[OAW]

So we all know Iran is enriching uranium. The U. N. has demanded that Iran suspend enrichment. Iran has refused claiming that it has a right to do this under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They say it's for peaceful energy and medical purposes. The US and other western nations suspect it's for a secret weapons program. The purpose of this thread isn't to debate who's right or wrong on that issue. Instead, it's to discuss the latest diplomatic standoff over the situation. The Obama administration has engaged Iran diplomatically along with the other nations on the U. N. Security Council plus Germany. As a result, the U. N. has offered the following deal to Iran ....

70 percent of Iran's low-enriched uranium would be shipped out of the country (to Russia and then to France) in order to reduce its stockpile of material that could be enriched to a higher level, and possibly be used to make nuclear weapons. Approximately 1 year later, that uranium would be returned as refined fuel rods, which can power reactors but cannot be readily turned into weapons-grade material. In the meantime, Iran could (presumably) continue to enrich the 30% of its remaining low-enriched uranium itself.

Iran recently rejected this offer and accused the West of reneging on past promises to supply it with technology. The Iranian government then proposed a counter-offer ....

Iran is willing to do the deal, but only with a simultaneous exchange of its low-enriched uranium for refined fuel rods on Iranian soil. (Basically, they don't trust the West to uphold its end of the bargain if they have to wait a year to get the fuel rods.)

So the questions is should the U.N. accept the Iranian counter-offer? Why or why not? If not, should further U.N. sanctions be imposed if the Iranians don't take the original offer? Or perhaps military action?

Discuss!

OAW

[turtle777]

Since Iran has a long history of breaking agreements and promises, I don't expect this going to be any different.

Bottom line: Iran is not a realiable partner, they realize the West is weak and indecisive, so they will take advantage of it.

Does anybody really believe that Iran has only peaceful intentions ?
Well, at some point, the chicken are going to come home to roost.

-t

[Splinter]

My knee jerk reaction is that they can't simply say "no we don't want that because we want to build weapons" on the other hand they can't agree cause, I believe, they want to build weapons.

So my first instinct is that they are agreeing to enough to keep them seeming legit and 'on track' with negotiations while at the same time disagreeing with enough of the plan that either they will buy more time in negotiations or the deal will be taken off the table and buy even more time while the world feels it's their duty to come up with an acceptable solution.

In other words I think Iran is bluffing. So in answer to your question I say the UN should agree and demand it implemented in less than a few months. But then the Iranians will ask for more time etc etc. What sucks is with negotiations you can always delay you can always show half progress and get deadlines pushed back. People will always find a way to say "look, we are trying but it's very difficult we just need a little more time." And they are right. All they need is just a bit more time... boom.

They have already laughed past the Obama September deadline. The U.S. doesn't know it yet but that was a victory for them. They proved to themselves, on this issue, that Obama was full of it and with a little 'we will go here but not there and do this but not that' they can delay these negotiations till kingdom (or The Bomb) come

Dictator at the head of a nation that actively supports terror organizations + religious fanaticism + rants about how the destruction of other nations in the area is drawing closer + a recently revamped and upgraded ballistic missiles program + uranium enrichment program + hidden facilities cropping up like prairie dogs = bad news.

[OAW]

It would seem to me that if the intention of the West is to remove up to 70% Iran's enriched uranium from the country to prevent it from being weaponized ... AND also to respect Iran's right to nuclear fuel under the terms of the NPT then a simultaneous swap of enriched uranium for refined fuel rods inside Iran shouldn't be a problem. If, OTOH, the intent is simply to remove up to 70% of Iran's enriched uranium and also to hobble its civilian nuclear program ... then the original plan will be insisted upon.

OAW