Accepting Russia’s “Step-by-Step” Proposal Not Enough
Hours after Iran and Russia agreed on the new Russian “step-by-step” proposal as the first step to restart nuclear talks between Iran and the six major powers, France said Iran also must implement all six UN Security Council resolutions calling for the halt to its uranium enrichment program.
"We have constantly affirmed that Iran must implement the six Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program," French Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Christine Fages said in answer to questions on the Russian proposal [AFP, 17 August].
France maintains that the Iranian program, especially the rapid acceleration of enriching uranium to 20 percent purity, has no credible civilian use and could be part of a nuclear weapon production program. France has also questioned Iran’s missile program, regarding it as part of the country’s nuclear weaponization drive.
Iran has consistently denied any intentions to build the bomb, but has forcefully argued that enriching uranium for civilian use is its alienable right and it will not stop it and it has also argued that its missile program is defensive in nature.
23 comments:
France who ??
Who the hell do these French think they are? Feeling a little left out?
They're only interested Iran's nuclear program because it's the only tool they have their stupid "lets contain Iran" policy.
How many UN resolutions have Israel broken or complied with?
The real issue regarding the nuclear dispute is whether and how much Iran wants to compromise in order to have the sanctions, particularly the banking sanctions, lifted. France, probably as a spokesman for the most of the Group 5+1 is setting the bar for the upcoming negotiations. I am interested in your take on Iran’s strategy here. If it does not make any compromise, the banking sanctions might get worst. If it compromises too much, it might lose its supporters, especially the hardcore supporters. A tricky position. We’ll follow this important story closely.
France who ??
the bankrupt EU has noting to say
Give the West an inch, and eventually they will bomb you. The moment Iran's resolve appears to flicker the countdown will begin towards military confrontation.
The EU and the US are about to be inundated by economic problems that pale in comparison to anything they may wish to inflict upon Iran.
The US vice president is in China right now seeking Chinese support for the US economy, the idea that the US could make China alter its relationship with Iran to its (China's) economic detriment is laughable. And as China goes, so goes Asia. Who cares about the West?
Diplomacy is an art form for the uninitiated.
The fact that this is a Russian proposal after years of backstabbing the Iranians means that there is an unwritten understanding between US and Russia. The fact that France is objecting instead of the US, confirms this (in fact, US silence is deafening).
Should the western P5+1 refuse to negotiate, Russia and China will walk away from this charade. You see, Russia needs Iran as Syria is about to be cornered; Bushehr is going to launch without anymore excuses, that means Iran will get its S-300 delivery (its a packaged deal); Iran has demonstrated its ability to circumvent the banking crisis with India; and Iran is about to force the US to leave Iraq by the end of this year empty handed due to its influence in Iraq (not withstanding any face-saving gestures).
In essence, Russia has concluded that the Iranians are winners in the short-term. So, they are going to ride this pony while the cowboy gets its financial house in order. Yes, it is a cold, cold world. That means this is a diplomatic take it or leave it proposal.
2cold.
The EU and US are bankrupt economies their military is third rate their human rights questionable.
But in comparison Iran has a first rate and very successful economy a very powerful and up to date military with a honest government and bureaucracy striving for human rights and personal liberty.
If you believe this you believe anything.
----Gifted one said...
Give the West an inch, and eventually they will bomb you.----
that's about 100% wrong.
Iran's failure to give an inch is what's likely to result in getting a foot shoved up its back.
Ladies and Gents,
Let’s go back to the issue on hand here: Iran’s nuclear program. Few points:
1. Nuclear weapons in and by themselves do not equate to power and influence. Look at the Pakistani government. They probably have more nukes than Britain, but on its way to become a failed state.
2. The real power and influence comes from country’s economic power and their internal innovation and reconstruction capabilities. China is rising to the top of the list mainly because of its economy. A comparison of China and Pakistan should show that power and influence comes primarily from the countries’ strength of their economies and their capabilities for innovation and reconstruction.
3. Iran has said repeatedly, and Khamenei particularly has said based on his religious beliefs that the country does not intend to build the bomb and indeed it does not have any weaponization program. If this is true, which I accept it as rue, then why they are shutting down compromises. If the country’s aim is not building the bomb, why should it take all the hit from sanctions, especially banking sanctions, to accelerate 20% uranium enrichment?
4. Sanctions, and banking sanctions in particular, is hurting the Iranian economy in a major way. To become a major regional power, Iran needs to develop its economy beyond cash for oil arrangement. The banking sanctions are obstacle to such a goal.
5. Iran has said that it has the right to enrich uranium for civilian use. This is an undisputable fact. Why not accept a limited enrichment program, coupled with an inspection regime against any weaponization program to have the sanctions lifted and the economy prosper?
Nader,
Failure to compromise?
How soon we forget the 2003 Paris Agreement!
How soon we forget the 2010 Tehran Declaration!
Or I take it you think Iran and its 80% or more majority in favor of their nuclear rights don't deserve it.
