Friday
Oct302009
More Time, Please: Ahmadinejad's Legitimacy and Iran's Nuclear Talks
Friday, October 30, 2009 at 6:48
Iran: Text of Ahmadinejad Speech in Mashaad (29 October)
Latest from Iran (30 October): Now to the Real Contest
The Latest from Iran (29 October): Opposition Momentum?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
Here is what President Ahmadinejad said in a nationally-televised speech from Mashaad on Thursday.
Iran is strong. I am strong. Iran is strong because I am strong.
While the President covered a range of domestic and international issues, the passage on the talks on Iran's nuclear programme will receive the most attention today. As The Daily Telegraph of London declares, "Iran claims victory in nuclear battle with the West".
Unfortunately most coverage in the West will miss the significance of the speech. The New York Times, relying on usual on unnamed "diplomats in Europe and unnamed officials", is already proclaiming, "Iran Rejects Deal to Ship Out Uranium, Officials Report", a journalistic approach echoed by the Los Angeles Times.
That is untrue, at least according to both the Iranian Government and the International Atomic Energy Agency: Tehran's reply accepts the "framework" but raises issues over timing and amount of uranium stock to be delivered to Russia for reprocessing. More importantly, it shoves aside Ahmadinejad's presentation:
That is not a rejection of discussions with the "West"; it is an embrace of them. But it is an embrace based on the premise that the US and other countries have knocked at Tehran's door, gone down on bended knee, and asked forgiveness. Iran is no longer an international outsider; it is an accepted nuclear power.
Iranian state media is running quickly with this line. Press TV, for example, is featuring, "Israel worried by IAEA draft accord on Iran", noting, "Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says a draft accord presented by the IAEA would lead to recognition of Iran's nuclear enrichment program."
This is only part of the story, however. Let's get personal: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is fighting for his authority, not only against the Green opposition but against those within the establishment who object to his high-profile assertion of power. Remember how, only a few days ago, the stories were of Parliamentary leaders like Ali Larijani trashing the nuclear deal and of indications that the Supreme Leader was stepping in both to cast a veto and to put Ahmadinejad in his place?
No sign of those nay-sayers yesterday. Instead this was Iran as the President and the President as Iran.
That's not to say that, for the sake of Ahmadinejad's legitimacy and Iran's international position, Tehran will soon accept the US-led plan for third-party enrichment. To the contrary, the Iranians have serious objections to the details. The most straightforward is that the 80 percent of uranium stock to be shipped to Russia is far more than is necessary to keep Iran's medical research reactor --- the catalyst for this proposal in June --- operating for the rest of its lifespan. So, in Tehran's eyes, the current document is intended as much to keep most of its uranium "hostage" as it is to provide a stable supply for Iran's civilian needs.
And, given Ahmadinejad's position, the political advantages of spinning out the talks are there to be grasped. If there are alterations in the plan to reduce the amount shipped below 80 percent and to send it out in stages rather than in one delivery, these will be concession to Iran's and the President's strength. If the "West" walks away from the table, this will be an indication of their continuing deceptions and mistakes --- despite their apparent request for forgiveness from Tehran --- and Iran will be in the right as it maintains nuclear sovereignty.
Of course, there will be pressure in the US Congress for sanctions (the House of Representatives, despite the ongoing talks, has already passed a measure for tougher economic restrictions). Those, however, are President Obama's worry, as Russia and China are unlikely to give any support for multilateral steps.
So give Ahmadinejad credit for a political victory in Mashaad yesterday. But think of that victory as only a preliminary skirmish on an outside battlefield.
For the next time Ahmadinejad is due in Mashaad is on 13 Aban (4 November).
Latest from Iran (30 October): Now to the Real Contest
The Latest from Iran (29 October): Opposition Momentum?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
Here is what President Ahmadinejad said in a nationally-televised speech from Mashaad on Thursday.Iran is strong. I am strong. Iran is strong because I am strong.
