ANALYSIS / Iran trying to maintain momentum of dialogue
The question is whether Iran new proposal in nuclear talks is sufficient to stop the sanctions process.
By Zvi Bar'el Tags: Barack Obama Israel news Iran nuclearTehran apparently heard loud and clear President Barack Obama's hint to Iran in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance Thursday, when he said it is "incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system." U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said publicly that he expected the international community to impose significant sanctions against Iran. However, Obama said he does not support isolating countries like Iran, preferring diplomatic solutions instead.
Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spelled out the essence of Tehran's response to the international proposal regarding its enriched uranium: It was willing initially to store 400 kilograms of enriched uranium (out of 1,500 kilograms in its possession) on Kish Island in exchange for nuclear fuel. Mottaki said the offer was intended to test the seriousness of the international powers in delivering the promised fuel, insinuating that at the next stage they could talk about continuing the process.
Iran is not yet sure that Russia will oppose more sanctions, and Mottaki's statements are an attempt to keep the diplomatic channel alive. Tehran has so far called the storage of uranium on Iranian soil a "national principle" not to be surrendered. But it seems that Iran is willing to cut corners. While this is not a real concession - the entire amount of uranium will remain on Iranian soil - the portion that will be stored on Kish Island will not be part of the potential for use in the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom. The statement thus holds somewhat of a promise for the future, especially when it is an effort to maintain the momentum of dialogue. The question is whether this offer is sufficient to stop the sanctions process or at least to bring Russia back to its former position opposing sanctions.
While the Iranian foreign minister is clarifying Iran's room for flexibility, Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi last week signed a military pact with Syria. In practical terms, this step is nothing new. Iran and Syria signed a strategic cooperation pact in 2006, without detailing what it would include, and another military agreement in 2007. Trade between Iran and Syria comes to about $350 million a year, and Iran's investments in Syria are about $2 billion a year.
Thus, the importance of the announcement of the pact is in its diplomatic timing. The announcement stated that Iran would not object to Syria's moving ahead on talks to return the Golan Heights, and on Syria's part any attempt to condition negotiations toward a peace agreement with Israel on disengaging from Iran would be unacceptable. This has been the model for Iran's relations with Turkey as well, with Tehran not conditioning these relations on Turkey's cutting its ties with Israel.
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
Iran has managed very well up till now to keep it's nuclear programme going. so what if there is surveillance-what will the world do when iran finally has the bomb??? SFA
It's funny how politications tell on themselves. In an odd reverse physiological guilt perplexity? Further study is needed, yet what obama is accusing Iran of doing is precisely what the us and europe and israel( non NPT to boot) are doing! They are using the IAEA to settle political scores and any rational thinking person can see this. The people who believes such hype speak for themselves via their absurb hate littered comments!
It's funny how politications tell on themselves. In an odd reverse physiological guilt perplexity? Further study is needed, yet what obama is accusing Iran of doing is precisely what the us and europe and israel( non NPT to boot) are doing! They are using the IAEA to settle political scores and any rational thinking person can see this. The people who believes such hype speak for themselves via their absurb hate littered comments!
I agree with you but what makes you think that the Chinese will agree to that? I understand that the Russians got the cancellation of anti-missile defense program from the Americans, but how the Chinese would benefit is not clear to me.
What Iran is proposing is an already rejected plan. This is, "ecxhanging small a quantity of Uranium for another type, the rest will be exchange in a three year period, who are they kiding?. Iranians are masters of draging the case. They know that as long as Russia and China are neutral they will do whatever they want.There must be a limit same as with Sadam Hussein. then Iran will understand.
the 5+1 demand that Iran abandon all her nuclear enrichment activities, which Iran can do based on her NPT membership. That illegal demand by a few Iran's enemies has not been dropped from the UNSC resolutions. So it seems to me the 5+1 must officially recognize Iran's right to enrich Uranium for peaceful and power generation purposes. Are you aware of such official announcement?
