We've heard rumors of this proposal, but never seen details. A former Iranian negotiator, S. Hossein Mousavian, has told a Japanese news publication the outline of the plan. This proposal is inconsistent with the US demand that Iran relinquish the right to enrich uranium. It does keep all of Iran's enriched uranium in the relatively easy to bomb location of Natanz. Indications from the beginning have been that the US rejected the proposal.
As ''Step 1,'' Iran should take action to limit its uranium enrichment program to just one existing site at Natanz and Iran is also prohibited from adding new centrifuges or producing new-generation centrifuges. In return for this, P5-plus-one would suspend part of the international sanctions stipulated in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929.There clearly are still many missing details. There is no indication here of how much time and what would prompt the move from one stage to another. An important question for this, if it was the basis for negotiations, would be what happens after the 90 day suspension.
In the next phase, Iran would allow the IAEA's surveillance of centrifuges and implement an additional arrangement with the IAEA for enhanced design inspection of nuclear-related facilities, while Iran's enriched uranium production rate would be limited to 5 percent or lower, far below the weapon-grade enrichment rate of 90 percent. The P5-plus-one side would begin gradually lifting the unilateral sanctions by the United States and key European nations.
During ''Step 3,'' Iran would implement an additional protocol with the IAEA -- an agreement between the nuclear watchdog and each nation that would allow broader and more intrusive IAEA inspections of atomic energy facilities. At the same time, P5-plus-one would suspend all U.N. Security Council sanctions.
In the next and last stage, Iran should suspend all uranium enrichment and related activities for three months, while P5-plus-one would begin final lifting of all sanctions and remove the Iranian nuclear dispute from the IAEA Board of Governors agenda. The P5-plus-one side would also start to implement ''incentives on cooperation in different fields.''
Sanctions are predictably not going to force Iran to suspend enrichment or to negotiate on the basis of relinquishing that right. In fact, during sanctions, Iran will put more facts on the ground that it will refuse to relinquish later. This plan, for example, was conceived before there was significant enrichment outside of Iran. Later plans may well require an acceptance of 20% enrichment in the reinforced underground facility at Fordow.
The pattern that has been established has been that delays in accepting Iranian enrichment lead to greater Iranian enrichment capabilities representing the floor for negotiations. Barack Obama's failure to accept Iranian enrichment so far has led to a significant increase in the amount and kinds of enrichment technology that Iran will have access to going forward.
15 comments:
Arnold, a very interesting article about why Zionists are afraid of Iran - not of a-bomb, but of "capability" http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004712
The author cited a lot of Zionists who openly admit what is their problem with Iran (very unlike with Saudis).
By the way of Cole's fans see here http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/arab-world-mourns-whitney-houston.html#comment-92176
I do not know what to do - laugh or cry! The words about good old "1950′s and early ’60′s, before the US started bombing around the world, and overthrowing foreign governments either overtly or covertly, and supporting bloodyminded dictators against their oppressed populations. We were admired and welcomed everywhere back then." is not alike someone remembering good old 1933-37 yeas in Germany. No, they are even MORE stupid. Because just without even looking for more info I could list such examples of what USA was "not" doing in the time the Cole's reader is nostalgic about
1) Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti - support for the bloody dictators
2) Cuba and Guatemala - attempt (in the second case, successful) to overthrow the popular regimes which were hostile to USA imperialism
3) Iran - the same as 2)
4) Korea - the support for bloody dictator-puppet of the USA by armed forces which completely destroyed a half of the country and murdered hundreds of thousands at least
5) Support for aparteid in South Africa
6) Support (sometimes armed) for Gulf royals (Saudis and others)
And so on. Just to think that such people with such peculiar memory are clearly not the most stupid in the USA and sure see themselves as progressive and good.
In such light even DM looks almost logical :(
Lidia if you take issue with some of my views please present factual evidence which shows them to be wrong. Instead you just come up with biased and flawed information that is easily swatted away.
Whats more after all your talk against imperialist actions you have shown yourself to be quite defensive of the ussr's for the rather silly reason that you just happen to come from there.
"
We were admired and welcomed everywhere back then "
The peace is indeed flawed for it implies that most of the world doesnt now see the us in a positive light, yet the most recent polls with the largest samples have shown that the weight of the evidence supports the claim that even nowadays most people have a positive view of the us.
A number of the things you listed were indeed wrong, however the korean war was primarily the fault of communist forces included the place you were born in, now i know you would not like to hear this for some people are defensive about their nations action but take it from a neutral observer.
By taken action against communist forces the us actually helped to save south korea from a terrible fate, a fate that would have likely caused the excess deaths of millions of people.
One only has to look at north korea and south korea to see the fate south korea has been spared if the ussr and nk had their way.
Also you still have to answer my questions about assad and syria.
Dermot, put all your questions for Lidia, then put all of your questions for me here and I'll answer them.
Oh, you'd rather not? They don't seem as powerful any more?
Have it your way.
Arnold, I see no need to answer DM on this point. What he has to say, he has said. Everyone could look and see for oneself, and then decide, who is wrong there.
But thanks anyway.
He's not going to ask any questions. I'm just pointing that out.
Arnold i asked them once before! Why didnt you answer them then, even from your post you seem to be acknowledging the fact that they were asked....but then you dodged for some mysterious reason?
Again arnold they are there, answer them!
Questions have already been asked, charming of you to go into denial, and as lidia would go... :)
No mysterious reason. I ignore a lot of what you write that either has obvious answers, has answers I've already given or that I don't consider relevant.
You like getting the last word, and I don't mind you getting the last word. That doesn't change if there is a question.
But if you have questions that I or Lidia would dodge, let's see them.
Why would you not when I'm directly asking? Do you have a principled opposition to cutting and pasting? You've cut and pasted here before.
There is no possible reason that this is the second time I'm issuing this challenge and you're not answering it other than that you don't really have the confidence you pretend to have that your questions might be difficult to answer.
But I wish someone who disagreed with this blog did have a bunch of questions they consider difficult that they could pose.
It would be good for the blog. If any lurker can think of something that may be difficult to answer, please post it or them.
Arnold i went to the trouble beforehand to ask the questions, you did not answer them nor did lidia, now you are trying to make me look like the bad guy for not repeating myself ( i believe in some cases i already did).
Your site is not that large arnold, answer the questions i put to you, if you do not wish to please just admit that dodging is your wish.
Already done arnold...but you avoided them..how brave...
Heres a response of one i basically asked before, are you western?
If you answer now why didnt you before?
The wikileaks article actually showed that israel does have a prob with sa :/
That's the question I'm supposedly dodging?
Any more or is that it?
Dodged it again i see :/
Post a Comment