Gareth Porter : Iran spinning centrifuges - and half-truths

WASHINGTON - Iran's unexpected agreement with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, to resolve old issues surrounding its nuclear program in less than two months, and the fact that it has installed only two-thirds of the centrifuges previously announced, indicate that Tehran may be positioning itself for another bid for a diplomatic solution. ..... Iranian willingness to reach formal agreement in three separate meetings with ElBaradei in July and August to resolve all remaining issues on its past nuclear research by November was clearly aimed at moving the Iran nuclear dossier from the United Nations Security Council back to the IAEA and averting a military confrontation with the US.
Based on Iran's own previous offers, such a deal would involve a guarantee against any nuclear-weapons program through an intrusive inspection regime, in return for an approved enrichment program limited to a number of centrifuges well short of what would be required to produce nuclear weapons.

.....

The argument that Iran cannot be allowed to have any uranium enrichment assumes that a sufficient number of centrifuges by itself would allow Iran to have the capability to build nuclear weapons. News media have routinely repeated the statement that 3,000 centrifuges could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb, provided the machines run for the requisite periods.
But ElBaradei observed in an interview with The Financial Times on February 19 that even if Iran had 3,000 or more centrifuges operating, they could not go beyond 5% enrichment, which would be far below what would be required for weapons-grade uranium, as long they remain under an IAEA inspection regime.

.....

The United States has insisted that it will not negotiate with Iran on the nuclear issue until it has agreed to suspend enrichment completely, but Iran has said it will only enter talks without preconditions.

The administration of US President George W Bush is furious with ElBaradei for taking the steam out of its campaign of pressure on Iran. The IAEA report that Iran had made "a significant step forward" by agreeing to a work plan for addressing remaining nuclear issues by the end of the year makes it more difficult for the US administration to get support for ratcheting up pressure on Iran at a meeting of the IAEA next week.
Even worse for the administration, according to a report by Tom Olmstead in US News this week, the agreement "could well blunt any rapid moves at the Security Council for further sanctions".

The Washington Post, which has been vocal in support of the administration's aggressive policy toward Iran, attacked ElBaradei on Wednesday in an editorial for using his agency to "thwart" US policy. The Post accused him of refusing to "carry out the policy of the Security Council or the IAEA board" and acting "as if he were independent of them ..."
The Bush administration has long regarded the IAEA chief as an obstacle to its policy of using military threats and economic sanctions to coerce Iran to give up its nuclear program and has tried repeatedly to remove ElBaradei as general director or to get him to follow its line toward Iran.

Neo-conservatives in the administration were furious with him for having rejected its charge that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing a nuclear-weapons program before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
But ElBaradei angered administration officials again by refusing to go along with its policy of accusing Iran of having a secret nuclear-weapons program. Then-secretary of state Colin Powell confirmed in mid-December 2004 that he had asked ElBaradei to step down the previous summer.
Despite US diplomatic pressure on its allies, however, in an April 2005 showdown in the IAEA board, the US was the only one of 35 members who did not support another term for ElBaradei.