Report: US could allow limited Iranian uranium enrichment

[Camera]

You mention France, apparently they were rude in the negotiations with Iran

The Foreign Ministry official said the different behavior of representatives of the negotiating countries — the French envoy was rude, while the U.S. one was surprisingly polite at the Istanbul talks, he said —

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6608880.story

You are right. The French position on this issue is even more rude than the US'. (There are some reasons for this.) But France is not opposed to a peaceful nuclear program in Iran.
In the previous round of talks, there were proposals that the 20% Uranium that was already stockpiled by Iran would be traded for French or Russian rods for the small research reactor and that the spent fuel would be processed by France or Russia.

[geolocator]

Iran needs 20% enriched Uranium to produce Isotopes in the research reactor of Teheran. This issue could be resolved by providing Iran with Russian or French rods.

Iran wants to be as independent as possible and wants to develop technologies to be independent. This doesn't depend who's in power where - it will be always so. It's not an oil-pumped geopolitical midget.
Why Israel lured in Intel to build a modern fab? They could simply buy chips.

Just an example from Russian recent history. Russia launches sattelites which need electronics. There are problems as BAE or other company are restricted bacause "space" or "military" microelectronics is controlled. Of cause weapons need electronics too and they should not depend from supplies, at least they should be replaceable in critical cases. Sattelites can't wait for years too for an approval. As a result Russia has adopted a microelectronics development program. That would be a joke in the begining of the century - it was planned to buy everything until it was not first used as a means of political pressure.

[Camera]

Iran wants to be as independent as possible and wants to develop technologies to be independent. This doesn't depend who's in power where - it will be always so. It's not an oil-pumped geopolitical midget.
Why Israel lured in Intel to build a modern fab? They could simply buy chips.

Just an example from Russian recent history. Russia launches sattelites which need electronics. There are problems as BAE or other company are restricted bacause "space" or "military" microelectronics is controlled. Of cause weapons need electronics too and they should not depend from supplies, at least they should be replaceable in critical cases. Sattelites can't wait for years too for an approval. As a result Russia has adopted a microelectronics development program. That would be a joke in the begining of the century - it was planned to buy everything until it was not first used as a means of political pressure.

Iran's wish to be independent may be legitim indeed, but her violations of her international engagements are not.

[KoTeMoRe]

The problem is that Iran compliance or not doesn't change the fact that the "offers" by the P5 are not in accordance with the NPT. There is your Gordian knot.

BTW the Russians know already they would have to bring up more than 120kg of LEU in Iran if they want to keep Iran in its tracks. There is simply no faster alternative source to domestic production.

That is why they clearly tried to have Iran agree on principle instead of a whole agreement.

[Camera]

The problem is that Iran compliance or not doesn't change the fact that the "offers" by the P5 are not in accordance with the NPT. There is your Gordian knot.

If Iran wants a solution in accordance with the NPT, she should do what she had to to long ago: comply to UNSCRs in order to resolve the issue with the IAEA and not with the P5+1.

BTW the Russians know already they would have to bring up more than 120kg of LEU in Iran if they want to keep Iran in its tracks. There is simply no faster alternative source to domestic production.

120kg of LEU to what degree?

[Camera]

Iran says it is 'hopeful' over upcoming IAEA nuke talks

By REUTER$

Ali Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the UN's nuclear watchdog, says purpose of upcoming meeting is to create "framework" for future cooperation; declines to comment IAEA allegations of high-grade uranium enrichment.



(…)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Saturday it would resume discussions with Iran on May 14-15 - more than two months after the last meeting over concerns about Tehran's atomic activities ended in failure.

"We hope that this will be a very constructive and successful meeting," Iran's ambassador to the Vienna-based IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told Reuter$.

(…)

He declined to comment however on Western demands that Iran halt the higher-grade enrichment, to a fissile concentration of 20 percent, it began in 2010 and has since sharply expanded, shortening the time needed for any nuclear weapons breakout.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=268050

[KoTeMoRe]

If Iran wants a solution in accordance with the NPT, she should do what she had to to long ago: comply to UNSCRs in order to resolve the issue with the IAEA and not with the P5+1.



120kg of LEU to what degree?

Up to 20% on a 1/1 substitution.

The issue is not what can be done now. The Resolutions are on the table. They cannot be lifted like that. Therefore Iran cannot hope to have its case reviewed frankly. The basic process of declaration can go from 6 months to forever. Korea while forced to declare a smaller program did it in almost a year (and with holes).

If there was a gradual lift of the sanctions (step by step lift) and that the UN would lift some of the sanctions after the full disclosure, you could have those. But again, this is not what the P5 is agreeing upon. Far from that.

Actually the leading parties in this mess are asking for unrealistic things. Iran is asking for full lifting of the sanctions within the disclosure period. The US is asking for a contraction of the Iranian program.

