In closet to a formal response delivered by Tehran to IAEA after months of speculations, Iran has rejected the terms of a nuclear deal to ship most of its low enriched uranium abroad in return for higher-grade fuel needed for its nuclear research reactor. The structure of the deal was to ease concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran instead has suggested an alternative involving a simultaneous exchange on its territory, a plan very unlikely to be acceptable to the West.
The Western media is quick to characterize any of Iran's nuclear offers and counteroffers as a "rejection" of a nuclear deal that it pretty much portrays as take-it-or-leave-it.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, the bargaining positions are not that far apart. If the Turkey deal is serious, that's not that far removed from shipping to Russia. I'm sure cooler heads in China- a country not so much subject to divisive, short-sighted political opportunism or a powerful lobby representing a foreign interest- realizes this.
China is encouraging the diplomatic process. Perhaps talk of deadlines is fading into the background. Maybe a more sincere diplomatic effort will take place. We're hopeful.
The Headline is wrong as even the text says: "Iran has rejected the terms of a nuclear deal"
ReplyDeleteWhy then is the headline "Iran rejects Nuclear Deal"?
It hasn't done that at all. It is just haggling about the terms.
I agree with Mark - common terms can be found if the "west" wants to make the deal. So far I unfortunately see no sign of that.
The chain of events started with Ahmadinejad who first proposed some form of swap; then there were Vienna talks last October; Iran's rep was present at the talks; IAEA put a proposal together as a result of those talks; Iran leaders gave conflicting responses to the proposal for months; now they have rejected that specific proposal. This is my narrative and I stand firm on use of the word "reject."
ReplyDeleteIran has now put forward a proposal of its own; this proposal is rejected by the West; the West original intent in Vienna was to force Iran to give up up to 70% of its current LEU for higher grade fuel as a means to prevent Iran to build the bomb soon; and the maneuvering to reach a nuclear deal will continue at least for a while longer.
At the end of the day, absent a nuclear deal, the tensions with Iran and real dangers of a conflict will continue. Iran will have to decide if striking a deal with the West on this issue serves its interests best, or does it want to continue the status quo of no deal, meaning continued tensions and possible conflict.
nice post. thanks.
ReplyDelete