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

Tue May 18 16:08:06 CDT 2010

It looks like Iran-Turkey-Brazil delightfully wrong-footed the US and exposed 
its policy for the murderous charade it is.

The US wants to reduce Iran, a major oil producer, to the obedient role it 
played under the Shah, and it will use Any Means Necessary to do it.  Recently 
it's been pretending it was worried by Iran's nuclear 'threat' (and of course, 
the 'existential threat" it poses to Israel - undoubtedly a matter of L'étre et 
le néant).

So the clever ITB's tell the Obamadmin, "You wanted the enrichment problem taken 
care of, and threatened war if it weren't.  Well, we got your enrichment program 
taken care of right here...!"

The US replies (somewhat less elegantly than the poet), "That is not it at all, 
/ That is not what I meant, at all.” Because of course it wasn't what they meant.

But they sure look silly. --CGE

On 5/18/10 11:43 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> The administration's actual response:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
>
>
> On 5/18/10 8:59 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 2. "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.
>>
>> 3. "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.
>>
>> 4. "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.
>>
>> 5. "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 <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto: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.