So we will not have anything unless someone decides to go forward. I hope the Iranians go with a full disclosure. If they do, the ball will be on the US. While that does not guarantee full physical inspections, you could have an idea on what is on Iran's mind. Especially if the disclosure matches with the intelligence the US might have.

[Camera]

Up to 20% on a 1/1 substitution.

It's not really an issue because Iran is stockpiling the 20% LEU an is far from transforming it into fuel rods for its Teheran reactor.
Anyway, if substitution takes time, Iran could also be temporarily supplied with the isotopes she needs and that are produced in many places.

The issue is not what can be done now. The Resolutions are on the table. They cannot be lifted like that. Therefore Iran cannot hope to have its case reviewed frankly.
The basic process of declaration can go from 6 months to forever. Korea while forced to declare a smaller program did it in almost a year (and with holes).

Whose fault?
BTW, ROK's programe was much bigger. (ROK exports nuclear facilities worth tens of Billions of USD.)

If there was a gradual lift of the sanctions (step by step lift) and that the UN would lift some of the sanctions after the full disclosure, you could have those. But again, this is not what the P5 is agreeing upon. Far from that.

Actually the leading parties in this mess are asking for unrealistic things. Iran is asking for full lifting of the sanctions within the disclosure period. The US is asking for a contraction of the Iranian program.

Iran would not face international sanctions if she did not fail to comply to UNSCRs ordering her to disclose her program to the IAEA in full transparency. So I don't believe the P5+1 would lift any sanction before full disclosure.

So we will not have anything unless someone decides to go forward. I hope the Iranians go with a full disclosure. If they do, the ball will be on the US. While that does not guarantee full physical inspections, you could have an idea on what is on Iran's mind. Especially if the disclosure matches with the intelligence the US might have.

Why Iran fails to do it for years? If her nuclear project was fully peaceful as she pretends there was no reason for Iran long ago and to face instead all this trouble.

[KoTeMoRe]

ROK's enrichment program was smaller. Fewer locations, far more modern technology, less people working on it. That was ROK's safeguard violation.

Again, you are blaming Iran for something they could not do today even if they wanted. If you punish someone preemptively you cannot say that it is his fault if he comes clear.

Iran has been told to stop enriching by the UNSC. The IAEA DB issues rely with a full disclosure, not with stopping Uranium Enrichment. They want to asses and establish safeguards, not stop Iran from enriching.

So again, this is not as simple as that. And you act as if Iran had never provided information to the IAEA. Iran has and is providing information to the IAEA. It is not providing it fully.

[Camera]

ROK's enrichment program was smaller. Fewer locations, far more modern technology, less people working on it. That was ROK's safeguard violation.

You are right on this point.

Again, you are blaming Iran for something they could not do today even if they wanted. If you punish someone preemptively you cannot say that it is his fault if he comes clear.
Iran has been told to stop enriching by the UNSC. The IAEA DB issues rely with a full disclosure, not with stopping Uranium Enrichment. They want to asses and establish safeguards, not stop Iran from enriching.

Exactly, but there was no preemptive punishment.
As Iran failed in her cooperation with the IAEA, the case was submitted to the UNSC. Then, Iran failed to comply to UNSCRs, while continuing to fail in her cooperation with the IAEA…

So again, this is not as simple as that. And you act as if Iran had never provided information to the IAEA. Iran has and is providing information to the IAEA. It is not providing it fully.

This is the core of the problem. Why Iran is not providing it fully? Everybody knows the answer.

[KoTeMoRe]

Actually nobody knows it...everybody guesses.

[Camera]

Actually nobody knows it...everybody guesses.

On the other hand, everybody understands the significance and this lasted too long.

[KoTeMoRe]

Has it? I don't think so. Even in case of agreement this will drag on for at least half a decade. So really, this has not lasted nearly enough.

[Camera]

Has it? I don't think so. Even in case of agreement this will drag on for at least half a decade. So really, this has not lasted nearly enough.

It lasts already for almost a decade…
Hopefully a negotiated solution could be found that will spare the Iranian population the though sanctions scheduled for July 1st, and other sanctions that are in the pipeline, as well as military strikes.

[Camera]

World powers expect concrete steps in Iran nuclear talks

By REUTER$
05/03/2012 13:45

The 5 key UNSC members also press Tehran to agree with UN nuclear watchdog on access to "relevant sites and information"; call on N. Korea to refrain from new nuke tests.



The five permanent members of the UN Security Council put pressure on Iran on Thursday to allay international concern about its nuclear program, and said they expected talks with Tehran to lead to concrete steps toward a negotiated solution.

In a joint statement issued at a nuclear meeting in Vienna, the United States, France, Russia, China and Britain pressed Tehran to agree urgently with the UN nuclear watchdog on access to "relevant sites and information."

Western diplomats say Iran appears to be stonewalling a request by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for access to a key military site, Parchin, where it believes military-related nuclear research may have taken place.

CONTINUED: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=268549