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

[C. G. Estabrook]

I agree.

See 
<http://truth_addict.blogspot.com/2010/05/whats-deal-iran-turkey-us-and-nukes.html>.


On 5/18/10 2:24 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> My response is that you are whistling through your teeth, that all the U.S.
> is doing is to try to counteract the obvious peace-creating moves that Brazil
> and Turkey have accomplished. The basic antagonism to the Iran regime is at
> the root of the foreign policies of this administration, and all its actions
> are intended to undermine that regime. The careful wording to which you
> allude is in my opinion nothing but an attempt to continue to put pressure on
> the Iran regime while not seeming lurching to war, thus by not showing their
> hand. I don't believe the Iran as constituted will ever satisfy this
> administration. The Israel-Palestine issue remains, as always, in the
> background, with Israel and its Lobbyists still clamoring for more aggression
> by the U.S.
>
> In other words, the whole U.S. posture is a charade, one, however, that is
> causing problems for the administration. May it continue to have problems on
> this score. I hope I am wrong.
>
> --mkb
>
> On May 18, 2010, at 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.
>>

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