UPDATED Iran: The Washington-Tehran Deal on Enriched Uranium?

The Latest from Iran (11 October): “Media Operations”

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

UPDATE 13 October 1900 GMT: For the love of Ed Murrow, is there a journalist out there who is not being led by the nose on the US-Russia Sanctions on Iran story?

Both The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times prefer to take the bait of Oh No, Russia Will Not Support US Sanctions, quoting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” This apparently "throw[s] cold water on the Obama administration’s hopes that Russia had bxeen persuaded to cooperate with its effort to intensify the global pressure on Tehran".

Reuters prefers to be the mouthpiece for Oh Yes, Russia Will Support US Sanctions, relying on a US State Department spokesman who assures everyone that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev is "quite clear that, while pleased with the Geneva results, he expects Iran to implement them and if they don't there should be sanctions."

None of these journalists takes the time to ponder that they are being taken for a public ride. The proposal on the table for Secretary of State Clinton and her hosts is not sanctions but the Russian enrichment of 80 percent of Iran's uranium. All else at this point is a diversion.


UPDATE 1510 GMT: From Deception, Enlightenment. Want to see the clues to the possible US-Iran-Russia deal on enrichment? All you have to do is find the right angle on the mainstream media's simple reporting.

For example, Paul Harris in The Observer of London recites the finger-wagging party line of "American officials", "Clinton woos Russia over Iran sanctions", when she is in Moscow on Tuesday. Actually, in light of this story, expect the Secretary of State to be discussing --- privately, not publicly --- the details of third-party enrichment.

The Los Angeles Times has an even bigger tip-off. Modifying earlier media reports of a defiant position by the spokesman for Iran's nuclear energy organisation, it quotes from a later interview with Ali Shirzadian:

We’re looking at three options. We hand over 3.5% enriched and receive in return 20% enriched, or we buy 20% enriched on the market, or we will be allowed to enrich ourselves. I stress that no matter what option we take it will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency....Any of these options will work for both sides.

There have been been few "scoops" for the mainstream media during the post-election crisis in Iran, but Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post can claim one this morning:

"Iran four months ago discreetly contacted the United Nations-affiliated agency for nuclear energy to outline a worrisome situation: A research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes that detect and treat the diseases of about 10,000 patients a week will run out of fuel by the end of 2010. Iran also had a request: Can you help us find a country that will sell us new fuel?"

The outcome? "An unusual deal, brokered largely by the United States, that aims to buy time for a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions. If it works, Iran will end up with fuel necessary to treat desperately ill patients -- and greatly reduce its stock of low-enriched uranium."

This is the deal at the heart of the headline discussion of "third-party enrichment", probably by Russia, of Iran's uranium. Kessler explains that the source for the medical programme, 50 pounds enriched to almost 20 percent by Argentina, is running low. The Iranians have been asking for use of their stock of 3300 pounds, currently at about 3-4 percent enrichment, but that, of course, is tangled up in the debate over whether Tehran is looking for a pretext to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Under the Obama Administration's plan, "Iran...would have to give up about 80 percent of its stockpile to get back the same amount of uranium supplied by Argentina in 1993". Kessler, obviously using Administration sources, says that "White House official Gary Samore broached the idea to Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's atomic energy agency, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. A senior U.S. official said, 'Both of them immediately said this is a great idea.'"

France is also involved, shaping the enriched fuel into uranium-aluminum
metal plates. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has helped broker the plan in talks with Tehran, including Mohammad El-Baradei's recent visit.

In the slow-moving world of international diplomacy, these are dramatic developments. However, there are two important points that Kessler --- in part because he feels obligated to sprinkle his article with superficial nay-saying ("critics question why the United States would be assisting a nuclear pariah"; "it will be too easy for Iran to extract the more highly enriched uranium for weapons") --- does not address.

First, this is the clearest possible sign that Washington --- come the hell or high water of its domestic opponents --- will be pursuing engagement. This is high-profile public relations: "senior Administration officials" have gone out of their way to place this story with the Post, knowing that it will get maximum attention over Sunday breakfasts through the capital. Every one of the boilerplate criticisms in Kessler's article is knocked back with an assurance such as "Iran has no known technical expertise at extracting uranium from a metal alloy".

Talk of deadlines and sanctions are now just window-dressing to distract the sceptics. While the Iranian regime will undoubtedly draw out negotiations, ensuring that the deal is not seen as a sign of its weakness, it sees value in the proposal: as Kessler notes, "[US officials] were relieved when, on the eve of the Geneva talks, he was quoted as saying that Iran would ship its low-enriched uranium to a third country for processing."

But here's the second point that does not even dawn on Kessler. "Four months ago", when Iran contacted the IAEA, was also "four months ago" when Iran was holding its Presidential election. Kessler does not identify when the US was informed of Tehran's approach, but one can assume it was soon afterwards.

So the Obama Administration took the decision that any position on Iran's internal turmoil was secondary to striking a nuclear deal. If the cost of that bargain was a granting of "legitimacy" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was a price worth paying.

Afghanistan: The Real Importance of Today's "Non-Story" of 13,000 Support Troops

Afghanistan: Did Clinton Just Say to the BBC, “Talk to the Taliban”?

