Iran to Suspend Uranium Enrichment for Six Weeks?
| Tue Jul. 1, 2008 10:35 AM PDT
An Iranian American academic writes that an Iranian news site is reporting that Iran has decided to suspend uranium enrichment, "as a goodwill gesture," for a period of six weeks. "This action will be taken in return for no further sanctions, and resumption of negotiations with the 5+1 group during this period based on the latest proposed package." (Here's the source of the report, he says).
If true that Iran has accepted the West's "suspension for suspension" proposal, as former US Iran envoy Nick Burns has called it, it would conceivably make way for the US to join international talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice has said repeatedly that Washington would be willing to talk directly with Iran if Iran agreed to suspend its enrichment program. It's a position that the State Department reiterated as recently as yesterday.
I am trying to confirm whether the Iranian report is accurate.
Iranian and American sources warn that more information is needed.
More details if they become available.
Update: More hints Iran is considering trying to get to negotiations.
Thursday Update: A more detailed suggestion of the anticipated potential Iranian response to the latest P5+1/Javier Solana offer is available here:
The 5+1 proposal to Iran proposes a "pre-negotiation" phase at which stage there would be a "freeze for freeze", i.e. Iran would not add any new centrifuges and the 5+1 would not introduce any new sanctions. In this phase, Iran would negotiate with 5+1 minus the US to prepare the grounds for full-fledged negotiations which would then include the US. In this phase, Iran can also comment on the agenda of the negotiations and introduce new topics (eg. Tehran could insist that the issue of an uranium enrichment consortium on Iranian soil be discussed with high priority). Iran can also focus on the "commonalities of the two proposals" as Dr. Mottaki has underlined a few times. Once the two sides agree to enter full-fledged negotiations including the US at the table, then Iran will have to suspend enrichment and the 5+1 will lift the existing UN sanctions.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
All signs are that Iran will accept the 5+1 package with 1 important change, i.e. Iran will insist that the deadline for the pre-negotiation phase (i.e. 6 weeks) be adjusted. The important element for Tehran is that negotiations can start without suspension being their prerequisite.
Link.
Comments
ISRAEL GETS BAD
MAD, the international principle of Mutual Assured Destruction protects nuclear armed nations from catastrophic destruction by nuclear warfare, because a nuclear armed adversary that makes a pre-emptive nuclear attack is assured of a devastating nuclear counter-attack. Thereby, the nuclear armed nations competing for scarce World resources are compelled to resolve their fights by diplomacy or conventional warfare, to their own benefit and the benefit of the World.
To be protected by MAD, it is imperative that the competing nuclear armed nations maintain favorable balances of nuclear weapons. The adversaries must have just enough nuclear weapons to make a nuclear war suicidal, in reality and in the wildest fantasy.
MAD creates an obsession in nations vulnerable to their nuclear armed enemies, to acquire nuclear arms for national survival, as in the case of Iran being notoriously threatened by Israel. The Israeli Judeofascist land robbers, working with their Crypto-Neo-Marxist Diaspora in the Republican and Democrat parties has acquired an arsenal of 150 or so nuclear weapons, for defense against her justifiably outraged non-nuclear Middle Eastern neighbors; instead of the nuclear armed Russian and Chinese Marxists.
Recently, in defiance of the international law against deploying nuclear weapons in warfare, Israel has been implicitly threatening to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, if she does not stop enriching uranium. If the great nuclear powers of the World tolerate such an unprecedented nuclear attack on a non-nuclear power, MAD will have failed to protect the World environment against nuclear warfare.
To insure that renegade nuclear armed nations are deterred by MAD; an amendment to international law against the deployment of nuclear weapons in warfare shall be needed. BAD, an international law of Bilateral Mutual Destruction, that imposes on every nuclear armed nation in World the civic duty to launch a surprise nuclear counter-attack on behalf of a non-nuclear power that is insanely attacked by a renegade nuclear power, would extend the deterrent power of MAD to such renegade nations.
Furthermore, BAD would reduce the future incentive for nations to develop defensive nuclear arms, by putting their survival at greater risk of bilateral retaliation, as in the case of Iran. In the case of Judeofascist Israel, the possession of an arsenal of nuclear weapons of any size has made her a certain candidate for one bang annihilation.
Submitted by Cyrus Safdari (not verified) on Tue Jul. 1, 2008 10:08 PM PDT.
If this is true, lets at least get the historical context right:
Starting with Tehran Declaration of 2003 and later the Paris Agrement of Nov 2004, the Iranians suspended enrichment for what was supposed to be 6 month period, awaiting an EU negotiation offer which was supposed to recognize Iran's right to nuclear technology. The had Iranians made it explicity clear from the start and obtained assurances from the EU side that the EU would NOT demand a permanent end to enrichment.
The EU proceeded to drag out the negotiations as long as they could to get the US aboard. The US criticized the whole process and torpedoed the negotiations by flatly asserting that they would not accept any enrichment in Iran at all, ever, under any conditions, not even a small-scale program.
So, the EU was stuck, because they had nothing to offer to Iran. They tried to drag out talks some more but the Iranians issued an ultimatum.
So, after 2 years, the EU finally made their long-awaited offer to Iran. The offer basically was a joke. Independent analysts characterized as an "empty box in pretty wrapping") which also included a demand that Iran permanently give up enrichment - knowing full well that the Iranians would reject such a demand. In short, it was an offer meant to be refused.
And when the Iranians did reject the EU offer as predicted and resumed enrichment after 2 years of pointless suspension, the US and EU (along with an analyst at ISIS) went on a propaganda campaign which falsely accused Iran of "violating" the Paris Agreement.
So in short, the Iranians showed flexibility and took the major step of suspending enrichment as a good faith gesture, and they were rewarded by foot-dragging, moving of goalposts and an increase in demands. The moderates who had urged Iran to show flexibility were made into fools too.
What do you suppose the lesson was for the Iranian side from this? I therefore don't think that another "6 month" suspension will result in a different outcome and the Iranians probably know this too.
Read up Trita Parsi's European Mendacity Doomed Iran Talks