While the President covered a range of domestic and international issues, the passage on the talks on Iran's nuclear programme will receive the most attention today. As The Daily Telegraph of London declares, "Iran claims victory in nuclear battle with the West".
Unfortunately most coverage in the West will miss the significance of the speech. The New York Times, relying on usual on unnamed "diplomats in Europe and unnamed officials", is already proclaiming, "Iran Rejects Deal to Ship Out Uranium, Officials Report", a journalistic approach echoed by the Los Angeles Times.
That is untrue, at least according to both the Iranian Government and the International Atomic Energy Agency: Tehran's reply accepts the "framework" but raises issues over timing and amount of uranium stock to be delivered to Russia for reprocessing. More importantly, it shoves aside Ahmadinejad's presentation:
I don’t want to repeat history for you but can you remember where we were a few years ago? Back then, they shouted at us, issued resolutions against us, waged psychological warfare against us and issued sanctions against us. They told us that we should completely give up our nuclear program. Where are we today? Today, they pursue nuclear cooperation with the Iranian nation.
There were days when they said that we should not have the technology at all, but today they say: let us cooperate. Iran’s position in nuclear industry is well-established. Today, Iran’s nuclear activities are considered to be a normal and obvious procedure and an absolute right of the Iranian nation.
That is not a rejection of discussions with the "West"; it is an embrace of them. But it is an embrace based on the premise that the US and other countries have knocked at Tehran's door, gone down on bended knee, and asked forgiveness. Iran is no longer an international outsider; it is an accepted nuclear power.
Iranian state media is running quickly with this line. Press TV, for example, is featuring, "Israel worried by IAEA draft accord on Iran", noting, "Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says a draft accord presented by the IAEA would lead to recognition of Iran's nuclear enrichment program."
This is only part of the story, however. Let's get personal: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is fighting for his authority, not only against the Green opposition but against those within the establishment who object to his high-profile assertion of power. Remember how, only a few days ago, the stories were of Parliamentary leaders like Ali Larijani trashing the nuclear deal and of indications that the Supreme Leader was stepping in both to cast a veto and to put Ahmadinejad in his place?
No sign of those nay-sayers yesterday. Instead this was Iran as the President and the President as Iran.
That's not to say that, for the sake of Ahmadinejad's legitimacy and Iran's international position, Tehran will soon accept the US-led plan for third-party enrichment. To the contrary, the Iranians have serious objections to the details. The most straightforward is that the 80 percent of uranium stock to be shipped to Russia is far more than is necessary to keep Iran's medical research reactor --- the catalyst for this proposal in June --- operating for the rest of its lifespan. So, in Tehran's eyes, the current document is intended as much to keep most of its uranium "hostage" as it is to provide a stable supply for Iran's civilian needs.
And, given Ahmadinejad's position, the political advantages of spinning out the talks are there to be grasped. If there are alterations in the plan to reduce the amount shipped below 80 percent and to send it out in stages rather than in one delivery, these will be concession to Iran's and the President's strength. If the "West" walks away from the table, this will be an indication of their continuing deceptions and mistakes --- despite their apparent request for forgiveness from Tehran --- and Iran will be in the right as it maintains nuclear sovereignty.
Of course, there will be pressure in the US Congress for sanctions (the House of Representatives, despite the ongoing talks, has already passed a measure for tougher economic restrictions). Those, however, are President Obama's worry, as Russia and China are unlikely to give any support for multilateral steps.
So give Ahmadinejad credit for a political victory in Mashaad yesterday. But think of that victory as only a preliminary skirmish on an outside battlefield.
For the next time Ahmadinejad is due in Mashaad is on 13 Aban (4 November).
Reader Comments (10)
Scott,
What was in your coffee this morning? Sometimes I have the impression that you like to provoke Iranian readers. And I really wonder about Western commentators, who still believe in sensible reactions from this regime, whose principal strategies are mocking, confusing and creating chaos throughout the world.