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

It's a pity that Ann Scott Tyson and The Washington Post have wasted so much effort in bigging-up this morning's declaration, "Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan", as Page 1 headline drama.

Why? Because the news is more than six months old.

Here's the supposed scoop: "President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials."

Unannounced move? Enduring America noted in March, and on repeated occasions afterward, that Obama had given the military a total of 30,000+ troops when the support forces were added to combat units. Indeed, we pointed to Obama's initial teaser for the press --- 4000 "trainers" --- as a marker for this public-relations/military strategy. The only person in Washington who has apparently missed this, as the months of the US escalation have unfolded only to reach another critical stage in the autumn, is Anne Scott Tyson.

The significance of Tyson's article is not in a sudden, naive recognition of the overall increase in the US commitment. Instead it is in this message tucked away in the fourth paragraph:

A significant number of support troops, in addition to combat forces, would be needed to meet commanders' demands. It also underscores the growing strain on U.S. ground troops, raising practical questions about how the Army and Marine Corps would meet a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

In other words, White House officials are using Tyson, whether she is a willing accomplice or an unwitting channel, to put out another dampener on the McChrystal recommendation for 40,000 more soldiers.

I have thought for weeks that a lot of the White House "dispute" with its top commander in Afghanistan is for show until a compromise is reached. That may still be the case: as in March, Obama will give the military less than 40,000 combat troops but a total of 40,000 when combat and support troops are added together.

However, the longer this drags on, the greater the possibility that this is not compromise but real conflict over the way forward for a US strategy which seems lost over its next steps beyond the mantras of "Al Qa'eda" and "security".

US to Egypt: Stop the Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation Talks

Middle East: Israel’s Troubles with a Turkish Ally
The Results of the Mitchell Israel-Palestine Trip: Nothing

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

Washington has told Cairo that it does not support a reconciliation agreement which does not include the principles of the Quartet (US, UN, European Union, Russia): recognition of the State of Israel, acknowledgement of earlier agreements, and renunciation of terrorism. The Obama Administration believe the current agreement, which is supposed to be signed by both parties by October 15 , could undermine negotiations with Israel.

The Fatah Party, which leads the Palestinian Authority's West Bank Government, has already agreed with the draft of the reconciliation agreement, while Hamas has not made its position clear because of the recent PA support for deferral of the United Nations Human Rights Council vote on the Goldstone Report on Gaza.

With the pressure on Egypt to pull back from the reconcilation agreement, Fatah can concentrate on repairing its position. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that on 16 October 16 the PA will ask the Human Rights Council to forward the Goldstone report either to the UN Security Council or to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Which only leaves a question: if the Obama Administration really that a peace settlement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel can come true without an agreement between Fatah and Hamas....How?

The Results of the Mitchell Israel-Palestine Trip: Nothing

On Sunday, U.S. special envoy George Mitchell went to Israel for a second set of talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Before the discussion, he told reporters: "It has been and remains an important objective of American policy and of President Obama and the secretary of state personally to achieve comprehensive peace in the Middle East." He added: "We understand that there are many difficulties, that there are many obstacles. But we are determined and committed to continue our efforts until that objective is reached."

After Mitchell's meeting, Netanyahu's office said the Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had continued the talks with Mitchell to advance the peace process. Lower-level Israeli officials are to travel to Washington this week for further discussions.

Mitchell has completed his 9th tour of the region and returned home. The commitment of the U.S. President Barack Obama continues, but the envoy has not been given any concessions by either party. And this could well be the situation when he submits his report to the President in mid-October.

Israel-Palestine: Mixed Reception for US Envoy Mitchell in Tel Aviv

Israel FM Lieberman: Distance from US, No Agreement with Palestine
Israel-Palestine: Sacrificing the Goldstone Report to the War of Politics

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

President Obama's special envoy for the Middle East, George Mitchell, is back in Israel. He  held talks with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres on Thursday and is expected to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today before moving to the West Bank to speak with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas this weekend.

Mitchell's visit comes midst increasing tension between Israelis and Palestinians over the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem and pressure on Abbas over the Goldstone Report on Gaza. The envoy did not refer to those events; instead, Mitchell told Peres of his hope that peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians can be restarted soon and of Obama's commitment to bringing peace to the region. After Mitchell gave him the same message, Barak portrayed Israel as the "partner" of United States in the peace process, adding, "The time has come to move forward to start the process and pass all of the obstacles, because this will help everyone... No obstacle is impassable!"

But Barak's words were not echoed by Lieberman, who is calling for detachment from the US and ruling out peace with Palestine in the near-future: "I will tell [Mitchell] clearly, there are many conflicts in the world that haven't reached a comprehensive solution and people learned to live with it." Since it was not the right time for a final agreement, Lieberman suggested that Mitchell should focus on an interim accord, leaving "the tough issues for a much later stage".

Haaretz reports that a senior U.S. official told Israeli reporters that Mitchell's visit was not likely to conclude with an announcement of renewed talks. Israeli sources, however, said --- despite Lieberman's unhelpful intervention --- that this was "within reach."