Iran promise to send nuclear fuel abroad: A major concession?
The real test, caution some, is whether Iran follows through on the tentative nuclear deal that would effectively prevent Tehran from developing a bomb.
By Dan Murphy | Staff writer 10.02.09
Thursday’s meeting in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program had been framed in such a way that as long as it didn’t deteriorate into name-calling and threats it would have been considered a “success.” Iran, for its part, had insisted that it wouldn’t talk about its own nuclear program ahead of the talks, and hinted instead it was far more interested in regional nuclear disarmament, seeking to put the focus on Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons.
But the meeting produced results that far exceeded the low, low expectations that the US and its negotiating partners – Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany – had set for the event: Iran promised to send most of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) abroad.
Iran’s current stockpile of LEU is about 3,200 pounds – more than enough, in theory, to be converted into sufficient highly enriched uranium to produce one nuclear bomb. That fact was disclosed earlier this year, creating concerns among the US and other governments that Iran’s nuclear program – which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes only – was moving ever closer to nuclear-weapon production.
But in what some commentators are calling a vindication of President Barack Obama’s willingness to engage directly with Iran, the country promised at the end of the meeting to send “most” of its existing stockpile of LEU – reportedly about 2,600 pounds of the 3,200-pound total – for processing abroad, according to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
The fuel would be enriched further in Russia, sent on to France for further technical modifications and then be returned to Iran enriched to a level sufficient to help run its small reactor for producing medical isotopes but well below the level required to make a nuclear bomb.
Iran has agreed ‘in principle’
The agreement for now is “in principle” and there are no guarantees that Iran will follow through. But if it does, it will mark the first significant step in at least a decade that the country will have taken away from the capacity to make a bomb. On the US side, the demand that Iran give up its enrichment program entirely before progress can be made appears to have been shelved.
Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan and a sharp Bush critic, borrowed a phrase from online gaming culture in his blog Friday, saying Obama had “pwned” former President Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney with their “axis of evil” rhetoric. (For an interesting side-story on the word ‘pwn’ and how it came to be, see the Urban Dictionary.)
“Obama… got more concessions from Iran in 7 1/2 hours than the former administration got in 8 years of saber-rattling,” writes Dr. Cole, though he added “the steps outlined… are only pledges on Iran’s part, of course, and we have to see if they are implemented.”
Gary Sick, a senior research fellow at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, took a similar view. Dr. Sick, who served on the National Security Council under three US presidents and was the senior White House aide on Iran during the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution, wrote that “by all accounts, instead of being a food fight leading to a total breakdown, the Geneva talks were serious, businesslike, and even cordial… this was a historic moment after thirty years of mutual recriminations and hyperbole. ”
“Both sides evidently came prepared to behave civilly, to make some small but important concessions, and to initiate a process of negotiation that has been on ice almost since the moment that George W. Bush decided, for arcane reasons of his own, to declare Iran (which had just finished working closely with the United States to establish a new civil government in Afghanistan) a charter member of the Axis of Evil,” he wrote.
But he also cautioned, like Solana, that this was only the beginning. “One swallow does not a summer make, and it would be a mistake to think that the results of the Geneva meetings were anything more than the first baby steps along a perilous and unpredictable path,” Sick said.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page was less congratulatory, saying the concessions were “surprisingly modest” and that in exchange a “respectability” was conferred on the Iranian regime that “Mr. Ahmadinejad could only have imagined amid his vicious post-election crackdown.”
It also said Iranian commitments should not be trusted. “On long evidence, the regime has no intention of stopping a nuclear program that would give it new power in the region, and new leverage against America.”
More details on the enrichment deal
Iran also agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit a recently revealed second uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qom within two weeks. It also promised that its negotiators would meet the US and other members of the so-called P5+1 – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany – before the end of October.
Iran has long insisted that it needed to control its own nuclear fuel cycle since, it said, it couldn’t take the chance that foreign powers would cut off its access to the fuel it needs for fuel for its peaceful reactors. A Russian proposal much like the one agreed to on Thursday has been on the table for years without a positive response from Tehran. Citing unnamed US and other Western officials, Reuters reports that the plan “would be a ‘confidence-building’ gesture that would show that Iran is willing to let its uranium stocks out of the country and be enriched elsewhere.”
The fuel would be returned to the Tehran research reactor, which was built in 1967 with American assistance as part of the US “atoms for peace” program. The reactor produces medical isotopes used to treat cancer and other diseases. That facility is monitored by the IAEA, and if the plant is run as planned all the fuel that is to be processed abroad and returned would be used up within about a year. It would also take roughly a year for the uranium to go abroad for processing.
The New York Times extracted an acknowledgment from an unnamed US official that if Iran has secret stockpiles of uranium and secret processing plants, Thursday’s accomplishment would be rendered “hollow,” as the Times put it.
Will Iran follow through?
The major question for the coming days, as most commentators have pointed out, will be follow-through. Iranian officials have so far not commented on the deal, and if they publicly back away, this could prove to be something of a false dawn. But if implementation is forthcoming, it opens up a host of intriguing questions as to why.
