UPDATED Iran-US-Russia Deal on Enrichment, The Sequel

UPDATED Iran: The Washington-Tehran Deal on Enriched Uranium?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



UPDATE 15 October 0835 GMT: Finally! An unnamed journalist picks up on the third-party enrichment story at yesterday's State Department briefing by Philip Crowley:

QUESTION: The meeting coming up, the technical talks in Vienna about the low-enriched uranium – who is the U.S. sending, and how far do you expect to get in those meetings? What’s the sort of agenda and hopes for an outcome?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s – we haven’t decided. Those arrangements are still being worked as to what the representation will be....These are technical talks, really, to work through the practical issues of how to ship the fuel out of Iran, and then provide the fuel that – for this research reactor....

QUESTION: But your understanding is that the Iranians are going forward with this, you know, a hundred percent. [Are the talks] actually just about implementing it right now, or is [the meeting] about in theory how it would work?

MR. CROWLEY: ...This is a confidence-building measure. There is the research reactor. It’s running out of fuel. And we think there’s a mechanism that can be put in place so that we can see that the shipment out of some of the existing Iranian stocks and then fuel for this particular reactor provided. I mean, it really is about working through the technical aspects of this. And...we believe that the meeting will go forward on October 19, and we’re working through the appropriate representation.


UPDATE 15 October 0730 GMT: The Hole in the Middle. Michael Slackman of The New York Times has a good but ultimately curious article this morning. In "Some See Iran as Ready for Nuclear Deal", he quotes analysts such as Trita Parsi, Flynt Leverett, and Juan Cole, as well as past statements from top Iran officials, to build his case.

The curiosity? Slackman never mentions the "third-party enrichment" proposal that proves his point.


UPDATE 1855 GMT: If you're clued up on the real story, then this statement by Vladimir Putin, former President and now Prime Minister of Russia, makes sense: "There is no need to frighten the Iranians. There is a need to reach agreements; there is a need to search for compromises." Stay the course on the ongoing, quieter discussions on third-party enrichment and Iran's second enrichment facility near Qom.

If you're not clued, then you're the ideal receptive audience for Press TV's spin on Putin's statement --- The Russians Are With Us Against the "West" --- "Putin Warns against Intimidation".

The story so far: last weekend we picked up on a scoop by Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post that, for four months, the US had been developing a plan for "third-party enrichment" by Russia of 80 percent of Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium. The processed uranium, now at 20% enrichment, would be used in Iran's medical research facilities. The proposal was presented to Iran before the Geneva talks at the start of October, and Tehran has accepted it as a basis for discussions.

We noted that, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Moscow this week, the proposal was likely to be at the forefront of US-Russian talks on Iran. After all, the technical talks on enrichment between Iran and the 5+1 powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany) are next Monday. At the same time we wondered if the media, dazzled by the surface issue of sanctions, would take any notice.

Well, Clinton has had her meetings with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and no one --- as far as we know --- figured out the real diplomatic game, as opposed to the diversionary one.

During the midst of Clinton's talks yesterday, news services were so at sea that they were blaring, almost at the same time,"Yes, the Russians Will Support Sanctions; No, the Russians Won't Support Sanctions", without giving a passing thought to enrichment.

Today is no better. The New York Times, still stuck on Lavrov's public posture that sanctions would be "counterproductive", headlines, "Russia Resists U.S. Position on Sanctions for Iran". The Guardian of London swallows the opposite PR line, "Clinton hails US-Russian co-operation on Iran", and the BBC, thrilled to get an interview with Clinton, nods its head as she declares, "Clinton: Russia Sees Iran Threat".

But the top prize for media dizziness goes to Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post, who clearly doesn't read the stories published in her story (or at least those by Glenn Kessler). She expends more than 500 words shouting, "Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions". Buried well within them is the single line, "Under heavy international pressure, the Islamic republic agreed to admit inspectors and send much of its uranium to Russia for enrichment," which --- to say the least --- is a hydrogen bomb's distance from the account Kessler gave of the US-Iran talks.

