[Continuing directly]
"The uranium can be under the custody of the agency (IAEA) in Iran and it could be sealed ... until the time we receive the 20 percent enriched fuel from outside," Salehi said.
"If they come forward and supply the fuel then we will stop this process of 20 percent enrichment," he added.
Press TV quoted Salehi as saying Iran had decided to produce higher-grade uranium because Western nations refused to supply the fuel Iran needs for its medical reactor.
It said the reactor produces isotopes "crucial for life saving medical care to more than 850,000 Iranian patients."
What Salehi says is accurate and unchallenged: the radioactive isotopes are essential for treating cancer patients.
So what is really going on here? Why not simply do the exchange under the conditions Iran imposes? Allen Quicke, editor of atimes.net, has the following take:
Now, let's cut to the chase. Iran is not going to simply hand over its LEU on the six powers' terms, but more importantly, it is not going to surrender its right under international treaty to enrich uranium. The US is not going to acknowledge Iran's right to enrich uranium. Neither side is going to budge from these fundamental positions. Both have made this very clear many times. . . .
All this ongoing talking at each is not intended by either side to lead to any kind of compromise. Its purpose, on the US side, is to try to demonstrate Iran's intransigence so that if or when military action becomes "unavoidable", Washington can spin it thus: "We tried everything [except compromise] and gave them every chance. Now our patience is exhausted. Iran is a threat to world peace ..."
The potentially ominous fact is that sanctions won't work, because they haven't in the past, and Iran is still a large market, has a long impossible to monitor border, and possesses attractive natural resources. And of course, there is also China. Read Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett on that:
China Cannot Be Ignored on Iran or Other Major Global Issues
Posted on February 9th, 2010
Amidst the bravado surrounding President Ahmadinejad's announcement that Iran will start enriching uranium to 20 per cent purity, the Financial Times reported yesterday that China has passed the European Union as Iran's largest trading partner.
According to the FT, China's annual trade with Iran is more than $36.5 billion and consists primarily of swapping Chinese consumer goods and machinery for Iranian oil, gas, and petrochemicals. The article also noted that China now relies on Iran for 11 percent of its energy needs.
The finding is indicative of a broader trend: China's growing willingness to work with the Islamic Republic, despite objections from the United States and Europe. . . .
. . . a key aspect of coping with China's rise will be to acknowledge that many policies will be ineffective without Chinese support.
A policy of isolation and coercive sanctions on the Islamic Republic is one of those policies. It is foolish to pretend otherwise.
More on the ineffectiveness of sanctions from Asiatimes.com:
"I am not holding my breath that these sanctions will work," Boroujerdi [Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an Iran expert at Syracuse University] told Inter Press Service. "It's really hard to sanction an oil-rich state that has something that the rest of the world needs." Boroujerdi sees the ongoing smuggling activity conducted through the country's borders as another factor that could challenge the success of sanctions.
Many experts are deeply skeptical about the effectiveness of sanctions and consider them a failure in general. Although the US and its allies have spoken of "smart sanctions" mostly aimed at Iran's military institutions, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and its affiliate businesses, there is a lot of doubt as to whether a sanctions policy could bring an end to Iran's nuclear program.
The US has imposed a ban on US companies dealing with Iran for the past three decades but, in effect, the sanctions are considered largely ineffective as the Islamic Republic has looked elsewhere for business. . . .
As a deal between Iran and the West appears far-fetched at this point, calls for regime change and use of force against Iran are on the rise. Richard Haas, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, in an article entitled "Enough is Enough", called on the Obama administration to work for regime change in Iran, a policy former president George W Bush unsuccessfully pursued for years.
Daniel Pipes, a neo-conservative, has called for bombing Iran, saying it was a way for Obama to "salvage his tottering administration" and protect the US and its allies.
David Kenner lists for us all the people who now want to bomb Iran. Quick and dirty, they're basically the same Dr. Strangeloves who got the U.S. into the Iraq nightmare. I don't know if I'd put Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or President Obama on that list yet, but the following headline is not reassuring, considering the near impossibility that sanctions will be effective:
Gates Hopes Iran Sanctions Will Avoid Military Action
Al Pessin | Paris 08 February 2010
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he hopes strong international sanctions on Iran will forestall the need for a military strike designed to end the country's chances of developing a nuclear weapon. Gates spoke in Paris, where he and his French counterpart Herve Morin agreed it is time for sanctions after months of diplomatic overtures from the West have not had any impact on Iranian leaders. . . .
"Everybody's interest is in seeing this issue resolved without a resort to conflict," he said. "The key is persuading the Iranian leaders that their long-term best interests are best served by not having nuclear weapons, as opposed to having them. And so I think that an approach along these lines, as long as the international community is seen pressing vigorously to resolve this problem, my hope is we will then be able to keep this in economic and diplomatic channels." |
