Iran Accpets Uranium Deal - Mainly

[arozanski]

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUGLPHqW36gQ

Iran Accepts Uranium-Deal Framework With ‘Important’ Changes

By Ali Sheikholeslami and Maher Chmaytelli

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Iran accepts the “general framework” of a United Nations-brokered proposal for the country to send most of its enriched uranium to Russia for processing into reactor fuel, though it will first request “important” changes to the plan, the country’s state-run Al Alam television said.

Iran prefers to send the material abroad in stages, rather than all at once as the measure requires, Alaeddin Borujerdi, head of the parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, was cited as saying by the state-run Iranian Students News Agency. Another option is to buy readymade reactor-grade fuel, he said, repeating comments made by Iranian officials.

The Persian Gulf country will give its response to the plan from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency by Oct. 30, state-run Press TV said. The IAEA’s deadline was Oct. 23. Iran’s reply will include a draft of the changes, Arabic-language Al Alam said, citing an unidentified person familiar with the issue. The station didn’t give details of Iran’s amendments.

Any changes by Iran to proposals for the processing of its nuclear fuel wouldn’t send a “very encouraging sign,” French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told reporters after a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Luxembourg today. “Time is working against the Iranians.” A continued standoff could lead to “completely unforeseeable” consequences, he said.

Metal Rods

The proposal calls for Iran to ship to Russia low-enriched uranium, which would be returned as metal rods that could only be used in a reactor and not in a nuclear weapon. Uranium enriched to higher concentrations can be used to form the core of a bomb. The U.S. and some of its major allies allege the Iranian nuclear program is disguising weapons development. Iran denies the charge, saying the technology is being used for civilian purposes, such as generating electricity.

Acceptance of the deal to supply fuel for a medical- research reactor in Tehran would improve prospects for further talks over its entire atomic program.

Iran’s counterproposal for shipping its uranium to Russia in stages is a way of reassuring Iranians who suspect the deal is aimed at stealing the country’s uranium, said Richard Dalton, U.K. ambassador to Iran from 2002 to 2006. If the first shipment was returned to Iran on schedule, Iran would have the confidence to move to the next stage, he said.

“It looks to me as a typical device to save Iran’s face to do the thing in stages,” Dalton said in a telephone interview today. “If I were a negotiator, I would argue for serious consideration of it.” A staggered approach “would seem to be perfectly rational,” he said.

Foreign Policy

Dalton, an analyst for Chatham House, a London-based research group, said nothing can be taken for granted in matters of Iranian foreign policy.

In Iran, “there will always be people who question whether the deal was tough enough,” he said. “One common reaction is: ‘If the foreigners are prepared to agree to this, there must be something wrong with this from Iran’s point of view.’ This is all very familiar territory for those who have worked with the Iranian government over a number of years.”

Iranian officials have said they would continue to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program, even if some of its supply is sent to Russia for further enrichment.

To contact the reporters on this story: Ali Sheikholeslami in London at [e-mail]; Maher Chmaytelli in Dubai at [e-mail].
Last Updated: October 27, 2009 11:29 EDT

Saw this on another site, thought it might provide an opportunity for thought-provoking discussion

Seriously, I always believed this would be the best way out for Iran - just get their fuel from an outside source. They get their nuclear power plants, and it severely limits the potential for bomb grade materials.

[ksjnx]

This plan just gives them a cover story.... of course its their intent to possess a nuclear weapon... for what conceivable reason would the most oil rich country in the world have an immediate need for nuclear power?

I would say the debate should be regarding how the US should handle the situation. Unfortunately our limited leverage on Iran and our global partners unwillingness to assist us in this issue is severely hampering our efforts.

[baldheadeddork]

Oct 28, 2009 10:56:29 GMT -5 ksjnx said:

This plan just gives them a cover story.... of course its their intent to possess a nuclear weapon... for what conceivable reason would the most oil rich country in the world have an immediate need for nuclear power?

Iran is oil rich but very cash poor. They have a per capita GDP of $12,000 - lower than Mexico - and their economy is dealing with an inflation rate that has run between 15-25% in the last several years.

Every barrel of oil they can export instead of consuming helps their economy, and it needs a lot of help.

[ksjnx]

How much does it cost to develop a nuclear program vs investing in industry, manufacturing, or other private sector improvements? Although the times are different and nuclear technology is much more well understood, look at the enourmous costs of the manhattan project and other nuclear pursuits (yes i know the manhattan project was a different beast, but the point persists.) Lets not forget that Iran is part of OPEC, and they inflate the price of oil by limiting its production. Not to mention Iran subsidises its gasoline considerably. Last figure I got was 12 sents a gallon.

[shadows090]

First to me, it seems obvious that Iran is pushing for a nuclear power program. They already have partially developed sites for that. To figure if Iran plans to use their programs for weapons in the future is less clear.

KSJNX. I view the US leverage a bit different.

