• Published 12:56 20.11.09
  • Latest update 02:55 21.11.09

Six powers urge Iran to reconsider nuclear deal

Iran refuses to send uranium abroad for enrichment; IAEA chief ElBaradei: Time running out for nuclear deal.

By Haaretz Service and News Agencies Tags: IAEA Israel news Iran nuclear

Senior officials from six world powers expressed disappointment on Friday that Iran had not accepted proposals intended to delay its potential ability to make nuclear bombs and urged Tehran to reconsider.

Under the United Nations-drafted plan, Iran would export its uranium for enrichment in Russia and France where it would be converted into fuel rods, which would be returned to Iran about a year later. The rods can power reactors but cannot be readily turned into weapons-grade material.

"We are disappointed by the lack of follow-up on the three understandings [in the proposed deal]," said senior European Union official Robert Cooper after a meeting of officials from Britain, France, the United States, Germany, Russia and China.

"We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement...and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations," a statement issued by the officials said.

They said they would hold a follow-up meeting around Christmas.

An EU official said there was no mention of imposing sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt nuclear enrichment activities at the meeting.

"These things are a matter of timing, and this was not the right time for it," said the official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The talks in Brussels involved political directors - foreign ministry officials below ministerial level. The United States was represented by Undersecretary of State William Burns, and Russia by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.

The talks came just a day after a day after U.S. President Barack Obama said the six nations will develop a package of serious new punitive measures in coming weeks. He did not give details.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the U.S. has not given up hope that Iran will accept and implement the uranium exchange.

"We continue to call on Iran to accept this proposal with regard to the Tehran research reactor. We think it's a good one," Wood said. "We think it's a great way for Iran to show, if, indeed, its intentions are peaceful, that they want to cooperate with the international community with regard to its nuclear program."

Meanwhile, International Atomic Energy Agency Chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Friday that he believes that Iran has not totally rejected his agency's nuclear fuel plan, but that time was running out.

"The ball is now in Iran's court. I hope they will not miss this fleeting chance," he told reporters in Berlin.

Iran "needed to rise above their domestic conflicts" on the nuclear issue, and take a "minimum risk" in the interests of peace, ElBaradei said.

"I hope to get an answer soon, within the next week or so," the IAEA chief said.

"That would open a space for Iran and the US to engage in broad negotiations," he said.

The IAEA chief also said he did not want to see sanctions against Iran, adding he thought they would only force Tehran into a more hawkish position.

"It is a unique opportunity to move from sanctions and confrontation to the process of building...trust," ElBaradei told a news conference in Berlin.

On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brushed off international warnings after apparently rejecting a compromise deal on the country's controversial nuclear program.

However, Iran has not made a formal written response to the IAEA's proposal.

On Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that Iran would only accept the fuel deal if the swap of low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel would be effected simultaneously.

ElBaradei has accordingly proposed Turkey as a trusted intermediary, whereby Iran would ship the nuclear fuel to Turkey, which would hold on to it while Russia enriches a separate batch of nuclear fuel. Russia would only receive the original Iranian fuel once it had delivered the enriched fuel to Iran.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

Photo by: (Reuters)
  • Print Page
  • Send to a friend
  • Comments
  • Share
  • Text Size +|-
TalkBacks

Why Facebook Connect?

Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.

Add a comment

Add your reply

  • 20. 0 0
    IAEA con game...
    • Paul
    • 30.11.09
    • 21:06

    Iran knows better than to trust the politically motivated con deal they are being muscled into. The western nations making these demands motives' are really see through. Give us your uranium and we'll pretty much screw you over and in about a year or so we'll get back to you. The west has it out for Iran and I hope they are ready to confront this beast and put an end to western hypocricy once and for all!

  • 19. 0 0
    eric #16
    • S
    • 23.11.09
    • 09:14

    at least I pimped you into friendship and common desires (on your side only) with PK... Regarding my "increasing hostility towards you" it's interesting how you didn't notice your own increased hostility towards Israel and everything Jewish.

