Proposals for multinational enrichment facility in Iran

| 4 Comments

The New York Review of Books in its March 20 issue publishes a paper by William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh that proposes a plan for creating a multinational enrichment facility in Iran, along with statements from senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Hagel endorsing the plan. In short, the idea is that

"the Iranian government would agree to allow two or more additional governments (for example, France and Germany) to participate in the management and operation of those activities within Iran."

This is similar to the plan proposed by Geoff Forden and Sir John Thomson some time ago, the apparent difference being that the new proposal does not seem to include an offer to supply high-performance centrifuges to Iran.

RIA Novosti reported that Iran's UN envoy spoke favorably about the idea of inviting other countries to join Iran in its enrichment activity, but his statement, apparently made at a meeting with journalists on Monday, was not reported by anyone else.

It is unlikely that Iran would agree to the plan as it is outlined in the NYRB article. However, the authors are right - a proposal like this is the best chance to resolve the situation.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://russianforces.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/592

4 Comments

No amount of concessions by Iran will ever suffice since the nuclear issue is merely a pretext for long-planned war. In fact the Iranians themselves have put forward this proposal 3 years ago, among many others -- but were ignored.

Ahmadinejad said this during his UN speech on Sept 17 2005:

"Therefore, as a further confidence building measure and in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of uranium enrichment program in Iran. This represents the most far reaching step, outside all requirements of the NPT, being proposed by Iran as a further confidence building measure."

Other proposals by Iran were listed by Javad Zarif in the International Herald Tribune in April 2006:

Since August 2004, Iran has made eight far-reaching proposals. What's more, Iran throughout this period adopted extensive and costly confidence- building measures, including a voluntary suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of negotiations. Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package:

Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put it in place pending ratification;

Permit the continuous on-site presence of IAEAinspectors at conversion and enrichment facilities;

Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;

Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material;

Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;

Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;

Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;

Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light-water reactors;

Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program, like research and development, in order to assure the world of our intentions;

Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.

Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel-cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards.

Thank you for the quotes. I'd be skeptical about the "long-planned war", but I think it is clear that the U.S. missed quite a few opportunities to engage Iran.
Oh come now, you don't think those "missed opportunities" were accidental, do you? Why do you think the US has refused these proposals and rejected the 2003 peace offer and the US shopped the "Laptop of Death" around for 3 years, before blind-siding the IAEA with it a few days before the latest report was published?

This is a deliberate plan and policy of regime change through force. These are just the preliminary steps in what is a pretty obvious trend.

Of course they were not accidental. I'm sure there are people in the U.S. who want to get into a military action of some kind. But I don't think there is a deliberate plan. These things are too chaotic for that.

Leave a comment