President Ahmadinejad’s Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim- Moshaie told reporters in Tehran today that the Islamic Republic has not backed down from its previous positions on enriched uranium swap with the West. Rahim- Moshaie said Tehran nuclear agreement with Brazil and Turkey should not be seen as a retreat.
“We have not backed down. We have not retreated form our previous positions on [enriched uranium] swap,” Rahim- Moshaie said [ISNA, 18 May].
“ Tehran agreement explicitly recognizes Iran’s right to maintain complete cycle of uranium enrichment and peaceful nuclear fuel production,” added Rahim- Moshaie. “The West wanted to portray Iran as the party unwilling to accept the [enriched uranium] swap, but the agreement proved otherwise.”
Rahim- Moshaie blasted the left critics of Tehran agreement, saying even after the swap and shipping out LEU to Turkey, the amount of LEU left inside the country will be more than the volume shipped out.
“We have no problem producing 3.5 percent LEU. We will have more LEU than the amount we will ship to Turkey,” Rahim- Moshaie said [ISNA, 18 May].
7 comments:
The agreement got a strong show of support from the Majlis, so it can be claimed that Iran, politically speaking, is unified on the matter.
An attempt is currently being made by the US to provoke the Iranians out of the agreement, by rushing forward another sanctions resolution in the UNSC.
After a moment of potentially forward momentum, the matter is once again in flux.
US hostility towards Iran is not related to the "nuclear issue" at all. It is just a smokescreen to keep on provoking Iran and maintain Zionist agenda in the region. The new "sanctions" are dangerous at they call for the interception and search of Iranian bound shipping,particularly Iranian merchant vessels. This is basically an act of war and a major provocation. Hopefully, China has better sense than to agree to this very incendiary resolution which can have grave repercussions for the region (that is exactly the Zionist goal is) and increase tensions. US and the Zionist lapgog are hoping that Iran will lash out. They are mistaken, Iran has many options. This new rushed sore loser resolution is also a slap in the face of both Turkey and Brazil along with the G-15 and the majority of the developing world. US spoiler role also shows its declining clout and isolation.
iran prove once again the lord of unification of intire world that has not been achieved in 500 hundred years from british empire to roll of zionist in last century up today iran prove the power of internation stand whether in last un resalotion in usa which ahmadinajad speach in 11 element to all world will stand and will be the law of order to all nuclear power country back to iran last stand usa can not get any direction 1.stuck to the level of mud as try hard get deep in to it 2.not having any frash political reality to world stand for real that reason the root has got dry just in few month will see intire branches of it will dry too as turky and brizilain country they got strong world political power as no longer world need usa and 5+1 new order in un must reach in future for new country work for man kind not for sake of only one country and rub the rest of the world resources just for them only let see in few month lot hear of iran plus nam a lot they are getting much stronger ever for china moves as smart than ever rusian stard move with caution in reccant days that closer to iran idea to the usa last speach of mavadve was right time and hope he start to move better for his political soviver not for them.
Mark,
Your point is well taken, there are no outright opposition expressed to the agreement and Majlis deputies are supporting the deal. Moshaie's comments, however, were interesting. He is clearly arguing the case against the opposition from the left, probably in a pre-emptive manner.
Nader says: "He is clearly arguing the case against the opposition from the left, probably in a pre-emptive manner."
Can someone explain to this foreigner what "left" and "right" mean in Iran?
If the "left" are the Green, were they not more business friendly and less social than Ahmadinejad?
How can that be left?
What are the "principalists" left or right?
Can someone please point me to some site or book explaining the political scene in Tehran with regard to "left" and "right".
b,
You are absolutely right in pointing out that the use of the words left and right in Iranian politics has been a continued source of confusion, and probably my reference in this post adds to that! What I meant "left" in this context, is a reference to a segment of politically active folks and intellectuals who oppose US and the West on "anti-imperialist" and "anti-colonialist" grounds and believe Iran's opposition to the West is good and would weaken their power and oppose any compromise that would dilute this opposition. Such "leftist" tendency can be found in different strata of the society, including at the universities, among IRGC members, in the parliament, etc. This is not the classic Marxist definition, but mainly a reference to people who analyze and support or oppose any move by the Iranian government not so much on its effects on the Iranian people but on how such moves weakens or strengthens the position of the US and the West in the region and in the world. It cuts across the political spectrum, their colors notwithstanding.
Thanks Nader for the answer.
I do believe that there is a general problem with foreign (from Iran) folks understanding the various political standpoints in that country. This (and a lot of western propaganda) led them to also totally misunderstand the Green movement.
Liberals saw them as something on the "left", i.e. their site, when indeed they were a quite different beast.
What I would like to have is a more dimensional view on Iran politics than left and right.
To have something like the various groups "reformists" "principalist" Ahmadinejad, Mousavi Greens etc. pointed out in a two dimensional system like this: http://www.arifoundation.org/blog/?p=18 would be a great help.
One dimension for economic issues from collectivist/communist to neoliberal and one for liberty issues going from anarchist to authoritarian.
If Mark or you could provide that or could point to sources that might provide it it would be very helpful not only for foreign analysis but also for greater general understanding towards Iran.
Post a Comment