Iran & the US: The Missed Nuclear Deal (Slavin)

For me, Barbara Slavin's article in The Washington Note confirms my view of the uranium enrichment negotiations since June between Tehran, Washington, and other countries: 1) they were genuine, motivated by Iran's crisis of a shortage of 20-percent enriched uranium for its medical research reactor; 2) the primary obstacle to a deal was internal divisions in Washington Tehran.

But now the questions for March 2010: 1) Is there still a crisis in Tehran over uranium stock? (Yes) 2) Does this mean the regime wants to re-open discussions for a deal? (Probably, but  there are still internal manoeuvres to be made) 3) Will the US still be receptive? (Likely) 4) Does this mean "engagement" is back on? (Unknown):

The Latest from Iran (18 March): Uranium Distractions

A senior U.S. official Wednesday confirmed that the United States offered the first civilian nuclear cooperation with Iran in three decades under the terms of a deal that Iran walked away from last fall.



Daniel Poneman, Deputy Secretary of Energy, said that had Iran accepted the deal --- under which it would have shipped out two thirds of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium for further processing abroad --- the U.S. would have inspected a 40-year-old reactor in Tehran to see if it was operating safely.

"We would have been well disposed to be helpful," Poneman said at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We were willing in support of IAEA efforts ... to help assure that the Tehran research reactor was safe."

Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, told reporters after the meetings with Poneman in October that "one of the aspects in addition to the fuel is the control instrumentation and safety equipment of the reactor" and that "we have been informed about the readiness of the United States in a technical project with the IAEA to cooperate in this respect."

A U.S. official said on background that the United States would examine the reactor, provided to Iran in the late 1960s when Lyndon Johnson was president and the Shah ruled Iran. However, Poneman's remark was the first on the record confirmation of this.

This deal sweetener was well received by those close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and allowed him to cast the package in a positive light.

Iranians much prefer U.S. technology to Russian nuclear knowhow. Some Iranians suggested that U.S. assistance might extend to the Bushehr reactor if a deal could be struck on the LEU. Bushehr, which was begun by the Germans in the Shah's time, is now a "mess," one official told me, a "hodge-podge of technologies" that Iran is afraid to run because it might "blow up."

Ahmadinejad's numerous opponents within Iran's complex political hierarchy attacked the LEU deal as a sell-out -- in large part because he had undercut their efforts to reach a nuclear understanding with the United States in the past.

Poneman said Wednesday that the offer remained on the table. Beyond the U.S. examination of the reactor, Russia and France would further refine 1200 kilograms of Iran's low-enriched uranium and turn it into fuel rods for use in the research reactor, which produces medical isotopes for treatment of cancer and other ailments and is due to run out of fuel by the end of this year.

"It has not been formally withdrawn," Poneman said of the deal. However, he confided later that the U.S. is "not chasing Iran" and that the Iranians know who to call if they are interested in coming back to the table. Otherwise, the United States will keep moving down "the pressure track" to increase the cost to Iran of its nuclear defiance, he said.

Comments

[Catherine]

I didn't find anything in this article that I didn't already know by now (thanks to both this site and my own efforts to follow the story closely), but what was news to me was this:

"Some Iranians suggested that U.S. assistance might extend to the Bushehr reactor if a deal could be struck on the LEU. Bushehr, which was begun by the Germans in the Shah's time, is now a "mess," one official told me, a "hodge-podge of technologies" that Iran is afraid to run because it might "blow up."

This ties into the recent discussions we've been having in earlier threads on the quetionalbe suitablility of conditions in Iran even for purely peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It also explains why firing up the Bushehr reactor keeps getting postponed. Very scary.

[Arshama]

@ Bushehr reactor

Unfortunately the IRI has continued the Shah's hazardous project of building a nuclear power plant on an active seismic fault line. The original constructor, the German KWU (Kraftwerk-Union), a subsidiary company to Siemens and AEG, had to withdraw after the revolution, just to be replaced by the Russian company Atomstroyexport. http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/international/iran_buschehr_1.2092632.html -- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Union

Although several earthquakes hit this area during recent years and international geophysics experts have issued warnings on behalf of this project, the IAEA has never opposed it, according to Ahmad Raafat: http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2007/january-2007/iran_nuclear_11107.shtml

It was by the way Rafsanjani, who decided to restart this inane and dangerous prestige project in 1989. If it was really intended for energy supply, hundreds of solar power plants could have been built and finished by now in or near the big Iranian deserts of Dasht-e Kavir or Kavir-e Lut, where the necessary silicium (sand) and solar power are available with no environmental risks, supporting also the development of chronically neglected areas like Sistan and Baluchistan (Lut desert).

[Kevin Scott]

The primary obstacle to a deal was internal divisions in Washington? Did I miss when that line of thinking was originally laid out? I don't really see it. Or was this a typo?

[Barry]

Hmmm - only this morning there are newpaper articles stating that Russia is insisting that the Busher plant will startup this Iranian summer.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiyDzWt6bcYiU4B_0XWtbXaq74awD9EH7VA80

Yet, in Slavins article, it is said that the Iranians are fearful of starting the reactor as it is a "mess"

Could the Russians be trying to use reverse psychology ?? Or do both the Russians and the Iranians not have a clue about what they are doing??

I tend to believe the general thrust of Slavin's article - as I do believe that the US (naively) did/does? want to come to more agreeable relationship with Iran.

But even though the article hints that AN was a willing "partner" in this scheme - but struck opposition, how could anybody now deal with AN after the anti-US hyperbole and rhetoric he has been throwing around over the past 9 months?.

Barry

[rezvan]

Nothing new.. IRI is still open to a swap but wants either a simultaneous swap or necessary guarantees to ensure they do get the fuel rods back. If US is sincere why does it not just give its supply of 20% enriched Uranium first & then let Iran give up its 3.5% LEU.

[Barry]

@REZVAN

What we have here is a case of mutual distrust.

Iran fears that if they send the 3/5%LEU outside the country - then no 20% enriched will be sent back

On the other hand, US/EU fears that if 20% is delivered to Iran, then 3.5% will be kept in Iran.

Perhaps they should do like was done in those old Cold War movies - where spies from two sides were swapped in the middle of a bridge :)

Barry