Diplomats: Iran nuclear talks stalled over French role
Iran nuclear talks with world powers enter second day; Iran FM: Our nuclear rights are 'legal and obvious.'
By News Agencies Tags: IAEA Israel news Iran nuclearTalks meant to persuade Iran to send most of its enriched uranium abroad - and thus sap its potential to make a nuclear weapon - bogged down Tuesday over fierce Iranian resistance to French participation, diplomats said.
Tuesday was the second day of talks in the Austrian capital between Iran and the United States, Russia and France over Iran's nuclear program. But discussions were delayed at least two hours in an attempt to resolve the impasse over the French.
Tehran says it needs enriched uranium for nuclear fuel but the U.S. and other nations fear that could be used to make weapons. The U.S. says Iran is one to six years away from being able to do so.
Iran had signaled earlier that it might not meet Western demands for a deal under which it would ship most of its enriched material out of the country.
But a more immediate problem Tuesday appeared to be Iranian insistence that France be excluded from any participation in plans to turn the enriched material into fuel for Tehran's research reactor, the diplomats told The Associated Press.
One diplomat - who like the others inside the closed meeting demanded anonymity for discussing confidential information - suggested that the talks could fail unless the problem was resolved.
Iran, which holds a 10 percent share in a Eurodif nuclear plant in France, came to the talks vociferously critical of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's government for withholding enriched uranium from that facility. Areva, the state-run French nuclear company, has described Iran as a sleeping partner in Eurodif, which Tehran bought into more than three decades ago.
Iran is under three sets of United Nations Security Council sanctions for defying demands that it freeze uranium enrichment. The sanctions include embargoes on all shipments of sensitive nuclear materials or technology.
In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki downplayed the problem.
"There are side issues ... with France," he told reporters. "We will talk about it when time is right."
He also vowed that Iran woudl never abandon its "legal and obvious" right to nuclear technology.
"The meetings with world powers and their behavior shows that Iran's right to have peaceful nuclear technology has been accepted by them, Manouchehr Mottaki a news conference. "Iran will never abandon its legal and obvious right [to nuclear technology]."
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said the negotiations between Iran and the U.S., Russia and France got off to a good start Monday. However, three diplomats familiar with the discussions suggested little was accomplished besides outlining both sides' positions.
Despite ElBaradei's upbeat assessment, the diplomats said Iran would not elaborate on whether it was ready to ship its enriched material out of the country in Monday's session. They said Tehran had asked questions about the plan put forward by the U.S., Russia and France.
Before the meeting, Iran's state-run Press TV had cited unidentified officials in Tehran as saying the Islamic Republic was looking to keep its low-enriched uranium and buy what it needed for the Tehran reactor abroad. One said Iran was looking to the U.S., Russia or France for such supplies - a stance that would likely doom the talks, as neither the U.S. nor France expected to accept anything short of an Iranian commitment to ship out its own material for further enrichment.
If Iran does what the West says it has already agreed to do, it would turn over more than 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium - as much as 75 percent of its declared stockpile. Tentative plans would be for further enrichment in Russia and then conversion in France into metal fuel rods for Iran's nuclear reactor.
Iran agreeing to ship most of its enriched uranium abroad would significantly ease fears about Iran's nuclear program, since 1,000 kilograms is the commonly accepted amount of low-enriched uranium needed to produceweapons-grade uranium.
Based on the present Iranian stockpile, the U.S. has estimated that Tehran could produce a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015, an assessment that broadly matches those from Israel and other nations.
David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, which has tracked Iran for signs of covert proliferation, said any such deal would buy only a limited amount of time. He said Tehran could replace 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in little over a year.
|
Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. |
| Photo by: (AP) |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Anyone who has invested their savings in Iranian nukes had better think about selling. It is now a risky investment.
as much as i agree with some assesments of zionist for ever, i agree with milton as well.Obama is able to say to the world and fellow democrats at home he had no other option and give the israelis the green light with a diplomatic umbrella afterwards.He just does not want to state it openly.