Meanwhile they even instrumentalize the pilgrimage to Mecca for these purposes:
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=18627
Give them more time, and you will receive your "Islamic" nukes.
There is the fantasy dialog of diplomacy and saving face, the convoluted twisted language of an agreement or treaty where both sides can declare "we won", and then there is the truth. Any agreement, even if seeming to be temporarily successful, will have nothing to do with the truth. Come hell or high water, Iran will continue a secret program of some sort to make a bomb. They do not need or want fuel rods from France.
But I agree that even as sinister and dangerous the making of missiles with nuclear warheads is, and even though if the current path continues it will happen, it's not now the main issue. At the moment, the political power struggle in Iran is more important. Not all the pawns on the chess board have been taken or moved into strategic places. Focusing on Nuclear War now is like making an early "Check" declaration in a chess game: It's the sign of an amateur, and almost always leads to early defeat by the one making the challenge before rallying his backup pieces. The Knights are flashy, but watch out for the "Bishops" and don't risk the "Queen" too soon.
Scott, you say Iran has serious objections to the deal, of which "The most straightforward is that the 80 percent of uranium stock to be shipped to Russia is far more than is necessary to keep Iran’s medical research reactor — the catalyst for this proposal in June — operating for the rest of its lifespan."
But James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment disagrees. He says that the shipment will power the TRR for about year--and he does us the favor of showing his work. He says:
"According to NTI, the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) requires 115.8 kg of 20% enriched fuel. We don’t know the average enrichment of the LEU at Natanz (the maximum is known to be 4.4%), so let’s assume it’s 4% (nice round number and all that). Let’s also assume that the ratio between the product and tails assays is 10, roughly the same as for enrichment from natural uranium to LEU for power reactors. I don’t know for sure this assumption is valid but I believe it is.
If you crunch the numbers (very straightforwardly) then you find that 1040 kg of uranium from Natanz is needed to produce one load of fuel for the TRR. If you assume the average enrichment of the LEU at Natanz is 3.5% then 1390 kg is required. Very much in the right ball park."
Patrick,
Much appreciated. The Iranian line, as put forward in state media this week, was that the 20% enriched fuel stock would be enough for 115 years for the medical research reactor. No calculations, on lines of Acton above, were provided.
S.
My old high school math teacher would tell Iran's state media: "Show your work!"
Here is a calculator
http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcue.html
Islamic Republic Newspaper Front Page Headline says “Iran Rejects sending uranium outside the country”. Translation? No third party deal. The Islamic Republic newspaper is the one with Khomeini’s picture on the top left hand side in this link: http://www.peykeiran.com/Content.aspx?ID=8602
Without reading the entire article I cannot say if the headline accurately reflects the content.
WIMV,
Thank you for this. I would be very grateful for any reader who has the expertise and time to work through the numbers, using this calculator. Is Iran's claim valid that the deal for 80 percent of its stock to be reprocessed in Russia an unnecessary oversupply of its medical research reactor? Or is it just Tehran's political device to delay any agreement?
S.
Scott,
I don't believe we have to work throught the calculator Western agencies have already done that. It is why they are so insistent on getting 70 to 80% Iran's stock. It is almost the exact amount of stock required for one bomb. As we have seen in the news Iran is balking at this and I believe so because they know it would remove the option of pursuing a bomb if they wanted. As I stated earlier read up on Mark Hibbs on the whole issue of nuclear proliferation. He had a reacent article at Nucleonics Week referenced in this article: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2505/reading-mark-hibbs-in-washington and in the comments section Mark corrected the author about Iran's perceived difficulties of enrichment. The author quoted Mark as saying Iran had difficulties and Mark corrected him saying they don't and even stated they don't have an idea of why idea of why the idea of outside enrchiment came about. Interestingly alot of sites reported on this and it turns out to be false because Mark did not say what was reported. I will do some more digging and see what I come up with.
Thx
bill
Bill,
Your efforts much appreciated,
S.