Is President Ahmadinejad responding to criticism from his political opponents and his own establishment that intransigence on the nuclear issue has harmed Iran and isolated it from much of the international community? Were other, private guarantees made in direct talks between chief US nuclear negotiator William Burns and his Iranian counterpart, Saeed Jalili? Was it simply that an emerging consensus among the great powers – with even Russia saying its patience had limits – that more sanctions would be placed on Iran if progress wasn’t made by year’s end finally forced the Islamic republic’s hand?
Stay tuned.
How close is Iran to a nuclear bomb?
<< Gilad Shalit video airs in Israel, and online, after prisoner release | MainComments
2. AP | 10.02.09
It is most likely because, the Iranian regime has no domestic credibility left, so it can not rely on nationalism to advance its nuclear program.
they therefore acquiesce to the demands of foreign powers.
so much for their revolutionary credentials. Survival in power trumps nationalism.
3. thomas | 10.02.09
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”.
Now if the 5 permament members of the UN Security Council (Russian, China, France, Britain and the U.S.) would live up to their Nonproliferation Treaty which requires them to disarm their nuclear warheads then we would be getting somewhere.
Of course, this leaves Israel, Pakistan and India out of the loop and they should be taken to task for having nuclear weapons.
5. Mickey from San Fran | 10.02.09
Quoting radical Israel-hating lefty Juan Cole about GWB is pathetic and laughable.
6. TC | 10.02.09
The truth is that Iran is using a deception tactic to buy time. I believe they have a SECRET Nuclear program running PARALLEL with the public program for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. You can not trust the Iraninas due to their past deceptions incidents. The longer the WAIT FOR SACTIONS the sooner Israel will feel compel to attack and the sooner we would end up in another war.
7. Damon Hastings | 10.02.09
Cyrus wrote: “THe IAEA has repeatedly stated that it has no evidence that Iran wants to build nukes in the first place, so this hype about “preventing” Iran from making bombs is laughable.”
You know, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Iran has no nuclear weapons program at the moment. They wouldn’t really need one yet. You see, it’s not difficult to build a nuclear warhead; you could build one from scratch in maybe a single year. The hard part is enriching the uranium.
Iran can enrich the uranium up to fuel grade under the auspices of a truly legitimate civilian energy project. The IAEA would find nothing suspicious, because there *is* nothing suspicious. But at some point, Iran would have to build a secret enrichment facility to take it the rest of the way to weapons grade. This facility would not be much different from any other, aside from the fact that it’s secret. So if Iran has weapon-related intentions, then we should be watching for them trying to build secret enrichment facilities, because that would be the first sign.
Oh, wait…
8. Philip | 10.02.09
Iran is playing the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany like a bass fiddle! Talk,talk talk talk and more talk! When it looks like the world may finally do something, they offer some minor concession and then it’s back to talking. What a joke! We should send over the inspectors and a couple of aircraft carriers and a fleet of Predators! If the inspectors are impeded for one minute, we should initiate a regime change. That strategy worked wonders in Libya! Of course, that was when we had a president that had an interest in protecting the U.S. and our allies! Iran and and Iraq fought a ten year war to a stand-off and the U.S. walked the Iraqi defenses in a matter of hours! Ahmadinejad is nothing but mouth just like Hussein!
9. Jan S | 10.02.09
I don’t think it matters much if Iran does or does not have the bomb. After all, the USA and Russia have had bombs galore for over fifty years and haven’t used them. I can’t see any country initiating a nuclear war because they know there would be massive retaliations. But what is dangerous is the possibility of a bomb falling into the hands of terrorists who have no country to be punished for its use. That’s why, if civilization is to survive, the world must find a way to disarm all countries of all nuclear weapons.
10. Mickey | 10.02.09
I am curious what steps the five UN security council members are taking (if any) to disarm their own nuclear warheads. Also, if any nation in the world possesses nuclear warheads (the five members plus India, Pak, Israel) does that nation have any moral credibility to ask any other nation give up their nuclear arms ambition?
11. Robert | 10.02.09
Much as Iraq no longer possessed WMD after years of inspections yet the West conjured up plenty of illusory evidence of such the agents of destruction again insist that Iran is developing nukes while undergoing IAEA inspections. Well, the question is simple. Prove it. Where are these supposed Nuclear bomb development sites?
The silence is deafening.