By going back and forth like this on France, Iran is shifting the focus to France, the weakest link in the US-France-Russia. Makes it more difficult to have a unified front against Iran.
France is a major player in civilian nuclear power plants, but you don't seem to know it. This is the card Sarkozy wants to play. You seem to be bad informed but the actual proposal is to process Iranian uranium in Russia then in France.
To be part of such an important nuclear deal, it is clear France will need to bring something to the table. It will be interesting to see what Sarkozy manages to pull out of his hat this time. So far he has shown a shrewd ability to play the international game with less than perfect cards.
The Nobel Prize means nothing I agree but Obama & his ego is going to want to show that he deserves this prize because right now it is an embarresment to him personally and he knows it because he has done nothing. Now he is out to prove he deserves it and it wasn't awarded because he wasn't George Bush and that means acting like the man of peace which in effect has tied his hands to a large degree because he is going to be hesitant to act tough if thats going to damage the image he is trying to create as the peacemaker.
Iran are perfectly in order to bring up a possible clash of interests between Sarkozy and Israel.
Jim, Israel is looking to delay the program for 1+-4 years reportedly. If they can't get that kind of mileage out of an attack then they likely wouldn't mount one. Meanwhile, the possibility that Iran is a diplomacy-resistant aggressor state has not been refuted by the chain of broken promises in its current dealings over the NNPT. It is free I would think to withdraw from the treaty; either way Israel has to weigh strategic options.
Jim, if the obvious is that they are not going to give up their nuclear program then the Western diplomacy iwould be aimed not at Iran but at domestic audiences who don't want to accept that--considering that every concession Iran supposedly makes (sending out uranium for Russian enrichment) is subsequently denied and retracted. Given that it is difficult to understand what "diplomacy" is supposed to be doing since you've already ceded Iran the bomb. Israel has to decide whether or not it, not Europe and not the United States, can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of an Islamic regime that has explicitly made fun of the Holocaust while promising a new one.
Iran is only trying to win time in order to get their nuclear weapon. For that they count with the full colaboration of the "Nobel laurate" Baradei and others
Iran is only trying to win time in order to get their nuclear weapon. For that they count with the full colaboration of the "Nobel laurate" Baradei and others
I forget to add to posting 1: as much as some in the US may like to strike Iran, the harsh realities of the US economy means that they simply could not afford a 'campaign'. Yes, even Israel could mount one solid strike against Iran, but then what? Israel could certainly not afford a war with Iran. Yes, The US could devastate Irans infrastructure, but then what? The US is hemoraging billions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its economy can not able to sustain another conflict. If the Chinese dump their Trillons of dollars in protest, well, I'll leave it to your imagination........
Neither Obama nor America care very much about the Nobel Peace Prize. It's not going to have any effect on his decision. To think otherwise is ludicrous. We're talking about the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world. Do you think his decisions are influenced by Norway? Anyone who thinks that America would be unwilling to use military force against Iran is mistaken. Obama just wants to make sure he has the moral high ground before he give Iran the spanking they've been asking for.
The prize has tied his hands. He was never willing to use force to begin with and was going to continue playing the diplomatic game on Irans terms but he was at least willing to consider tough sanctions. Now though calling for very tough sanctions don't sound like the words of a peacemaker so if he was going to be soft on Iran before the prize he will be twice as soft now. It also means non of the hawks in Washington can talk him into letting Israel do something. If Bush was extreme right Obama is extreme left & what is needed to deal with Iran is a president who wants peace but isn't afraid of war. The whole Obama appeasment policy has only harmed chances for REAL & LASTING PEACE. Under Bush Abbas would have sat down & talked with Bibi unconditionally Now he knows Obama is on his side if he wants concessions out of Bibi all he has to do is say no talks until Bibi makes these concessions & if Bibi can't deliver because of his coalition then they won't even meet let alone make deals
Iran are as likely to give up their nuclear program as Israel is. They may also find their hand strengthened by China and Russia who see the duplicity of the US approach to Iran. Time to start 'talking down' military action and time to start 'talking up' diplomacy.