---How soon we forget the 2003 Paris Agreement!---
Iran has tried really hard to forget it
or at least decided not to stick to it.
Nader, most people think Us-Iran relations started in 1979, and most people think US-China relations have always been as they are now.
US-Iran relations closely tracks the relationship the US had with China in the mid to late 20th century. The US refused the recognize the communist govt, worked to embargo/sanction the Communists of China, threatened to bomb it when China began to develop nuclear tech, etc.
China aided the Vietnamese, and the Koreans against the US, just like Iran aids Hamas and Hezbollah.
China stuck to it's principles, and the US eventually had to accept reality.
Thanks for excellent comments. The jest of my 10:02 PM comments is about future and not the past. When I am referring to compromise, I am talking about compromises in future talks, not what has happened in the past (past is past and we cannot change it now).
Compromise by definition is a two-way street. The West needs to accept Iran as a country capable of a world-class nuclear power industry, and actually needs to provide latest technology for Iran to achieve its goals in this field, and Iran needs to limit its enrichment program and expands the inspection regime to demonstrate its determination not to develop a military dimension to its nuclear program, as repeatedly stated by Ayatollah Khamenei. A different version of a “Grand Bargain” could also be reworked. Iran needs to be assured and reassured that all major powers recognize its existence and its rights. What happened in 2003 on grand bargain proposal is a great topic for the historians, doesn’t help us much with the situation now, the two sides should rework their strategy for future. This impasse has to come to an end.
Gifted One, the US-China relations have undergone a historic shift, as you have so eloquently pointed out. But the factor here applicable to present circumstances is the principle of change and pragmatism. Relations always go through these drastic shifts. In case of US from the middle of last century to now, it’s not just relations with Chin, but with Germany, Japan, Vietnam and other southeast Asian countries, and I expect same to happen soon with respect to Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. Relations are not frozen in time, they change! We need to recognize that and be ready for the change and make the change possible.
My take from US-China example, aside from this general principle, is that China forced the change so ably, by building an economic powerhouse and following a new pragmatic policy not guided by ideology, but by pragmatic needs of the Chines nation.
zero tollerance on anti Iranian western gestures is the only way forward...
All those anti Iranian regimes of the region are all falling apart... those presuring Iran are sinking themselves.. Iran is constantly and slowly rising and moving forwards.. deying it is wanton and biased..
Iran should get ready for a war and insist on its positions... if war is not avoidable then so be it...
Iran simply must not lose ! (winning is no issue... no war has ever been won by anyone in the last 50-60 years in history anyway...)
Bless Iran
The Islamic regim needs an enemy like US for a foreseeable future becaues of its domestic agenda and propaganda and as an excuse to crack down internal dissidents.
The problem is the Idealogy of this regim.
I have a small question to Nader Uskowi : In your statement you wrote that western countries must accept Iran as a nuclear power...then why should Iran limit its enrichment program. Why? Why don't you say that Israel should come under scrutiny from IAEA at the same time. Does the nuclear technology belongs to US and western countries? Does US and other nuclear powered countries let other countries to inspect their own facility? Then why should Iran let US and western observers into the Iranian nuclear facility? Will US ever allow Iranian inspectors to visit nuclear facility? My final question is that how come countries armed with nuclear weapon ask other countries not to develop nuclear weapon? How can you justify it ?
Anon 7:33 PM,
There are so many good blogs on Israel that regularly deal with the issue of the double standards on nuclear weapons referred to in your comments. This blog, however, is not about Israel. If you want, I can send you a list of those blogs.
Your different questions, the way I understand them, could probably be summed up in one: Iran has the right to build a nuclear industry, why should it be prevented to do so? The short answer is that the issue is not an issue of rights, but a political issue. Countries are like individuals; they do not have to exercise all their rights all the time. I have the right to throw myself out of the window of a tall building, but I do not exercise that right because there are other more important issues at play for me. Iran has the right to enrich as much 20% uranium as it chooses, but does not have to do so if its costs serious disruption in its banking systems and the country’s economy.
Some thirty years ago, Iran chose to do things outside the accepted legal norms of the time, like taking and keeping hostages, and many other similar actions. Those actions were taken based on political calculations by the government, probably to portray itself as the anti-West, anti-US leader of the Islamic world. Iran was indeed very successful in such portrayal. Then when it came to nuclear technology, the West opposed Iran, again a political calculations this time on their part. Now politics is forcing the Iranian government to choose between two different alternatives: stay on the anti-US and anti-West road, or make enough compromises to help its economic development. The answer should not be based on ideology, but on realistic expectations in today’s world, this is the situation Iran has put itself into.
Rather excellent answer (at 8:42), Nader.
Typical Nader tactics..Iran must always prove a negative otherwise she's guilty..One cannot look at Iran's nuclear program in isolation or a separate issue ie. the region as a whole. India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel all have a nuclear program and are strongly believed to have nuclear weapons. How's Iran any different from these countries? none of these countries allow any IAEA inspections, they haven't allowed IAEA video cameras to be installed in their nuclear facilities and absolutely no questions are asked on what goes on in there. Heck, I'm more worried about nukes in Pakistan with all the instabilities there than in Iran but who cares,right?