Your post is a glimpse into your rather defeatist psyche. Far from analysis, it is a poorly constructed ill-wish targeted not just to Iranians but also Israelis. You should get it that an "Iran in tatters" would also mean an Israel in tatters. And an Iran with opposition means a prosperous future friend for Israel. Of course I do get it that you do NOT want that as it would destabilize the very defeatist psyche of yours. Happy Chanukkah....
I have heard intelligent people call for an attack upon Iran, but never an intellegent AND informed person. War is by its nature, unpredictable and dangerous, with a habit of spreading into areas considered 'safe'. Using high tech weapons may look easy and clean on a TV screen, especially when its all one sided - but in the real world things can get messy and out of control very quickly. No one should ever call for war unless they are prepared to see thier own land, and their own people, burning. A great man once said that 'Jaw Jaw is better than War War'.
"What is the final goal of US/UN?" - Bloodyscot To get Iran back into FULL compliance with the NPT and it's Additional Protocols to ensure that Iran has minimal opportunity to achieve a break-out capability. The objectives is to prevent Iran from turning the capability to produce Nuclear Power into the ability to produce nuclear weapons. This might seem impossible, and without FULL compliance with the Additional Protocols, it might be. But any nation under intense intelligence surveillance by all major powers, and complying with all Additional Protocols, would find it very difficult to build weapons without detection.
It is so easy to follow the world now days. One need not stop by a University library to read the world press daily anymore. Even in nations with relatively high censorship one may discern what the government wants people to believe. And find out what other governments don't want covered. The Sixth Manama Dialogue is going on in Bahrain. Delegates included are from the US, Russia, India, Turkey and the Gulf States. The agenda includes subjects such as security cooperation, nuclear energy, and the Persian Gulf. The Gulf States are turning up the heat on Iran while stating they have no problem with nuclear power generation UNDER full IAEA controls. Iran is backing out of the corner it painted itself into slowly and preparing the Iranian public for an eventual back-down on the power reactor fuel for research reactor fuel exchange. Today in Iran Daily carries an article today which shows a marked change in propaganda.
Iran has the ability to build centrifuges and the uranium ore needed. While bombing the reactors worked in Iraq and Syria it will not would in Iran. Iran is unlikely to build a nuke anytime soon but they want the ability if needed at some point. For Iran to reach it long term goals it needs it reactors running for 5 to 10yrs then use plutonium to make many warheads, using plutonium you need less that half the amount than using uranium, plus you get alot of electricity also. Making this deal with Iran while not good but maybe the best option to delay Iran longer in making a nuke. Close control over fuel rods would also be needed but is hard to maintain over time.
The Obama is as usual just a religious defender of the U.S. system. He should reread Niebuhr anyway. He is most famous for the exact opposite of any "axis of evil"
the europeans are perhaps not devious enough to learn the ways of the middle east bazaar. (they are not even devious enough to hide their hatred for the jews.)
at the end of the day Israel-America will have to detroy all nuclear facilities in Iran. Iran will retaliate Israel. I hardly think they will dear to touch American interests in the Gulf. Israel will suffer losses especially in Tel Aviv, and I think that Nataniahu is ready for that. The question of the opposition in Iran is a complicate issue as well. After the attack on Iran they will disappear but after a while they will reappear. Iran in tatters is better than Iran with opposition.
Unless you can talk the Russians or Chinese into actually taking military action, there is no military solution. Only they have the personnel to actually search Iran for all the "hidden sites." Israel doesn't have the people or interest in doing that nor does the US. Just bombing will get a lot of Iranian & Israeli civilians and US GIs killed and assure that somewhere in some hidden or secret place, a real Iranian bomb project will start, flat out, like the Manhattan project. They have the tech and science and don't have to invent anything. Just bombing will end all dissent in Iran, too.
who can trust this kind of agreement on the weight of the uranium Iran posses???????? looks like drug dealer's pact.they already bought from a dozen of countries.likevenezuela,brasil, france,engand etc...
fhsdrdtrg
It is time for more punishing sanctions.