  • 18. 0 0
    # 13 Peter Williams ..preparing the war on Iran
    • maoriboy
    • 23.11.09
    • 00:57

    Peter Williams:"Wiped from the map = Vanish from the page of time.It`s the same thing. You may wish to overlook this blatant aggression but please don`t expect those subject to it to do the same." Lets approach the subject from a different point of view,what the Iranians see and hear coming out of Israel. Iran in the Crosshairs. Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat Iran, Israel and the Looming Threat of War Manufacturing Consent For Attack On Iran Israel has Iran in its Sights Israel Launches Covert War Against Iran Report: Israel nears attacking Iran Israel threatens to wage illegal, "pre-emptive" military attack on Iran. Israel to bomb Iran through Turkey? Israeli Navy in Suez Canal Prepares for Potential Attack on Iran. Binyamin Netanyahu Targets Iran After He Is Appointed Prime Minister. I could go on but i think I've diminished the point of your argument to a wet bus ticket.

  • 17. 0 0
    # 12 to "S" re: "love bites"
    • eric
    • 22.11.09
    • 20:32

    good point, "S". however...without a leg rub, head butt, or purring session interspersed with those "love bites", how can one tell for sure? "i have noticed increasing hostility towards me by you in your last several posts"~pk eeeyup, me too. "you should be concerned when you confuse your friends and enemies"~pk alas, maybe persian kitty senses the loss of an unspoken affinity once perceived; call it sensitivity... no matter, i second this, too. "a wholehearted HISSSS for you S"~pk i do believe i love the persian kitty for this hiss! it's an appropriately hissed hiss, and were i a kitty, i'd have hissed you several times over already for the same reasons. and finally, persian kitty was responding to jon's initial question, "more hawkish?", by elaborating on the quote he was ridiculing in his post. she DID address his post. she was NOT responding to the paranoid ravings that followed it.

  • 16. 0 0
    "IF" iran is working on a bomb, and manages to succeed
    • eric
    • 22.11.09
    • 19:26

    what in the world makes so many of you THINK that using it on israel is iran's "sole" purpose for doing so? what makes you think that it's so obsessed by an arrogant little bully with a protective big brother? and what makes you think it would pit its nascent nuclear capability against more advanced and sophisticated technology, only to set itself up for the massive retaliation that would result? the reasons iran may want nukes should be relatively obvious: it's military capabilities, defensive or otherwise, are not exactly state of the art, and it wants the "deterence" and "balance" that nukes provide...especially when its constantly being threatened with an attack by israel. which by the way, iran has NEVER done to israel...except to say that it would retaliate if attacked. in ALL of ahmadinejad's anti-zionist rhetoric, he never even implied an intent to attack israel, much less threatened it. his talk is nothing more than political posturing. it's just empty rhetoric employed to boost his image...just like israeli politicians do with their with their threats to attack iran...only the israelis are willing to go beyond the rhetoric to boost theirs. it's attacks on lebanon and gaza have proven that. israel is simply not important enough to iran for it to risk it's own destruction; but IS enough of a threat for iran to seek a deterrent capability. and besides, without israel, who will the regime use to rally support for itself?

  • 15. 0 0
    Persian Kitty
    • S
    • 22.11.09
    • 14:49

    No! You didn't answer to Jon nor to me, even now. The only one who answered, even if not sufficiently, is maoriboy. About "we`ll strike at the sites" and sanctions I have repeatedly stated they are WRONG. I also explained why. BUT, It is Iran's mullahs plus Ahmadinejad who began the horrible anti-"Zionist" and anti-Holocaust rantings complete with arming Hezbollah and Hamas, plus the nuclear episode. It is them who even today are explaining how they will rocket Tel-Aviv and who explained in the past - I don't think you will like it - how (in case of nuclear war) Iran can "easily" absorb 5 million dead, but Israel will cease to exist. As about myself, you must know how critical I am of Israel's politics. Also you would know that I know how to take abuse, but also know how to give. And I do it with very dear friends like Esther and Cipora, hitting Left and Right too... So why not catwise to you? Haven't your cats ever bitten you? In love, I mean...

