Iran Accepted Pickering's Enrichment Proposal: Did Anyone Notice?

On Saturday, the Boston Globe ran an interview by Farah Stockman with Mohammad Khazaee, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations. This itself is noteworthy: those who believe that the United States should pursue serious diplomacy with Iran might, presumably, wish to pay some attention to the words of the man selected by the Iranian government to represent it to the world. So I think Farah Stockman and the Boston Globe deserve some credit for providing an opportunity for Mr. Khazaee to make his case to the American newspaper-reading public, even if it was Saturday that they chose to run it.

Khazaee noted that the right and ability to enrich uranium has "become an issue of national pride" in Iran, and asserted that regardless of what sanctions are imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council, and regardless of what incentives Iran is offered in talks, "the Iranian people will not accept suspension" of Iran's enrichment program. These are re-statements of long-held Iranian positions.

But this paragraph made me sit up in my chair:

The ambassador said his country 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. Iran's May 13 proposal referred to the idea, but gave no details.

As the Boston Globe should have noted, this appears to reference a proposal advanced most recently in the US by former US Ambassador Thomas Pickering, William Luers, and Jim Walsh in the March 20, 2008 issue of the New York Review of Books. Pickering, Luers, and Walsh 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.

If you don't know who Tom Pickering is, let me assure you that he is no pinko appeaser. Nor is he visiting assistant lecturer in thumb-sucking at St. Martha's on the Swamp. Pickering was the Reagan Administration's Ambassador to El Salvador during the U.S.-sponsored "air war" in 1984-5. He was Reagan's Ambassador to Israel when Israel was crushing the first Intifada with "force, might, beatings." Now he's co-chair of the International Crisis Group, and Chairman of the American Academy of Diplomacy. You can't, if you have a shred of respect for experience or expertise in international relations, accuse Tom Pickering of being naïve.

The New York Review of Books article was not the first surfacing of this proposal. Nor was the Boston Globe piece the first expression of Iranian interest. But what seems new is that the Iranian government appears to have shifted to a public diplomacy strategy. Instead of simply making proposals to US officials which they reasonably expect, based on experience, will be ignored or dismissed, or engaging with members of the US foreign policy establishment, which has so far not led to any meaningful change in US policy, they are attempting to speak directly to the reading US public.

Shouldn't we acknowledge receipt of the message?

Doesn't the fact that Ambassador Pickering advanced a similar proposal strongly suggest that there is a basis for negotiations between the United States and Iran, that could produce international enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil, that would acknowledge Iran's right to enrich uranium and address legitimate international concerns about nuclear proliferation?

If so, why isn't any attention being paid in the United States to Iran's May 13 proposal?

Will the American reading public only find out about this when it can be "safely" acknowledged, like Iran's 2003 proposal for comprehensive negotiations with the United States, as a "missed opportunity" in the past?

This week, journalist Stephen Kinzer, author of All the Shah's Men, which is about the U.S.-organized coup that overthrew the democratic government in Iran in 1953, is headed to Washington to press Members of Congress to promote real diplomacy with Iran. Kinzer has argued to U.S. officials that the example of 1953 indicates that even if the use of military force or external efforts at regime change should appear successful in the short-run -- a highly dubious prospect in any event -- they are almost certain to backfire in the long run, creating a government in Iran that will make today's government seem like a day at the beach. Since the policies of military threat and regime change do not gain the U.S. anything, and in fact make real diplomacy more difficult, these policies should be abandoned. Instead, the United States should pursue direct and comprehensive diplomacy with Iran, without pre-conditions on either side.

Kinzer will be taking letters from Americans across the United States, urging real diplomacy between the United States and Iran. You can sign such a letter here, and you can watch Stephen Kinzer make his case below.

Comments

[Durango]

Privitization of Iran's nuclear enrichment program. How could any Republican resist?

But why is it being ignored? Because the media would rather be totally consumed by Obama/Clinton so as to take the focus away from McClellan and his accusations against the White House.

And then in turn they can support Bush's attack on Iran's enrichment program.

If they reported seriously on what the UN Ambassadors said that would mean they couldn't demonize Iran.

And wouldn't gain the increased ad revenues a crisis and war on Iran would provide.

After all they will have to make up for the lost narratives provided by the Democrats fight to the finish.

[Hass]

The Israelis would never accept this. Any improvement in US-Iran relations is deemed by them to be a threat to Israel's legitimacy and strategic value to the US, and so they'll do their best to place obstacles and instigate a war between the US and Iran if ncessary to prevent it

[Hass]

Actually, the Iranians themselves first suggested creating a multinational enrichment facility. In fact, Ahmadinejad made the offer during his speech to the UN. The Media was so busy vilifying him that no one paid attention.

[MourningDude]

Yes, I think it's naive. You set up shop there in Iran, and give them all the tools. Then they can expel international persons and take over, a la Hugo Chavez ignoring laws and contracts by nationalizing his oil fields.

Their apparent "openness" to negotiations is more a reflection of our lack of openness than of a desire to compromise.

It's a process of ebb and flow. We appear interested, and they retract, then they appear interested when we retract. It's a PR campaign, not any sort of serious attempt at reform.

Bill Clinton tried to negotiate with Iran and failed horribly. And Bill Clinton was hailed as the most skilled politician in a generation. What makes Obama think he can magically come up with some fabulous new rhetorical argument to suddenly change the dynamic?

How about if we ask them to stop chanting "Death to America!" in their parliament sessions, before we start getting up our false hopes that they want to engage in honest negotiations with us?

[RoloTomassi]

"It's a process of ebb and flow. We appear interested, and they retract, then they appear interested when we retract. It's a PR campaign, not any sort of serious attempt at reform."

