New concession to Iran as west presses for nuclear deal

Ian Traynor
Thursday June 8, 2006
The Guardian


In a major western concession, Iran is to be allowed to retain some uranium enrichment activities if it reaches agreement with the US, Russia, Europe, and China on its nuclear programme. Diplomats said yesterday that the terms of a new package of proposed rewards delivered to Tehran on Tuesday by Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, state that Iran must freeze uranium enrichment activities before and during the talks.

Once "confidence is restored in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme", it would be allowed to resume enrichment on a scale to be determined. "Those are rights under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty," said a diplomat.

Mr Solana said in Germany yesterday: "They will have to stop now, we will have to negotiate with no process of enrichment in place ... after the finalisation of the negotiations, we will see what happens."

<snip>
Until now the US has insisted on an end to enrichment as the basis for any deal. During two years of EU-Iran talks the western strategy was to secure "cessation" rather than only "suspension" of uranium enrichment. The fresh detail emerging of the package proposed to Tehran confirms another concession by the west after last week's startling U-turn by Washington, which offered to negotiate with the Iranians for the first time in 27 years.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1792739,00.html

Why would Iran yield its sovereignty up to a bunch of generally hostile western powers? Would we do so? The North Koreans agreed to similar terms with Clinton - but they were starving to death at the time. Iran is in no position where she needs to submit to this sort of humiliation.

won't yield in the long run, but that this would be a years-long set of negotiations. Of course, one could easily have far different faces at the negotiating table very soon!

Meanwhile she will continue efforts to build a nuclear deterrent. While I absolutely think that universal nuclear disarmament is essential, I can hardly fault Iran for seeking to save itself from our military adventurism by developing such a deterrent. The same NPT that we insist Iran follow beyond its actual terms, which clearly allow Iran to enrich uranium just as it is currently doing, also requires the nuclear powers to take positive steps toward disarmament. The Bush regime has moved to re-arm its nuclear forces, and has loudly proclaimed its right to first strike use of nuclear weapons if it sees fit to do so. Iran's regional neighbor Israel is sitting on an NPT-banned undeclared arsenal that is purported to be either the 5th or 3rd largest nuclear force on the planet. Nearby Pakistan is all nuked up and for some reason that is of no concern. Why would Iran consider the demands against her to be anything other than more mischief from the neocon masters of deceit?

And actually, nuclear development makes sense for Iran in a number of ways, not least of which is that they can divert more oil to sales.

Wait until they get a idiot wing-nut in control of "the button". Of course that is probably what the religious wing-nuts in the US are hoping for -- the end of the world -- so their savior can come and "save" them.

All nations of the world should be disarmed -- in my humble opinion -- which isn't worth much.

As much as I don't like the current leadership of Iran-- they are being forced to create the illusion of protecting themselves. Illusion because can any nation protect themselves from religious zealots in the White House -- 'cause that nut case has "god" speaking in his ear.