[Peace-discuss] Parsing the White House Statement on the Iran Nuclear Fuel Swap Deal

[Robert Naiman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/its-gollllllll-for-lula-a_b_578390.html


[as an update on yesterday's post]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/18/995/00833

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/581

Perhaps I still have a bit too much of that "hopey-changey" Kool-Aid in my
bloodstream, but I read the White House statement in response to the
Iran-Turkey-Brazil announcement as saying to Iran: "We acknowledge that you
moved. We're still ready to deal, and we'll see you in Geneva."

The White House statement is
here<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-iran>
:

I think it's fair to assume that a good deal of thought went into crafting
this statement. Robert Gibbs did not come up with these words on his own.
The folks in the Obama Administration who run nuclear diplomacy chose these
words.

So what words did they choose, and what should we infer from them?

   1. "We acknowledge the efforts that have been made by Turkey and Brazil."

This is positive. Regardless of what the Obama Administration said before
the President of Brazil went to Iran, what the Obama Administration is
saying now is: "Mazl Tov! Parabens! Tebrikler!" This is good. If you want a
deal, the role of Brazil and Turkey is positive, not negative. Clearly, the
involvement of Brazil and Turkey is raising the comfort level of the
Iranians with the fuel swap deal. That's a good thing that should be
encouraged. If you want a deal, you want the other side to be comfortable
with the deal. Plus, now Brazil and Turkey have skin in the game. If Iran
reneges, it's going to make Brazil and Turkey look bad. That's good. We are
now in a situation where it's not "P5+1" on one side of the table and Iran
on the other, but P5+1 on one side of the table and Iran+2 on the other. If
your goal is to isolate Iran, that's bad. But if your goal it's to get a
deal, that's good. The more signatures there are on the paper, the stronger
the deal is.

   1. "The proposal announced in Tehran must now be conveyed clearly and
   authoritatively to the IAEA before it can be considered by the international
   community."

This is perfectly reasonable, and in fact welcoming. "The proposal must be
sent to Geneva before it can be considered" means "when you send this
proposal to Geneva, I am going to consider it." Iran has said it will
formally submit this proposal in a week.

   1. "Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and
   the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program,
   the United States and international community continue to have serious
   concerns."

The issue isn't resolved yet. No news there.

   1. "While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched
   uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today
   that it would continue its 20% enrichment, which is a direct violation of UN
   Security Council resolutions and which the Iranian government originally
   justified by pointing to the need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor."

This is the most interesting sentence to me in the White House statement.

First, it re-affirms that the transfer of LEU out of Iran is positive. It
makes no reference to the purported issue that due to subsequent enrichment,
the absolute amount of LEU represented by the October deal has fallen as a
percentage of Iran's LEU stockpile. Instead, it focuses on the 20%
enrichment, "which is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions
and which the Iranian government originally justified by pointing to the
need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor."

This is a very interesting choice of words, because while it is of course
absolutely true that Iran's 20% enrichment "is a direct violation of UN
Security Council resolutions," as everyone knows, *any Iranian enrichment of
uranium whatsoever* is just as much of "a direct violation of UN Security
Council resolutions" as 20% enrichment. So, while pounding the table about
"Iranian enrichment," the Obama Administration is making a deliberate choice
to only pound the table about 20% enrichment, which is a billion times more
reasonable than pounding the table about enrichment per se.

Regardless of what one thinks about the intrinsic signifance of 20%
enrichment - this enrichment is under IAEA inspection, after all - as a
political matter, 1) Iran was not doing 20% enrichment at the time of the
October negotiation, 2) the Administration correctly notes that Iran said it
was doing 20% enrichment to fuel the Tehran Research Reactor, and so, as the
Administration's statement implies, *in terms of meeting Iran's needs, if
there is a fuel swap deal, Iran should be willing to suspend 20% enrichment*,
and in any event 3) Iran's decision to go to 20% enrichment was universally
interpreted as an Iranian pressure tactic to push the West on negotiations
around the fuel deal (Iran is not believed to have the technology to use the
20% enriched uranium as fuel in its medical research reactor), so again, if
that was the goal of the Iranian move, then Iran should be willing to back
off of 20% enrichment as part of a deal on the fuel swap.

   1. "Furthermore, the Joint Declaration issued in Tehran is vague about
   Iran’s willingness to meet with the P5+1 countries to address international
   concerns about its nuclear program, as it also agreed to do last October."

Which merely reaffirms that the goal of all this was to support the P5+1
negotiation, so if that negotiation does not go forward, the fuel swap deal
doesn't have any meaning. Again, no news here.

In sum, I read the Administration statement as saying: we'll see you in
Geneva, and when we see you in Geneva, we're going to ask you about two
things: 20% enrichment, and the ongoing dialogue with the P5+1 about your
nuclear program. And if we get satisfaction on these points, we can still
have a deal.

Of course, it will be pointed out to us that all of this is "only" about an
*interim* deal, to tide us over, to slow down the clock, to deescalate
tensions and build confidence for the main negotiation. So? The beauty and
significance of the fuel swap deal *which was proposed by the United
States* was
that the US was making clear to Iran that the US was willing to talk
about *other
means by which Iran could establish international confidence in its nuclear
intentions* besides the non-starter demand of suspension of enrichment. If
this is still the US position, then there is a plausible path to a
meaningful negotiation.

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from
Afghanistan
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100518/c4a4fe99/attachment.html>