nuclear dispute that the US government is walking away from.

Help spread this video so Americans can learn that there's a plan on the table right now to resolve the nuclear dispute. Let's not wait until after the devastation of another illegal war to discuss the fact that there was a diplomatic alternative.

Comments

[peterg76]

We all remember what happened when Iraq started cooperating.

[leduck]

iran is going to eventually build a bomb like it or not.
they live in a tuff neighborhood and we constantly remind them who's owns the oil in charge

if they get a bomb it's a regional issue. it would give israel a minor headache, but considering how lopsided things are, they don't have much to worry about.

if iran gets a Bomb it will be literally -- "a-bomb"
as apposed to hydrogen bomb detonated by "a-bomb"
hydrogen bombs come in the megaton range
a-bombs only come in the kiloton range

it wouldn't take much to ruin isreals day -- but then again, they have enough hydrogen bomb firepower to destroy Iran and iran isn't retarded
plus, iran does not have the missil technology to hit anything farther then isreal yet

I refuse to lose any sleep about this non-issue

[RedDogBear]

Certainly if any country in the world right now has the right to build A bomb it is Iran. The US has been threatening them for years. The US has shown that it will attack countries that are no threat to it but that it will negotiate with rather than attack countries that have nuclear weapons (North Korea). The US is currently waging a covert terrorist war against Iran as documented by Sy Hersh and others. So yes in my opinion it is perfectly reasonable for them to feel as if they need a nuclear weapon alternative. However, they have said that they are not building one and our own intelligence services (CIA, DIA, NSA, etc) have released a National Intelligence Estimate that CONFIRMS this claim. Also, building a nuclear weapon is not something you can do in your basement. The types of centrifuges, nuclear materials, etc. required are things that leave a trail (and are MUCH DIFFERENT than those required for nuclear power). Given that Iran is now the most monitored country in the world by the US and the UN we would definitely know if they were to start up a program. So I agree it would be reasonable for them to do it but there is absolutely no evidence that they are.

[leduck]

we don't need evidence thwy're building a bomb
we just need them to prove they're not making a bomb and we'll go away

[yappnmutt]

this proposal is a sophistication of a proposal by russia to supply enriched uranium to iran so the iranians would not have to make it themselves. i think the russian proposal may have been made a coupla years ago already.

this is "check" to the moves of aipac , israel and neoconmen america. of course check mate would be bombing iran anyway. in fact , this proposal will probably speed up the mission rendering the proposal a moot point.

it is, however, a real breakthrough in media that this conversation is permitted on a widely respected forum. it was only a coupla years ago that this conversation could only be held on "fringe" web sites.

[ApolloSpeaks]

In the late 1990s Khatami had meetings with almost every head of Europe including the Pope, and it all came to naught. Why? The mullah's then, as now, had no intention of betraying their revolution and their radical religion of violence, oppression and death.

[RaWash]

ok, you're showing clear signs of a propaganda troll, if you have an argument you can start refuting the posters who have already replied to you below, otherwise we can all start ignoring you now, have a nice day..

[ApolloSpeaks]

What is propagandistic about Iran having rejected from the EU the very deal that they are now offering after turning down a deal of far greater worth? What is propagandistic about saying that Iran's offer is completely bogus and a ploy to buy time for their nuclear weapons program? It doesn't take a mastermind to figure out what the mullahs are up to. Their intentions are transparently clear to all the leaders of the EU including President Bush; and that 's why the offer is being ignored.

[MajorKong]

So long as our policy towards Iran is regime change (and it is) the Iranians have no incentive to talk to us. They're not going to negotiate themselves out of existence.

[ApolloSpeaks]

You're right: the mulllahs are not going to negotiate themselves out of existence like the Soviets did. The Khomeine Revolution is non-negotiable which is why diplomacy with Iran has failed for 29 years.

[ApolloSpeaks]

THE PLAN IS A TRANSPARENT PLOY

This offer is on par with Khatami's phony dialogue of civilizations that had Clinton and Western Europe deceived that the mullahs wanted to ditch their revolution and integrate with the world. Given the fact that Russia is selling Iran nuclear fuel at rock bottom prices to fire the Russian built power station that's coming on line next year the mullahs don't need the huge expense of enriching uranium unless its for a larger purpose. This plan is a transparent ploy to buy the mullahs more time to build the bomb which they are hell-bent on getting.

[RaWash]

enough with the conspiracy theories, when did america or western europe ever attempted to hold talks with khatami after his "phony dialogue of civilizations"? NEVER! if there was any conspiracy theory it's more likely to be administered by the neo-cons not iran, give me a freakin break..

[ApolloSpeaks]

In the late 1990's Khatami went on a worldwind tour of Europe conversing with all of its leaders including the pope.

[ApolloSpeaks]

I meant "whirlwind"

[KillTheMessenger]

Let's reverse the roles in this game. Let's say Iran was the only superpower on Earth. Their carrier fleet was parked in sight of New York. They were pointing cruise missiles at us and their radar planes and satellites were constantly scanning our territory. And their politicians were drumming day and night and night and day that we are evil people.

Would we back off building a nuclear force?

The hell we would. We would be digging tunnels under every mountain in the US and put centrifuges there. Breeder reactors would populate the North American prairies.

So why do you expect them to back off? If I were them, and I am a peace loving fella, I would double, triple and quadruple my efforts to get my hands not on one bomb but on four dozen. And so would you.

So let's stop the double talk. Iran can not be contained. And in the end we have no right to contain them as long as we threaten everyone without a bomb and go six rounds of "allies of mine" with those powers who have them.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Imagine a nation of 70 million people with vast resources and awash in oil money that is brutally ruled by bin Ladin and Al Qaida and developing nuclear bombs? Al Qaida and the mullahs are interchangeable. They are radical Moslems with the same world view and universal ambitions belonging to different sects of Islam. Now you understand the world, regional and national security necessity of having a carrier fleet in the Persian Gulf and 150,000 troops in the region. If a moderate regime was ruling Iran and the country was a status quo power like it was under the Shah none of this would be necessary. The mullahs are a menacing, criminal, rogue regime of theocratic killers that needs to have US power right at their doorstep ready to strike.

[Veri]

ApolloSpeaks gets a FAIL.

The reason why Iran would want uranium enrichment is so they do not have to rely on another country that may or may not, in the future, give them the uranium. Also, enriched uranium could be sold to other countries to power their reactors.

To simplify the concept for you: asking Russia to supply Iran would be like asking China to station troops on American soil and calling them The U.S. Army.

Control the means of production and you control Iran's ability to produce electricity. Iran does not have an infinite supply of oil. At current rates, maybe a few decades of reserves.

Oh, and you must have missed the rest of the world news that Turkish and Israeli agents infiltrated America facilities, stole nuclear technologies, and then sold the technology to.... North Korea, Libya, Pakistan, and God knows who else. Apparently, the theft involved highly placed U.S. government officials who were elected, served in the military, or helped run The Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, etc.

In one fell swoop, greed made some Americans, and by proxy America, the largest supplier of black market nuclear technology of all time.

[ApolloSpeaks]

A radical Islamist regime that is based on the concept of Holy War ("War is good for humanity," said Khomeine) and Islamic world domination is simply enriching uranium for peaceful energy purposes, and nothing more? And I suppose that the peaceloving mullahs are planning to deliver nothing more harmful than spitballs with their medium and long range Shahab missiles. Is this simple enough for you?

[ApolloSpeaks]

Conspicuously absent from Mr. Naiman's article is any mention of the EU walking away from Iran's phony deal. Phony because this very thing was offered by the EU ten months ago and rejected by Tehran. Phony because the quality of the offer is vastly inferior to the EU package which Iran just rejected. If the mullahs rejected an offer worth let us say $1M then come back with a deal worth to them no more than $100K no one on their right mind would think it was credible. Unless of course you're something like Mr. Naiman grasping at straws.

[MajorKong]

Sorry, but before we go and kill a whole mess of people and spend a whole bunch of money and probably wreck the world economy when the price of oil doubles or triples I'd like something a little more concrete than "We suspect they might maybe be thinking about building a bomb someday".

Since you've probably never dropped a real bomb in anger you likely have no idea what it is we're contemplating here. I do, and it's not a good thing. Not a good thing at all.

[ApolloSpeaks]

If you think oil prices are high now you won't like it one bit when Iran gets the bomb and threatens to incinerate the Middle East if it doesn't get its way. The country that held our diplomats hostage 29 years ago this coming Election Day won't hesitate to threaten the destruction of the Persian Gulf states and hold humanity hostage to its imperial aims. As Ahmadinejad recently said: "Oil prices (at $140 a barrel) are way too low."

[Gdebs]

We might as well not have a 1st Ammendment. t
The little cowards in the MSM want their pay checks and their mansions on Cape Cod more the their integrity or saving our democracy.

[KillTheMessenger]

You don't need the MSM to have 1st Amendment rights. And nothing in the constitution says otherwise.

[Veri]

No, we now have "free speech zones" for the masses.

[RaWash]

"most Americans don't know that there's an offer on the table 'right now' to resolve the nuclear dispute that the US government is walking away from"

hmm, i wonder why..?

[Veri]

Oil. And War makes for great profits.

[SiberianRat]

The reason that most people don't know is because the warmongers and extremists in Washington and in Israel aren't interested in anything resembling peace. There'll be no hope for peace in that region whatsoever with the Bush and Olmert regimes in place--they're war criminals and will continue to commit crimes as long as they can.

[Veri]

What most Democrats do not realize, that if Bush bombs Iran, impeachment is already too late. Bush will declare a state of national emergency, suspend Congress, and enforce it with military rule. Like most of that is not in place already.

[GnitenGoodLk]

He already declared a national emergency on June 26th. It was aimed at North Korea, but the status remains active no matter what twists and turns in the past few weeks.