U.S.
Rejects the Plan's Structure
The
New York Times reports that Iran has offered a “nine-step plan” to resolve its
nuclear impasse with the West. The U.S. has reportedly rejected the plan for
requiring many concessions by the West prior to Iran’s abandoning parts of its
nuclear program. The Iranian offer comes amid the free fall of its national
currency, skyrocketing of prices at home and resulting street protests,
exposing the high cost of the nuclear program-related sanctions for the
country.
The
“nine-step plan” calls for gradual suspension of the country’s 20-percent
uranium enrichment program at Fordo Enrichment Facility near Qum in return for
dismantling of all the sanctions by the West.
The U.S. objection was reportedly on the way the offer was structured,
namely calling for dismantling of all sanctions and restoration of the
country’s oil revenue before would there be a suspension of work at Fordo, just
one of the country’s nuclear facilities. The plan also would keep Iran’s
current inventory of 20-percent fuel inside the country.
“The way they have structured it, you can move the fuel around, and it
stays inside the country,” a senior Obama administration told the Times. “They
could restart the program in a nanosecond.”
“(Under the plan), they don’t have to answer any questions from the
inspectors” about evidence that they conducted research on nuclear weapons technology,
but nonetheless would insist on a statement from the agency that all issues
have been resolved,” the official added.
Source: The New York Times, 5 October 2012
15 comments:
This was offered in June and it's old news.
this is another attempt at offering a plan where tall the sanctions are lifted and then Iran ceases production at only ONE of at least sites where uranium is enriched to 20%....leaving Iran free to continue, only not at Fordow.
as well, the Iranian plan says that they need not answer any questions about their nuclear program's activities but the IAEA must issue a letter saying that Iran is in full compliance and there are no complaints.
---------
This a an interesting proposal and the best way to answer it is be asking them to kiss the back of the world's lap and then get serious.
Anons 1:31PM and 2:51PM
You should better learn a history of previous nuclear negotiations between the West and North Korea, before making so flawed and biased comments.
The West in that case had agreed to a deal and later did not fulfill or broken all its promises.
Read about the 1994 Agreed Framework between the North Korea and the US and its implementation by the Western side.
That is the reason that Iran is willing to stop enrichment at Fordow after all sanction will be lifted.
Iran stated that it will suspend enrichment at other sides earlier and will wait and see whether the West lifts remaining sanctions gradually, before the enichment at Fordow will be suspended or eliminated.
Dissident
Dissy--- make all the excuses that you can. try to offer explanations for why it's not serious or even meant to be seens as serious by anyone not ignorant.
but it doesn't change.
the plan offered is farcical.
learn to tell better fibs or forego the effort.
and there is NOTHING in the plan that says that enrichment at any site other than Fardow will be eliminated...... suspended.... you little untruthful thing......suspended.......has an entirely different meaning.
Dissident,
“Iran stated that it will suspend enrichment at other sides earlier.”
What’s the source? Is it in the “nine-step plan”? Are you saying Iran’s offer includes closing all enrichment sites, like Natanz, with Fordo to be the last?
Nader Uskowi
Iran will suspend its 20% enrichment at other sides (than Fordo) before all sanctions will be lifted or after lifting of sanctions will commence.
Sources western press including NYT, The Guardian and Washington Post as well as the Fars Agency.
The plan is open for discussion with the West, regarding other issues, and envisages that lower enrichment will be continued.
The plan assumes that the Fordo facility would close its enrichment at the end of the implementation of that agreement (lifting sanctions and promise to sell in the future 20% uranium to Iran) and because the Fordo's immunity would secure Iran's nuclear enrichment in a case where the West would not implement its obligations (like with the NK in the past) and decided instead to use other means of destruction or sabotage of the Islamic Republic's system.
Dissident
Enrichment for US-Dollar as Iranian national currency; I believe that would be the deal; I would take it ...
Anon 3:28Pm
Stay with losers like you wish.
Islamic Republic will do well regardless of any futile and masturbating efforts, which are perpetuated by losers on this small blog.
Anon 5:56 PM,
Regardless of what the Islamic Republic would do, you do not need to spend your time on this small blog and should instead engage in efforts as you have described it.
Dissident,
Thanks. Didn't realize that Iran was enriching at 20 percent at sites other than Fordo.
Nader Uskowi 10:36PM
It has been officialy decided that the 20% enrichment was reassigned to the Fordo facility and that means that the previous site still possesses that capability.
In the previous years, the government of Iran ordered the AEOI to begin construction of five uranium enrichment sites that had already been studied and proposed 5 other sites for future construction. Therefore any descriptions suggesting multiple sites should be understood in that previously described context.
I would also like to add that Mr. Soltanieh was the first Iranian official to go on record by saying that Iran has proposed a deal that would end its 20-percent enrichment entirely in an interview with the Inter Press Service, although it had been reported previously.
Mr. Ahmedinejad during his interviews in New York also provided partial information about 20% enrichment proposal which has been delivered by Mr. S. Jalili to the EU Foreign Policy Chief Ms. C. Ashton on September 19, 2012.
Because that proposal was meant for a consideration and intended for modifications, therefore precise details were not released to the public by my opinion.
An article in the NYT used some sarcastic - "election designed" opinions, made by the US government's official and related to that proposal.
Dissident
Iran has only two uranium enrichment facilities: Natanz and Fordo. The 20-percent enrichment program has been transferred to Fordo.
Mr. Jalili has denied the report on a plan offered to the EU to end the standoff.
Nader Uskowi 6:04pm
- " Mr. Jalili has denied the report on a plan offered to EU to end the standoff".
There is a difference between words "plan" and "proposal" especially in diplomatic wording.
In a diplomacy, if one deals with an irresponsible or deceiving partner, one can whitdraw an offer and claim that a plan was not offered if the other side breached a confidentiality or ridiculed the offer.
As reported by the NYT, US government's official disclosed an opinion, before any negotiations has taken place, using sarcastic and ridiculing descriptions such as 'they could restart programs in nanoseconds...' or that 'they move (hide enriched uranium?) around...'
It shows the adversary is not interested to look for a true solutions and that nuclear weapon's argument is a pretext similar to that that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.
The IAEA has current knowledge about how many and where are the places in Iran, where any enrichment can be done.
Dissident
The New York Times or its analysts are not the parties to negotiations and any plan or proposal by Iran should not be affected by the kind of reporting or language they use to describe them.
Nader Uskowi 8:52Am
Whatever consequences and interpretations, Iranian negotiators have coused that the "ball" is in the western court now and it will be the West that has to straighten that situation.
Ms. Ashton and her staff were responsible for a confidentiality and the action to faciliate a mutual solution.
If the NYT disseminates untrue information or pre-election propaganda then the Iranian side is not the one to blame..
If one have to take stand in those matters it is Ms. Ashton.
I still believe that Iranian diplomacy has taken an opportunity to show the true West's attitude and to make the West responsible for a next step, if they ridicule or don't like what Iran offers. The West has assumed that Iranian negotiators will have to substantiate and negotiate their proposals with "newspapers" before the West will reject them.
Therefore in that situation, Iran considered those proposals as a nonexisting ones, due to the failure of the other side to act in good faith.
If the NYT is not responsible then who in the US is reponsible?
Dissident
Post a Comment