  • 14. 0 0
    Vanish from the page of time? oh that's ok then!
    • Peter Williams
    • 22.11.09
    • 01:25

    Wiped from the map = Vanish from the page of time. It's the same thing. The problem Maoriboy is that you you need to look at the totality of what the Ahmadinejad is saying. There is: the "stinking corpse" speech the "remove Israel or we will" speech the "shift Israel to Alaska" speech In addition to the many: "holocaust denial" speeches "the end is nigh for Israel" speeches You may wish to overlook this blatant aggression but please don't expect those subject to it to do the same.

  • 13. 0 0
    S
    • Persian Kitty
    • 22.11.09
    • 00:29

    Thank you for your kind note. I beg to differ, my reply does answer jon's. It may not be MY PERSONAL choice/outcome, but it certainly is a probable one considering the way things are being pushed around by all parties. Or it could just be my simplistic ape brain (did I thank you before?).... You already know my opinion on your "wipe out" question "(it cannot be repeated, it`s too long!)". I have noticed increasing hostility towards me by you in your last several posts. And perhaps you have missed but I do not engage in good-for-nothing hostility. Just as an 'in good faith', I am NOT for the Iranian regime, I am 100% behind the people of Iran in their struggle for freedom and democracy. Last but not the least, you should be concerned when you confuse your friends and enemies.... PS - A wholehearted HISSSS for you S....you certainly earned it!

  • 12. 0 0
    # 9 S ..wiped out
    • maoriboy
    • 21.11.09
    • 21:31

    S:"So, again, what is your response to Iran`s repeated undertaking to wipe out Israel? And how else could they do it if not with a BOMB." I assume you are referring to a statement made by Ahmadinejah, and in true zionist propaganda fashion twisted out of all proportions. "So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." S, i'm more inclined to believe he did not mention the word Israel but referred to the "regime occupying Jerusalem." "Wiped from the map" the word map was never used,go figure.

  • 11. 0 0
    even "IF" iran is working on a bomb, and manages to succeed
    • eric
    • 21.11.09
    • 21:15

    what in the world makes so many of you THINK that using it on israel is iran's "sole" purpose for doing so? what makes you think that attacking an arrogant little bully with a protective big brother is so important to iran? what makes you think that it would use its nascent nuclear capability to set itself up for the massive retaliation that would result? the reasons iran may want nukes should be relatively obvious: it's military capabilities, defensive or otherwise, are not exactly state of the art, and it wants the "deterence" and "balance" that nukes provide...especially when its constantly being threatened with an attack by israel... which by the way, iran has NEVER done to israel...except to say that it would retaliate if attacked. in ALL of ahmadinejad's anti-israel rhetoric, he hasn't even implied an intent to attack israel, much less threatened it. his talk is nothing more than political posturing. it's just empty rhetoric employed to boost his image...just like israeli politicians do with their with their threats to attack iran...only the israelis are willing to go beyond the rhetoric to boost theirs. it's attacks on lebanon and gaza have proven that. what sorts of fools actually believe that the iranian religious and political elite are willing to martyr themselves for the sake of ideology? israel's simply not important enough to iran for it to risk it's own destruction; but IS enough of a threat for iran to seek a deterrent capability.

  • 10. 0 0
    foolish to believe inspections work
    • jon
    • 21.11.09
    • 19:07

    ridiculous notion that somehow inspectors are going to find all parts of the program let alone be given access let alone be able to enforce anything...the iranians hid natanz until it was found, same for qom, what else? they hid their program for over 18 yrs...and why? because it was for civilian purposes and therefore the need to hide and harden it all? el baradei has been a joke, a conflict of interest to be sure. and by the way, israel can and will take out a large degree of their program, along with their missile factories, and the irgc sites...it won't just be the nuke sites...and further, it's all nations responsability to act, not just israels..not all nations are equal and not all are responsable...that's just a fact...and we need to stop the politically correct garbage of 'if they have why shouldn't we have'...were talking nukes, not ipods....get it miss kitty?

