What will Iran Deal Rejection Lead To?

Posted by johnhouk on Nov 03, 2009
 John R. Houk
© November 3, 2009

Iran was supposed to have given a final decision to a document it approved in principle stipulating Iran would ship most of its nuclear fuel to Russia for enrichment rather than do the process in Iran. Iran made the deal October 21, 2009 with the deadline being October 22. Theoretically this was to alleviate Western fears of developing nuclear warheads for Iran’s already tested ICBM’s. I expressed the thoughts that neither Iran nor Russia could be trusted in such a deal.

October 22 has come and gone with Iran claiming IAEA ElBaradei made no such deadline. Rather ElBaradei merely suggested a response time.

Of course this a typical stall tactic employed quite successfully by Iran whenever the psycho-ruling Shi’ite Clerics felt international pressure needed a bit of smoke and mirrors.

As of November 2 it is obvious Iran is backing away from the plan agreed on in principle on October 21. Officially Iran has is still claiming adherence to the plan with only a few minor details being changed. The reality is the minor details is a full about face counter-proposal. This indicates that Iran still has every intention of constructing nuclear weapons. If this is the case as I believe then John Bolton’s advice for a pre-emptive strike by Israel is well founded.

Probably for political purposes the Obama Administration via Secretary State Clinton has publicly taken the stand there will be no other deal for Iran. There indications that the Obama Administration are drawing up plans for stiff sanctions to be imposed on Iran. This leaves one to wonder: What are the stiffer sanctions Obama intends to use? If they are as toothless as in the past then why even bother to have sanctions. Simply do what Obama’s Administration has been hoping anyway; i.e. give Iran a rubber stamp of inevitability as a regional nuke power and mold foreign policy accordingly.

Will Israel become a Lone Ranger and strike Iran when it understands completely where Obama foreign policy is leading concerning Iranian nuclear weapons?

There is an Iran nuclear analysis provided by AP writer Brian Murphy concerning Iranian President Ahmadinejad toward the West, America and Israel. The part of the analysis that struck me is that Ahmadinejad is willing to go the extra distance in his arrogant disdain of American power as a deterrent. So I ask again, “What will Israel do?”

JRH 11/3/09 (Hat Tip: United Against Nuclear Iran)
*************************
Analysis: Iran in no hurry to cut nuclear deal

By BRIAN MURPHY
The Associated Press
Monday, November 2, 2009; 8:57 AM
Washington Post

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- If Western leaders were still puzzling over Iran's approach to nuclear talks, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered a timely tutorial.

It came complete with a dismissive sound bite - comparing Iran's foes to a mosquito - a bit of boasting about Iran's prestige and a touch of self-analysis. Iran's president said Sunday that Tehran doesn't trust the West to keep its promises.

Added together, it helps explain Iran's zigzag reactions last week to a U.N.-drafted nuclear pact, and why Iran is in no hurry to cut a deal.
For days, Iran had hinted that it would back the essential element of the U.N. offer - to send about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile out of the country - but wanted some changes to the formula.

Those changes turned out to be more like a full counter proposal.

The response Thursday - as described by diplomats - essentially seeks to keep the uranium in Iran. That could be an ultimate deal breaker, because the West wants to pare down Iran's store of low-enriched uranium to a point where it cannot make a nuclear warhead - at least temporarily.

But no one is ready to call it quits yet. Washington and its allies are hoping Iran softens its position. On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in Malaysia that bargaining was still possible.

Asked if Tehran has rejected the deal, Mottaki said: "No."

Hours later in Vienna, Iran's chief envoy to the U.N. nuclear agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Iran wanted to buy ready-made fuel for its research reactor. He did not directly answer when asked whether this was a rejection of the U.N. proposal, which aims to reduced Iran's uranium stockpile by having them ship some of it abroad to turn it into nuclear fuel.

These statements may be viewed in Western capitals as a sign that Iran is still testing the waters. Many also will them as another stalling tactic.

Iran's negotiations with the West have been a master class in slo-mo diplomacy. Since uranium enrichment was restarted three years ago, Iran has been able to draw out a showdown by offering just enough to the West when the heat became uncomfortable.

"Iran believes time is on their side for now," said Mustafa Alani, a regional analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

That is because there's little in the U.N. plan that Iran likes and no serious domestic pressure for unpopular compromises. Standing firm, meanwhile, brings some immediate dividends.

Ahmadinejad and his hard-line allies can claim the high ground as defenders of Iran's national dignity and strides in nuclear technology. It's particularly tempting for Ahmadinejad, a rare opportunity to cross the political no man's land after June's disputed elections. Even his harshest opponents take pride in Iran's nuclear accomplishments.

Ahmadinejad played this to full effect Sunday. In a posting on a government Web site, he was quoted as describing the nuclear negotiations as a match between Goliath Iran and an annoying insect.

"While enemies have used all their capacities ... the Iranian nation is standing powerfully and (Iran's foes) are like a mosquito," he said.

He further scolded the West for what he called a history of broken promises. Iran, he said, "looks at the talks with no trust."

The trust gap comes with a long back story. Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran says it made a deal with France for a 10 percent stake in a nuclear plant and was expected to receive 50 tons of UF-6 gas, which can be turned into enriched uranium. But Iran claims it never received even a gram.

To Iranian leaders, that's just another example of perceived Western bullying, which also include sanctions and a lack of pressure on Israel to open itself to international nuclear scrutiny. Israel is widely considered to have nuclear arms, but has never publicly disclosed details - and has left open the option of military action to block Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In the current context, Iranian authorities also raise worries about Iran's self-sufficiency or of being at the mercy of the West for reactor fuel. Those are powerful themes inside Iran - making it unlikely that Iranian leaders would stoke such anxieties and then agree to the U.N. package.

Iran insists its nuclear program is only for research and energy production and has reportedly floated a counterproposal: to enrich uranium to reactor-ready strength at home with monitoring by the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog group.

But Western leaders are not biting on Iran's Plan B.

On Friday, the European Union expressed "grave concern" about Iran's nuclear program and "persistent failure to meet its international obligations." In Washington, the reaction has been more muted, but President Barack Obama does not favor open-ended talks.

Congress also could give the White House new sanctions leverage, this time to penalize foreign firms that sell and ship refined petroleum products to Iran. That is perhaps Iran's most vulnerable point. Right now, it must already import about 40 percent of its gasoline and other fuel products.

But there's no sign of panic from Tehran. The country has ridden out U.S. and international sanctions for years and can look to its economic ties with China and Russia as major buffers.

For the moment, it appears Iran instead is banking on the gravitas of the groundbreaking talks that opened new channels with the United States.

The West may be reluctant to step away from a level of outreach that would be hard to recapture. Yet there is certainly an expiration date on Washington's patience.

"The president's time is not unlimited," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday.
_______________________
 What will Iran Deal Rejection Lead To?
John R. Houk
© November 3, 2009
_____________________

Analysis: Iran in no hurry to cut nuclear deal
Brian Murphy, the Associated Press bureau chief in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has covered Iranian affairs for more than 10 years.
© Copyright 1996-2009 The Washington Post Company

Leave a COMMENT.

powered by [ stevencopley.com ]