|
US Wants Dismantling and not Temporary
Suspension of Enrichment Facilities
By Nader Bagherzadeh
16/08/08 "ICH"
-- --
It is clear from recent articles in the Christian Science
Monitor and the Los Angeles Times [1, 2] that the heated
discussion during the five hours of the July 19th Geneva
conference between Iran and P5+1 may have had a lot to do with
the ultimate dismantling of the enrichment and heavy water
facilities after a specified period of suspension and the so
called freeze-for-freeze. Freeze–for-freeze was an idea
originally proposed by the head of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), Elbaradei, who demanded that Iran not
install any new centrifuge while the existing ones are still
spinning. In return, the P5+1 countries would not seek new
sanctions as long as the negotiations would continue.
Asking for the dismantling of Iran’s sensitive nuclear
facilities has always been the US position. This is exactly what
the influential senator Richard Lugar of Indiana stated almost
two years ago: “The US final goal is not suspension, but
dismantling of Iranian enrichment facilities at Natanz.”
Since April 2006, technologically Iran has crossed the
enrichment know how red-line, although with some difficulty at
the beginning. The latest IAEA report revealed that 3000
centrifuges cascaded in groups of 164 are properly functioning
and are producing low enriched uranium for reactor fuel, not
weapons grade fuel as some US media reports may have lead the
public to believe.
Judging from published Israeli leaders’ remarks, there should be
no doubt that Israel’s long term objective is not confidence
building and temporary suspensions of Iran’s enrichment
facilities. Instead, her goal is the full termination and
dismantling of all the enrichment equipment. This is probably
one of the reasons why the US has not been in favor of the so
called “Pickering Proposal” for an indigenous multinational,
heavily inspected, enrichment plant in Iran. The Pickering
Proposal should be considered the most sensible and balanced way
out of the current impasse. The US has absolutely no legal
grounds to demand from Iran to discard her rights under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
It seems that Iran may have been taken off guard with this long
term proposal that included incentives and security guarantees,
but simultaneously demanded that Iran to agree to dismantle some
of its sensitive nuclear facilities after a specified period of
freeze-for-freeze and enrichment suspension. There were reports
that Iran was ready to proceed with freeze-for-freeze and
possibly a short (6 months) suspension of enrichment activities.
Iran lost billions of dollars because of current United Nations
Security Council (UNSC) sanctions and because of the US
persuading other countries not to invest in Iran or purchasing
oil from the gigantic gas and oil fields of the Persian Gulf and
the Caspian Sea area. Under these conditions, it would be hard
to imagine that Iran would agree with such a proposal. Not to
mention, gas transit pipelines that were diverted through other
countries, because of the US pressure, even if they were more
economical to pass through Iran’s territory. For instance, the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which may be one of the
reasons that Russia attacked Georgia, is indicative of US
policies to circumvent Iran and Russia’s involvement for future
oil and gas projects in the Caspian Sea region.
Facts on the ground are different from two years ago: it would
be impractical to convince Iranian leaders to abandon enrichment
activities and rely on an agreement with a lame duck US
government. They have invested too much of their political
capital and there is no guarantee that the next US president
will honor any agreement reached with the current US
administration. Moreover, the US track record of non-involvement
in Iran’s affair, as spelled out by the 1981 Algier’s Accords,
is not stellar. Recently, Sy Hersh reported that Bush approved
$400 million in 2007 to fund covert operations against Iran [3].
The threat of yet another set of UNSC sanctions will work
against forces of moderation in Iran that have been getting more
media coverage in recent months. With the possible change of
leadership in Israel towards a more hawkish Likud party, it is
conceivable that the new government of Israel will expect a US
involvement in an attack on yet another Moslem country.
Undoubtedly, if US forces were to initiate an attack on Iran,
the ensuing collateral damages, whether they be financial or
human, will be devastating for all sides, including Israel. One
major exception could be Russia that would enjoy a rise in the
price of gas and oil due to the political instability of the
Persian Gulf, not to mention additional sources of income in the
selling of Russian-made weapons that would be destroyed if Iran
retaliates.
The intransigent position that the US has taken by asking that
Iran ultimately dismantle its sensitive enrichment equipment may
not change with an Obama or McCain administration. McCain’s
advisors, Max Boot and William Kristol, are the most hawkish
neocons supporters of Israel. They would never agree to any
indigenous enrichment on Iranian soil. On the other hand, Obama
is being guided by people like Dennis Ross, a neoliberal, with
strong anti-Iranian views, which are not much different from
those of McCain foreign policy advisors when it comes to Iran’s
right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
Therefore, 2009 promises to be a critical year in terms of
whether the current cold war between the US and Iran may become
a full fledged conflagration that will severely impact regional
security issues.
[1]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0806/p03s03-usfp.html
[2]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran4-2008aug04,0,2845838.story
[3]
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Click on
"comments" below to read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary.
Do not include personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our
guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use this link
to notify us if you have concerns about a
comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