  • 9. 0 0
    Persian Kitty #5 - your "answer" to Jon doesn't answer anything!
    • S
    • 21.11.09
    • 18:55

    Jon asked something simple: "more hawkish? (the sanctions)...like saying we have a bomb and will wipe out israel? hawkish enough for you?" Your answer to the above (it cannot be repeated, it's too long!) is the most fantastic muddle (of anything but the subject), that I have seen in tens of years. Maybe from the Soviet Union and its apes... So, again, what is your response to Iran's repeated undertaking to wipe out Israel? And how else could they do it if not with a BOMB?

  • 8. 0 0
    Ahmadinejad in Brazil
    • Pedro
    • 21.11.09
    • 17:41

    Ahmadinejad will arrive here next week but the majority of Brazilians are unpleasant with his visit.

  • 7. 0 0
    A Nuclear Iran Or A Nuclear Free Middle East
    • Cool B
    • 20.11.09
    • 22:47

    Come what may, Iran should not give in to this crap, while Israel sits on over 200 nuclear warheads and the so called six powers pretend they do not exist.

  • 6. 0 0
    Arrogant & stuborn stand against Muslim Iran
    • sami abu ismail
    • 20.11.09
    • 22:29

    The so-called world powers see only with one eye: Iran is danger we are told. No one dares talk about Israel adhering to the NPT, or being under international law. Since its creation in the haert of Arab lands in 1948 Israel has been a mortel danger to world peace and security. For at least once, show some fairness, force Israel to adhere to international laws, then may be you would have some credibility.

  • 5. 0 0
    Jon in Montreal
    • Persian Kitty
    • 20.11.09
    • 22:02

    No, hawkish like " we'll pull out of the NPT altogether since it's good for nothing-if we are going to be sanctioned (essentially a low-level war) which will be followed by a military strike by a nuclear state." Translation: NPT what is it good for then??? Once Iran pulls out of the NPT, even el baradei wouldn't be able to get in there. There will be no inspections no checks nothing. In a matter of few months, Iran will produce its nukes for sure. And please don't come back with "we'll strike at the sites". That's impossible to do and you'll only set it back a short time. But the repercussion of such a foolish act would be magnanimous in terms of strategic/political/diplomatic spheres.

  • 4. 0 0
    more hawkish..what an islamist el baradei is
    • jon
    • 20.11.09
    • 21:17

    "The IAEA chief also said he did not want to see sanctions against Iran, adding he thought they would only force Tehran into a more hawkish position". more hawkish? like what mohamed? like saying we have a bomb and will wipe out israel? hawkish enough for you?

  • 3. 0 0
    Are you serious Israel?
    • Paul
    • 20.11.09
    • 20:05

    The US in not going to act on Iran. Obama is oblivious as to how to deal with Iran and the US military is currently engaged in two wars. Iran knows if it accepts any resolution it will be seen as weakness. They have also learned that by rejecting the P5+1 they can always buy more time. Let's give them more time to reconsider their outright refusal to cooperate. While we're at it, lets insist on talking about sanctions when both China and Russia have refused to consider them. Maybe if we talk enough about it, it will become true. Even ElBar says sanctions are useless. Time has run out on you Israel and you have no one to blame but your leaders. If you would have told me 10 years ago that Israel would allow a country who has threatened it's very existance to carry out that threat, I would have said you were crazy. That's exactly what has happened. I have little doubt Israel has given up on stoping Iran. Apparently the Israeli leadership has bigger and better things to worry about.

  • 2. 0 0
    Six world powers begging & imploring a dusty terrorist theocracy
    • Fortuna Benmayor
    • 20.11.09
    • 19:21

    While the IAEA chief plays for Iran. Shame, shame, shame to this corrupt and coward world.

  • 1. 0 0
    ISEA chief? Or Pal co conspirator?
    • Petra
    • 20.11.09
    • 13:07

    either way, he and the pals have lost all credibility. They are cursed and doomed to fail again, that's what they do, fail.