The US embargo has had very large economic effects, and very small political effects. The leverage that we're using (which has been backed by the UN and WTO) hasn't done much of anything except for hurt their economy, and to a lesser effect ours. One would assume that sanctions are used for political control. On that standard, I would call our foreign policy with Iran unsuccessful.

To anyone,

Concerning Iran's poor economy: Obviously, it's at least partially a result of the US sanctions. Do you think lifting the us-iran embargo would benefit the United States? Cheaper oil, GM/Ford/Chrysler could export vehicles, boeing could export planes (badly needed), computers (software), etc. Could we use the leverage of removing sanctions to get nuclear compliance? If they agree to non-enriched nuclear fuels, then they wouldn't be able to use it for weapons. If Iran does want a peaceful nuclear program, then this should be mutually beneficial.

On the flip side, I would assume that there would be a stronger push for the iranian seized assets (mainly from the banks IIRC).

Edit to add: I bet it would really f*ck up relations with Israel...

[ksjnx]

Oct 28, 2009 20:22:35 GMT -5 shadows090 said:

First to me, it seems obvious that Iran is pushing for a nuclear power program. They already have partially developed sites for that. To figure if Iran plans to use their programs for weapons in the future is less clear.

KSJNX. I view the US leverage a bit different.

The US embargo has had very large economic effects, and very small political effects. The leverage that we're using (which has been backed by the UN and WTO) hasn't done much of anything except for hurt their economy, and to a lesser effect ours. One would assume that sanctions are used for political control. On that standard, I would call our foreign policy with Iran unsuccessful.

While I think the US-Embargo on oil from Iran has had disputable results, the only real bargaining chip we had went away when the embargo was put in place in 1979. Iran still has plenty of customers willing to purchase their oil, and some of our larger economic rivals, Russia and China. China and Iran have pretty large oil and LNG contracts.

Imo lifting the sanctions in this period will be an issue. Its a fine line because by lifting sanctions you may paint a picture to NK or other future nations that this is the way to get what you want.

So our only real leverage short of military action or lifting sanctions is to convince our economic competitors to impose sanctions against their trading partner by convincing them that Iran poses a threat... quite a hard thing to do.

[shadows090]

Oct 28, 2009 22:04:01 GMT -5 ksjnx said:

Imo lifting the sanctions in this period will be an issue. Its a fine line because by lifting sanctions you may paint a picture to NK or other future nations that this is the way to get what you want.

That is precisely the point of sanctions. If you don't do what we want, we impose sanctions. If you comply, we reduce/eliminate sanctions. We're at a practical embargo with Iran at this point, with very unsuccessful results.

Check this out.

www2.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6346

This says that congress is now trying to impose sanctions on british, french, indian, and swiss petrol companies that do business with Iran. So now we're ticking off our allies, and still not getting results. This isn't the foreign policy that the American people voted into office. Obama's national security advisor supports it, saying he is ready to take action.

Oct 28, 2009 22:04:01 GMT -5 ksjnx said:

So our only real leverage short of military action or lifting sanctions is to convince our economic competitors to impose sanctions against their trading partner by convincing them that Iran poses a threat... quite a hard thing to do.

Do you agree with the santions mentioned above?

[ksjnx]

Our sanctions are not going to be more than an inconvenience to Iran. If you look at the 1973 oil crisis, many of our western allies were quick to side with the Arabs when they threatened to reduce their supply of oil for either helping to support Israel, or being pro Israel. Since about 12 percent of our oil comes from the Middle East, it was much less of a concern for us than some others. I see the same thing happening now.

If Iran has oil to sell, someone will buy it, sanctions or not.

I think (as with the Chinese) the best way to reform the country is to influence the people. Luckily they have somewhat of a democratic process over there. I think if the people had a little more of a taste of a higher standard of living, and some western luxuries they may not have now due to the governments imposing control, they might become somewhat of an ally in the future. The reason they turned on us in the first place was due to our meddling in their government. I can’t blame them for being wary of us.

As you mentioned, I also believe that ultimately importing their oil would be better for us, and hopefully in turn be better for the Iranian people. Either way, if they cut production when we are buying from them or someone else is, it will drive the global price up. I think it was a good move in the past to do so, and I know there may be an argument against it as cheaper oil could pro-long our reliance on it, but I believe we will still progress away from oil, even if the price drops down to a reasonable level.

[will]

Iran's economic problems have more to do with their government's economic incompetence than our embargo.

[ksjnx]

Oct 30, 2009 11:54:41 GMT -5 will said:

Iran's economic problems have more to do with their government's economic incompetence than our embargo.

+1

[arozanski]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_iran

[jeromeoneil]

Oct 28, 2009 10:56:29 GMT -5 ksjnx said:

This plan just gives them a cover story.... of course its their intent to possess a nuclear weapon... for what conceivable reason would the most oil rich country in the world have an immediate need for nuclear power?

Because every drop of oil they use internally is a drop of oil they don't sell to gluttonous westerners.

Nuclear power is cheap once you have the plants.