Please post something--hell, anything--that supports this assertion. My guess is that you're making a gross assumption based on NeoCon BS talking points.

[mikegoodyearaz85338]

Instead of expelling the foreigners they just might hold them hostage. It worked with President Carter so it probably will work with President Carter Jr (Obama).

[RoloTomassi]

You might have a point...that is, if you had any clue about matter, which you clearly do not.

[TXfemmom]

This could lay the foundation for real progress, but McCain would never agree to it.

[mgloraine]

If the Iranian enrichment enterprise were to be converted to a multinational endeavor, the most important participant / investor should be the state of Israel. That would give them a shareholder's voice in what goes on there, and a reason to find common ground rather than excuses for conflict.

There remains the issue of Palestine, however, which is bound to be a sticking point. Perhaps with Olmert and Bush out of the way...

[RoloTomassi]

Your assertion is sound...but it's also the primary reason that Israel would reject such a proposal, as they do not wish to have any reasonable relationship with Iran, much in the same way as the current US administration.

[mamacat]

Thank you for the post.
Ideally, we will quickly resolve this issue with Iran, and then (or before) promptly open diplomatic relations with Iran once again.

[cyberbian]

I think the election would be over if Obama had an Iran solution in his pocket. Iran should seize the moment and cut a deal with him before the election is even under full steam.

What would McCain have left to say?
"So I was wrong! Go ahead and vote for Obama, you were going to do it anyway."

[cheforacle]

Thanks for the post. I did not know they took this position. It sounds like Pickering's idea is a modification of Vladimir Putin's offer made to them in the last couple years. Let others enrich for them. The question I have is whether their UN Ambassador really speaks for the government.

[MourningDude]

The obvious difference is that the enrichment capability would be on Iranian soil, and therefore at risk of being seized at any time by the Iranian government. And, of course, they would require Iranians to be involved, so that they would have a trained staff ready to take over on a moment's notice.

Doesn't that sound the LEAST bit suspicious to you? Handing them wold class enrichment capability on a silver platter doesn't make much sense, does it?

[Hass]

Actually, we are LEGALLY OBLIGATED by the Non-proliferation treaty to share civilian nuclear technology "to the fullest extent possible" and "without discrimination" -- that was the quid pro quo for having countries like Iran agree not to build nukes (which they have every right to build as did we)

You can't say that some people in the world are entitled to have scientific knowledge but not other people. The other people will tell you go go shove it where the sun don't shine, and they'll develop their own technology.

THe best solution therefore is to de-escalate and normalize relations so that there is no need to go around threatening each other.

Note that Iran is hardly the only country which is using its RIGHT to have enrichment technology. BRazil and Argentina recently developed the same technology, and both have a record of seeking nukes and have cooperated with the IAEA less than Iran has.

[Dap]

Dear Robert,

Thanks for the link to the story, good looking out. Keep up the great work, and that's for all your efforts also. Agape.

[MajorKong]

Now watch us move the goalpost.

[burnt]

That seems like a subject that needs some serious consideration. It might have substance... it might not. We will never know unless there is some follow-up.

The one fact that we do know is this: The CheneyOilCo's vision for Iran (and the rest of the region), will only lead to more of the same that has been suffered upon us for over 7 years... and we all need a new perspective on those travesties and the resulting ruin that has befallen America as a result.

Talk.

[earthwealth]

Your comment makes perfect sense in a real world. However that is not the world we are currently. In a real world communication and negotiation between nations brings peace. But peace may not be good for business. Particularly if your economy mainly is based on heavy weapons, cluster bombs and WMD. There is a saying “catching fish is not easy in crystal clear water”. If you are a major tire producer, do make sure all roads are clean and smooth or perhaps spread some sharp nails along the road? As far as nuclear issue with Iran, if they ever decide to go nuclear, the main motivation behind it would be the fact that Israel has it and constantly is bragging about it and the pressure and the threat is constantly used against them. Otherwise there is no incentive for Iran to go nuclear. One thing for sure, if Iran uses nuclear power for their power generators, there will be more oil available to the world market and that is something good for everyone.

[outnow]

Good point that overthrowing a government can often backfire. Why don't we end the stand off with Iran with an intermediary solution to their right to enrich peacefully? The United States cannot afford a third war. Food prices and oil prices would go up. Many deaths would result.

[RoloTomassi]

Great logic, but since when do the NeoCons use that tool in regards to nations they choose to demonize?

And like the ultimate cost of the Iraq war, human cost is the least of BushCo's concerns.

[altohone]

Those of us on the "left" or I would argue sane side of this debate must unite if we choose to endorse this proposal.

We don't like nuclear weapons OR nuclear power.

Neither is safe or green.

If we make a deal with Iran, we should push for a smaller enrichment program and minimal nuclear power plants offset by grants to develop a local solar and wind industry... and other truly modern technologies.

A truly modern Iran should be encouraged to bypass our failed last century daliance with nuclear power whose smallest problem, as the nuclear crowd wants you to believe, is piles of waste that in theory may one day be rendered safe by a process that hasn't been proven practical... as if that's suppossed to reassure us.

Opposition to nuclear prloiferation of any kind should be the starting point.
A small international program could be tolerable if it achieves our wider goals.

A big program that encourages nuclear power throughtout the region AS THE INDUSTRY WANTS is not acceptable.

[RoloTomassi]

One step at a time; first we need to establish a US foreign policy characteristic of recognizing other sovereign nations' right to self-determination.

Pushing them to only half-load their wagon doesn't make a lot of sense when we currently try to deny them the right to even have a wagon....

[Hass]

Until someone comes up with magic pixie dust that powers the planet, we're left with oil and nuclear power. Sorry, but a country would be a fool to simply hope that perhaps one day wind power can run a whole country.