All the brouhaha about Iran's nuclear program has nothing to do with the "mad mullah" or anything other than politics. It's the only leverage the west has to use on Iran as recent wikileaks have shown.Recently they've added "human right" cases to the list as well for maximum propaganda impact. I see it as a sign of desperation because all attempt to make Iran bulk under pressure or backdown have reached a dead end and these advocates are now looking more stupid day by day.
Mr. Nader, I assume you're an intelligent man and should know better..This nonsense about accusing Iran on speculations or circumstantial evidence is just stupid. They say Iran's enriching uranium and therefore is making bombs..What kind of logic is that?
I am a blacksmith and I make knives and machetes, does that mean I'm going to butcher people?
"Now politics is forcing the Iranian government to choose between two different alternatives: stay on the anti-US and anti-West road, or make enough compromises to help its economic development."
Mr. Nader, I really can't believe you said that..I'm glad you're no leader of any country..You're one of them folks that can be easily bought to sell your soul.You expect Iran to compromise on something that is her RIGHTS?
One compromise leads to many more compromises.What next Iran must do to please the west as you propose?
Iran's stance regarding the nuclear issue has cost them lots but i think it's a bit of a stretch to assume Iran's isolated. Many countries share Iran's views regarding regional and international developments but are somewhat scared to antagonize the west or do it publicly.Qaddafi compromise and look where it got him.
Politics, by nature, is the art of compromise. That’s why you hold talks with your enemies. That’s why the Iranian government, under Ayatollah Khamenei, proposed the so-called Grand Bargain in 2003. That’s why Ahmadinejad government was to accept a deal with Turkey to have most of enrichment work done in that country. That’s why Iranian foreign minister was in Moscow this week. They were all trying to find a way out of this impasse. Compromise is not a dirty word, but is not for faint of hearts either! It requires courage and political savvy. Not sure that the current government, with all the infighting, can pull it off.
Anon 4:42 and 4:50 AM, I guess I offered my response to your points in my earlier post. Of course this has always been a political issue, nothing to do with national rights. The Iranians government recognizes that as well, that’s why they have been willing to offer the solutions mentioned in above paragraph. A political issue needs a political solution.
Bottom line, the issue is whether Iran wants to make the bomb or not. I base my analysis on the belief that it does not want to build the bomb. Then a political solution is easily obtained: continue enrichment process to produce enough enriched uranium for the power reactors currently in use, and continue with an inspection regime that shows the country does not have a military dimension to its nuclear program. This is what the Russians are after, and Iranian foreign minister has apparently accepted it.
If Iran wants to make the bomb, then all these talks are unnecessary. It can go the route of India and Pakistan and announce it to the world that they have the bomb. But again, Khamenei is saying no bombs and it appears that is the country’s policy for now.
It is the middle solution that is tricky: building up to a Japan option. Have the immediate capability but not the bomb itself. Tough to find a comprise here with the West.
Mr Uskowi,
Lets not forget that the US and the Europeans were insisting on a compelete stop of the Iranian enrichment program a few years ago with the ludicrous argument that Iran has enough oil and gas and doesn't need any nuclear power plants. (The same thing that they were willing to sell to Iran 30 years ago) I am not a supporter of the theocratic regim in Iran and I acctually want it changed but the hypocrisy of the west is beyond belief. After some skillful diplomatic negotiation during Khatami with Ayatollah Rohani as Iran's envoy and when the Europeans noticed the extent of the Iranian enrichment program in Iran , they gradually changed thier positions to accept enrichment first in Russia and when Iran refused (Rightly as the leadership knew they will be kept hostage by the Russians in the Russian horse trading with the US and Europe) then the west changed their mind again accepting Iranian enrichment under strict IAEA control. There were some very intrusive parts of that control regimen that the Iranians could not accept plus the fact that we all know that many IAEA inspectors were in reality reporting to the US and European intelligence services as well. I think after the one sided weapon embargo on Iran during the war (while Saddam could buy everything) it is natural for the Iranian leadership not to trust the west. Who can guarantee that Iran will have access to nuclear fuel even if they manage to build 20 nuclear power plant and what are they worth if you don't have the fuel to run them if they have to rely on the western countries or even Russia to honour thier words? Remember the S300 missile deal? or the fact that Bushehr power plant after 17 years is till not operational?
However I do agree with you that compromise is necessary and that the current administration in Iran has not been as skilfull in its diplomacy as the Khatami administration.
---"Lets not forget that the US and the Europeans were insisting on a compelete stop of the Iranian enrichment program a few years ago with the ludicrous argument that Iran has enough oil and gas and doesn't need any nuclear power plants."---
let us not be misled. try to find US or European governments making that argument. you won't unless maybe in PRESS-TV or other Iranian gov't-controlled media.
your not gonna find US?EU leaders quoted saying that stuff anywhere else.
Post a Comment