[flylooper]

Nov 12, 2009 12:23:03 GMT -5 jeromeoneil said:

Oct 28, 2009 10:56:29 GMT -5 ksjnx said:

Because every drop of oil they use internally is a drop of oil they don't sell to gluttonous westerners.

Nuclear power is cheap once you have the plants.

No. For the Iranians, it's all about resurgence as the premier power in the ME. They want a bomb, period, end of argument. And most likely they'll get it at some point.

They will find ways to get around any of these agreements. There is terrific internal bickering going on within the power structure there. The people that cut these deals constantly get their balls cut off my the mullahs. This thing isn't going to fly.

I don't think.

[arozanski]

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091119/pl_nm/us_iran_nuclear

U.S. warns Iran of consequences over standoff
By Patricia Zengerle and Manny Mogato Patricia Zengerle And Manny Mogato 3 mins ago

SEOUL/MANILA (Reuters) – World powers could have a package of measures against Iran "within weeks," U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday, warning Tehran of consequences for its failure to respond to an offer of a nuclear deal.

However, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed talk of further punitive sanctions, saying the West had learnt from past failures.

Iran on Wednesday rejected a deal to send enriched uranium abroad for rendering into fuel for medical purposes in Tehran, defying world powers which regarded the offer as a way to delay Iran's potential ability to make atomic bombs by at least a year by divesting the country of most of its refined uranium stock.

Under the plan brokered by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Iran would ship some 75 percent of its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be converted into fuel plates for a Tehran reactor that makes isotopes for cancer treatment.

"Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal ... and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences," Obama said at a joint news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Seoul.

He said Iran would not be given an unlimited amount of time, likening the Iranian nuclear issue to years of stop-and-start negotiations with North Korea about its nuclear ambitions.

"We weren't going to duplicate what has happened with North Korea, in which talks just continue forever without any actual resolution to the issue," said Obama.

He has advocated a policy of increased engagement, rather than confrontation, on thorny international issues.

Underlying Western concerns, diplomats said U.N. inspectors revisited Iran's second uranium enrichment facility on Thursday -- a site whose belated disclosure by Tehran in September raised fears in the West that more sites may be hidden away.

The inspectors aimed to make further checks of the Fordow site's layout and wanted more Iranian explanations to pinpoint the project's chronology and original purpose, as well as access to its director and designers.

"NO FINAL ANSWER"

Russia said on Thursday Iran had still not given its final response to the proposed fuel deal.

"As far as we know, there has so far been no final official answer from Tehran," Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said in a statement. "There is currently no discussion on working out additional sanctions against Iran."

In apparent response to Obama's comments, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated in a speech in Tabriz that Iran would respond positively to a change in big powers' policy.

"I am speaking to the world powers: Those who say they want to have a constructive interaction should know that if the Iranian nation sees a practical change in their behavior and that they have given up their aggressive attitude and honestly raised a hand to Iran, then we would accept it," he said.

"But if we find they are still continuing their past domineering and hostile policies ... then the response of the Iranian national would be as firm as in the past."

During a visit to the Philippines, Mottaki shrugged off the possibility of further sanctions. "Sanction was the literature of the 60s and 70s," he told a news conference in Manila.

"I think they are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences," he said, speaking through an interpreter. "Of course, it's totally up to them."

Mottaki said the Islamic Republic was willing to discuss the reactor fuel deal but only if the swap of enriched uranium for the fuel took place within Iran.

"Iran raises its readiness in order to have further talks within the framework which is presented," he said. "It's not our proposal to have a swap. They raised such a proposal and we described and talked about how it could be operationalised."

TROJAN HORSE

Obama said he still hoped Iran would change its mind.

"Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran," he said.

He said he had confidence in the approach to Iran, which rejects suspicions that its declared program to enrich uranium for electricity generation is a Trojan horse for efforts to produce atomic bomb fuel.

"I continue to hold out the prospect that they may decide to walk through this door. I hope they do," he said.

"But what I'm pleased about is the extraordinary international unity that we've seen. If you think at the beginning of the year, how disjointed international efforts were and how uneven perceptions were about Iran's nuclear program, and where we are today, I think it's an indication that we've taken the right approach."

Russia and France also pushed Iran to accept the deal as is.

Officials from the six major powers will discuss Iran in Brussels on Friday, the office of European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said.

But diplomats say the six powers are disunited over how tough the next sanctions should be. Russian and Chinese reservations, they say, all but ensure the next round will be largely symbolic, such as adding names to a U.N. blacklist for asset freezes and travel bans, rather than harsh measures targeting Iran's lifeblood oil and gas sector.

Iran says it needs nuclear technology to generate power but its history of secrecy and restricting U.N. inspections have raised Western suspicions of a covert quest for atom bombs.

Ramping up tensions - have sanctions ever really worked (seriously)? What are we going to do, invade?

[bizarro]

Israel will take care of this problem, eventually. There is no way they'd allow a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands.