Very fair to all sides involved, IMO. This ensures Iran doesn't go beyond nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons. Apparently, the US is backing this proposal by the EU. Good thing IMO. Obviously, there are lots of details we are unaware of that could be "deal-breakers" to one side or the other, but if I were to take it at face value, it seems to make sense (unless Iran claims this is unacceptable because of one reason or another, we shall see). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050805...1VSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl EU Offers to Back Iran Nuclear Program By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer LONDON - European diplomats on Friday sought to entice Iran into a binding commitment not to build atomic arms by offering to provide fuel and other long-term support to help Iranians generate electricity with nuclear energy. The Bush administration backed the offer, which came as a diplomatic effort to persuade North Korea into giving up its atomic weapons program stalled. The proposal to Iran came from Britain, France and Germany, which are representing the European Union. They also offered greater economic, political and security cooperation if the Tehran government agrees to the plan. Iran has long claimed its nuclear program is solely for the peaceful production of electricity, while Washington charges the real aim was to produce arms. The discovery of clandestine aspects of Iran's program raised worries among other nations and pressures have mounted on Iran. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, announced it would hold an emergency meeting Tuesday to formally warn Iran not to resume uranium enrichment at its plant in Isfahan. The IAEA board could refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for consideration of sanctions. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the EU proposal, presented by ambassadors from the three European countries in Tehran, would be studied "today and tomorrow" and a response would be issued "soon." In Paris, a French diplomat said European negotiators wanted an Iranian response by the end of August. The official, who briefed reporters on condition he not be named, said, "They can choose elements of it and make other proposals, and we are totally ready to consider them." In Washington, a State Department official said the United States believed diplomacy was the best way to resolve the faceoff with Iran. "We encourage Iran to consider positively the EU's offer to continue to observe the Paris agreement and to refrain from taking steps that would violate the agreement such as breaking the IAEA seals at Isfahan and restarting uranium conversion," said the State Department's acting spokesman, Tom Casey. The Europeans have been pressing Iran to abandon uranium enrichment, which it voluntarily suspended in November. Uranium enriched to low levels can be used as fuel in nuclear reactors to generate electricity, but further enrichment makes it suitable for a nuclear bomb. Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (true). According to a summary of the EU proposal obtained by The Associated Press, the Europeans acknowledge Iran's right to nuclear energy and promise to help it develop "a safe, economically viable and proliferation-proof civil nuclear power generation and research program." The 34-page proposal promises Iran a long-term supply of enriched uranium from other countries, on condition spent fuel is returned. Iran also would be able to buy peaceful nuclear technology, opening the door to such deals as Russia's $800 million contract to build a reactor in the southern Iranian port city of Bushehr and supply fuel. In return, the Europeans call on Iran to make a "legally binding commitment not to withdraw" from the nuclear treaty, as North Korea did, and to agree to permit surprise inspections by the IAEA and abandon all uranium activities, including conversion, enrichment and reprocessing. The EU nations also say Iran must "stop construction of its heavy water research reactor at Arak." Nuclear experts consider heavy water reactors a danger because they use higher-grade plutonium suitable for weapons use. They say the reactor at the Iranian city of Arak can yield enough plutonium from spent fuel to make one atomic bomb a year. Meanwhile, six-nation disarmament talks involving North Korea reached an impasse over Washington's insistence that the Pyongyang regime should not be allowed to keep any nuclear program that might be converted to making weapons. North Korea insists it has the right to "peaceful nuclear activities." But it has said it could rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and let in international inspectors if the talks in Beijing are successful. Francois Gere, president of the French Institute of Strategic Analysis, questioned whether the model proposed by the Europeans for Iran would work for North Korea. "North Korea can very likely explode a bomb in a few months. Iran is five years, maybe 10 years, from that capability," Gere said.
It could have been a good deal. However, it is probably too late for this. After 5 years of Bush Cheney struggling to get support to invade Iran, and the example of what happened to Iraq, Iran will almost probably decide that it needs nukes to protect against neocon adventurism.
Iran Rejects `Unacceptable' European Nuclear Proposal Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Iran rejected as ``unacceptable'' a European Union proposal that calls for the suspension of uranium enrichment in the country, the Iranian foreign ministry said. ``The Europeans' proposal lacks the criteria enshrining Iran's interests and runs counter to the non-proliferation treaty's spirit,'' Hamid-Reza Assefi, a ministry spokesman, said, the state-run Iranian new agency reported today on its Web site. France, Germany and the U.K., leading EU nuclear talks with Iran, mapped out yesterday proposals to support Iran's civil nuclear-energy program provided uranium enrichment is suspended. Iran said this week it plans to restart processing at a plant in Isfahan, ending a suspension agreed to in November. In response, EU governments threatened to seek United Nations sanctions. The U.S., leading the effort to ban Iran from enriching uranium, says the Islamic Republic plans to use the technology to make weapons, a charge denied by Iran. The EU has threatened to halt talks on a trade accord with Iran, the No. 2 oil producer in the Middle East, if the nuclear crisis escalates. The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will send inspectors next week to monitor Iran's resumption of uranium processing in Isfahan, Melissa Fleming, an agency spokeswoman, told Agence France-Presse today. The U.S.-backed European diplomatic effort to get Iran to step back from the brink of pursuing atomic arms is a test of wills between Europe and new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was sworn in as president two days ago. Ahmadinejad, who was sworn in today in parliament, said Iran won't submit to the will of any other nation or accept anything that violates the country's rights, AFP reported. The EU proposal allowed Iran to have access to civil nuclear technology and guaranteed a lasting supply to Iran of nuclear fuel for its plants, according to a French foreign ministry statement issued in Paris yesterday.
Does anyone know the 'details' of this EU proposal? What 'restrictions' does it place on Iran that might violate the IAEA's own terms which allow countries to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes? Anyways, the EU/USA take this matter to the Security Council, you can bet that China & Russia will veto. As far as Iran is concerned, they are safe from UN sanctions, although the EU and the USA could impose unilateral sanctions on Iran. I think it is dismaying that the new Iranian leadership outright dismissed this offer, because the EU clearly stated that they were open to 'counter offers' from Iran and they can negotiate the remaining terms to the satisfaction of both parties. If Iran doesn't at least work with the EU and the IAEA on this, then the EU and the USA should go ahead and impose sanctions against it, including the sanctions that would prohibit the USA and the EU countries from importing oil from Iran, which would definitely hurt them in the short term (although this would be great news to China, meaning that Iran would be entirely free to direct all or most of its production towards China, forging an even stronger bond between the two countries and effectively making Iran a 'protectorate' of China, the same way the US is committed to securing Saudi Arabia against threats.
News Analysis: Legal basis is elusive for objection to Iran http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/08/10/news/nuke.php By Thomas Fuller International Herald Tribune THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 2005 VIENNA Iran's decision to press ahead with its nuclear program puts European leaders in a tough spot: They are trying to stop Tehran from doing something that is technically not illegal. The seals that Tehran ordered broken Wednesday were installed by United Nations inspectors as part of a voluntary agreement between Iran and the European powers last November. The Iranians now say they have changed their minds because they are frustrated by the pace of negotiations over the scope of their nuclear ambitions. The West, in turn, fears that Iran's real intention is to develop nuclear weaponry. As a result, European diplomats here are scrambling to find ways to pressure Tehran into resuming the suspension of a nuclear program that is recognized by the International Atomic Energy Agency as following the rules. This ongoing legalistic battle masks more fundamental questions: Does Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, really need nuclear power plants? What are Iran's true intentions? And how effective is the UN system in monitoring the country's nuclear program? "The legal case is somewhat thin against Iran," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that researches nuclear issues. Before the emergency meeting here on Tuesday, European leaders threatened to take Iran before the United Nations Security Council. But diplomats now say this is not on the table at the talks here. Kimball believes that Britain, Germany and France, the three countries leading a European effort to circumscribe Iran's nuclear program, have not carried through on their Security Council threats because they are not sure that they would win. It is widely recognized that Iran did violate international law by hiding its nuclear program for 18 years. But the program was discovered in 2002 and Iran has since cooperated with United Nations inspectors, who have installed cameras in their facilities and make regular visits and reports. "Some might ask, why are you taking this to the Security Council now? This was discovered three years ago and they've taken corrective action since then," said a Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition that she not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. The difficulties of addressing nuclear questions through the UN system have been on full display here during the emergency meetings called by Britain, France and Germany. For the second day on Wednesday, diplomats were unable to reach consensus on a resolution addressing the Iranian situation, and the UN agency announced that a meeting of its board of governors had been canceled. The major fault line is between developing countries that are wary of any action that impinges on their rights to peaceful nuclear programs and Western countries, many of which have both military and civil nuclear capacity and are afraid of the technology spreading. Iran has positioned itself as a champion of the developing world, capable of standing up to Europe and the United States. When Iran's chief delegate at the IAEA meeting, Cyrus Nasseri, addressed the agency's governing board Tuesday, he started with a jab at the United States, pointing out that the meeting was taking place on the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, and that it was the "most absurd manifestation of irony" that the only country to use atomic weapons "has now assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability." Iran has support among some developing countries that are sympathetic to the argument that nuclear technology is not the exclusive right of wealthier countries. The Malaysian representative at the meeting, Rajmah Hussain, read a statement on behalf of the Nonaligned Movement, which includes such countries as Indonesia, India and South Africa, saying that nuclear technology issues "should be addressed in a balanced and nondiscriminatory manner." Rajmah added that all countries had a "basic and inalienable right" to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Does Iran need the nuclear electricity generating capacity it is so forcefully seeking to acquire? The country last year produced and exported an average of 4.09 million barrels of oil a day. Given current reserves estimated in January by the Oil & Gas Journal, a trade publication, at 125.8 billion barrels, this would leave the country with slightly more than 80 years of production. In addition, Iran's natural gas reserves are estimated to last 200 years at current production levels. Iran argues that a growing population and economy are causing its consumption rates to increase, therefore leaving it with progressively less oil to export. "With the current trend of development in Iran it will not be long before we will have to utilize all our fossil fuel resources for domestic purposes," Nasseri said. He added that Iran wanted to sell its uranium byproducts on the international market, describing nuclear fuel as the "alternative for the future not only for Iran but for the whole world." Kimball of the Arms Control Association believes Iran's motives are more complex than that. "For Iran, nuclear technology is a source of national pride and a demonstration of its political and technological independence from its former colonial masters," he said. "This is much more complicated than a simple economic and energy calculation," he said.
True, under IAEA rules, Iran is not in violation of those agreements. However, the EU and the USA are hoping Iran and the IAEA would make an 'exception' and accept the discriminatory measures being applied to Iran, where as other states haven't had to comply with similar demands. If you are a person that believes in international 'legality', then you would be offended by this whole thing. However, the practical person in me (the realist if you will) sees it as a positive that we are not going to allow countries to join the nuclear club without giving it our all to make sure it doesn't happen, ESPECIALLY in the Middle East where conflict seems to be the norm rather than the exception. IMO, Israel must be forces to disarm its nuclear arsenal as well and make the ME a nukes-free zone, which isn't a new idea at all and others have in fact proposed this in the past. The way I see it, as long as Iran's 'enemy' Israel is allowed to keep its nukes, they will strongly resist yielding to the EU's and the USA's demands to stop enriching uranium. For the Iranian leadership, they feel threatened by the US and Israel, and they saw what happens to those countries that don't possess nukes. It's pretty rational for them to want to build up their defensive capabilities, and nukes would make sense in that situation. However, it's important that we are assured we don't have another nuclear power in the ME.
The Israelis should just go and bomb the Iranian nuke plans like they did in Iraq. Problem solved. We let NK get nukes, which was a big mistake, we and our allies should try our best to keep anyone else from following their example. We should also be working on a way to get the nukes out of NK.
Iran will retaliate big time.they'll use Hezbollah as there proxies in isreal to blowup inncen civilians. infact, iran now has missels that can reach isreal. imagine if they load it with chemical bomb? isreal has no right to bomb anyone. it's not a jungle out there.
Israel has nukes, if Iran attacked them with chemical weapons we would see the first use of nuclear weapons since WW2. Israel has just as much right to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran as they did in Iraq. Whether that meets your or anyone elses standards is not really relevent to their ability or willingness to do it.
What wxactly gives them that right?. so anyone can attack anyother country if they deem fit?. isreal, is'nt exactly a innocent country, is it?. the genocide commited by them is th oot of all terrorisim.