12. Cyrus | 10.02.09
Dan Hastings — the problem with your scenario is that 1-it could apply to ANY country that has ANY nuclear enrichment program (including BRazil and Argentina) and so it doesn’t mean anything (after all how can Iran prove that it won’t potentially do something in the indefinite future?) and 2- THe Job of the IAEA is to catch any such secret weapons program, and that’s why they secure and monitor Iran’s stockpile of uranium and account for every ounce, and 3- Iran has voluntarily offered to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program that go well beyond internaitonal legal obligations to address the very hypothetical fear that it could one day make a bomb — for example by offering to open up its nuclear program to multinational participation. The US ignored that offer, why? Because nuclear weapons are NOT THE ISSUE. The US is trying to deprive Iran of the ability to make nuclear FUEL, for ECONOMIC reasons, and is merely using “weapons” as a pretext. Like I said, this is a long-standing conflict between developing and developed nations that goes back much further than the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. You’re being misdirected and scaremongered, so you won’t see the real agenda at work
13. David Green | 10.02.09
The last time we had overexaggerated news reports of nuclear stockpiles and UN inspectors we went to war, we bankrupted our country, and destroyed a nation that did actually have many innocent civilian’s who’s lives were ruined. It is wrong. We need to continue to treat Iran in a civil manner, as a sovereign nation, and continue with diplomatic talks, even if it takes years. They are not a threat to us. Pre-emptive strikes will bring us nowhere. And besides, it’s not really much of our concern anyway, we have domestic issues that should be dealt with first. We cannot be the world police.
14. LewisM3 | 10.02.09
A good point was made in this article. Obama accomplised more in the 7.5 hours with Iran than any other administration. What I don’t think some posters here realize is Iran’s history. The remarks Iran’s leadership has made towards Israel, the U.S. and Europe. It does seem a bit hypocritical that the U.S. or any other nuclear armed countries. To empose sanctions against Iran or any other country for that matter.
15. COLINDALE London | 10.03.09
Even more important than illegal settlement expansion, is nuclear proliferation.
NO SERIOUS DISCUSSION can take place on nuclear arms reduction and non proliferation until full exposure takes place of the massive, secret ISRAELI nuclear arms arsenal in the Negev desert, that is currently completely outside of IAEA inspection.
To do so and ignore this ‘giant elephant in the room’, would simply be nonsensical.
It would lead to a situation whereby not only US foreign policy lies with the Israeli lobby but also global military and political control.
Such a decision would be indefensible. CD
The absolute imperative to control NUCLEAR WEAPONS and their proliferation
The immediate danger that President Obama has to face is the reality of the fact that his immediate predecessor helped built Israel into possibly the 3rd most powerful nuclear state on the planet - the agenda for such totally irresponsible action, being incomprehensible.
To have made Dimona in the Negev the largest secret nuclear weapons store anywhere, cannot have been to ensure the safety of America, or Europe or the Middle East - but it has virtually ensured that, under the control of a political system that has little integrity, there will inevitably be a nuclear weapons strike in the region within the near future.
The region is now so unstable and the politics so unpredictable and the hatred so fierce, in the aftermath of the massacre in Gaza, that it is a merely a matter of time. That is the danger we face, in the UK, in Europe and eventually in the US and the Americas.
It will then not be a matter of oil or carbon footprints but of human survival on a planet blind to the dangers it faces and the absolute imperative to control nuclear weapons and the ambitions of those who will kill without compunction in order to achieve their aims. I have no doubt that Mr Obama is more aware of these dangers than I am - the point is, how far will he be opposed by the powerful, Israel lobby?
Iran is not the huge elephant in the room. Whilst Americas, Russia and Britain are considering reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles – Israel is increasing hers.
Whilst the UK is proposing to reduce its nuclear strike submarine fleet to three, Israel is reported to be increasing its nuclear strike submarine fleet to five! The UK has a population of 60 million. Israel has just 6 million and is about the size of Wales. The UK has a stable government with a working majority. Israel has an unstable coalition.
Where is the logic in this Kafkaesque scenario?
16. Amartia | 10.03.09
Your are misinterpreting the deal and letting new developments (Qom facility) to shadow the main problem and outstanding demands. The Iranian regime is in noway relinquishing enrichment (it even gets a temporary halt on further sanctions while retaining enrichment). Iran has essentially changed the game’s court. Before the recent revelations Western demands were that it suspend its enrichment. Now with further developments West demands that it clarify about its new nuclear site. Although sending 2600 pounds of lowly-enriched uranium (up to 5%) abroad for further processing (to %20 for Tehran medical nuclear reactor) temporarily (for approximately one-year needed to replenish the depleted enriched uranium stockpiles) relieves Western worries about the possible diversion of this already enriched material to military uses (by causing a temporary reduction in Iranian stockpile of enriched uranium), it also buys time for Iran to temporarily escape from further sanctions. It could be called a win-win deal, but it is only a temporary relief which Iranian regime badly needed at a time of its unprecedented legitimacy crisis, internal power struggle and popular (and pitilessly suppressed) protests.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for Iran promise to send nuclear fuel abroad: A major concession? | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.02.09
6. Obama Wins The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize,The Highest Honor, But Isn’t It Too Early?, « GOSSIBOO | 10.09.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Cyrus | 10.02.09
THe IAEA has repeatedly stated that it has no evidence that Iran wants to build nukes in the first place, so this hype about “preventing” Iran from making bombs is laughable. The hype will nevertheless continue, with some new conspiracy theory. Why? The fact is that using the guise of non-proliferation, we’re trying to deprive a developing country of their right to enrich uranium, the sole energy source of the near future. This is long-standing conflict betweeen developing and developed states, which our media ignores.