And it is not as if Clinton didn't offer a clue to the real story to anyone sharp enough to listen: "Iran has several obligations that it said it would fulfill. We believe it is important to pursue the diplomatic track and to do everything we can to make it successful."

What are those obligations? "[Iran will] fulfill its obligation on inspections, in fact, open up its entire system so that there can be no doubt about what they're doing, and comply with the agreement in principle to transfer out the low-enriched uranium."

At which point a journalist on his/her game would have said, "Secretary Clinton, can you confirm that the agreement in principle concerns the plan developed since June for Iran to transfer uranium to Russia, enriching it from 3.5 to 20 percent?"

Unfortunately, the journalist who was called on to ask the final question ignored that possibility in favour of the "Oh Yes, The Russians Will. Oh No, The Russians Won't" script:"It sounds like you did not get the commitment from the Russian side in terms of sanctions or other forms of pressure that could be brought to bear on Iran. Could you comment on that?"

And who was that journalist? Take a bow, Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post.

UPDATED Iran: The Washington-Tehran Deal on Enriched Uranium?

The Latest from Iran (11 October): “Media Operations”

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

UPDATE 13 October 1900 GMT: For the love of Ed Murrow, is there a journalist out there who is not being led by the nose on the US-Russia Sanctions on Iran story?

Both The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times prefer to take the bait of Oh No, Russia Will Not Support US Sanctions, quoting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” This apparently "throw[s] cold water on the Obama administration’s hopes that Russia had bxeen persuaded to cooperate with its effort to intensify the global pressure on Tehran".

Reuters prefers to be the mouthpiece for Oh Yes, Russia Will Support US Sanctions, relying on a US State Department spokesman who assures everyone that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev is "quite clear that, while pleased with the Geneva results, he expects Iran to implement them and if they don't there should be sanctions."

None of these journalists takes the time to ponder that they are being taken for a public ride. The proposal on the table for Secretary of State Clinton and her hosts is not sanctions but the Russian enrichment of 80 percent of Iran's uranium. All else at this point is a diversion.


UPDATE 1510 GMT: From Deception, Enlightenment. Want to see the clues to the possible US-Iran-Russia deal on enrichment? All you have to do is find the right angle on the mainstream media's simple reporting.

For example, Paul Harris in The Observer of London recites the finger-wagging party line of "American officials", "Clinton woos Russia over Iran sanctions", when she is in Moscow on Tuesday. Actually, in light of this story, expect the Secretary of State to be discussing --- privately, not publicly --- the details of third-party enrichment.

The Los Angeles Times has an even bigger tip-off. Modifying earlier media reports of a defiant position by the spokesman for Iran's nuclear energy organisation, it quotes from a later interview with Ali Shirzadian:

We’re looking at three options. We hand over 3.5% enriched and receive in return 20% enriched, or we buy 20% enriched on the market, or we will be allowed to enrich ourselves. I stress that no matter what option we take it will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency....Any of these options will work for both sides.

There have been been few "scoops" for the mainstream media during the post-election crisis in Iran, but Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post can claim one this morning:

"Iran four months ago discreetly contacted the United Nations-affiliated agency for nuclear energy to outline a worrisome situation: A research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes that detect and treat the diseases of about 10,000 patients a week will run out of fuel by the end of 2010. Iran also had a request: Can you help us find a country that will sell us new fuel?"

The outcome? "An unusual deal, brokered largely by the United States, that aims to buy time for a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions. If it works, Iran will end up with fuel necessary to treat desperately ill patients -- and greatly reduce its stock of low-enriched uranium."

This is the deal at the heart of the headline discussion of "third-party enrichment", probably by Russia, of Iran's uranium. Kessler explains that the source for the medical programme, 50 pounds enriched to almost 20 percent by Argentina, is running low. The Iranians have been asking for use of their stock of 3300 pounds, currently at about 3-4 percent enrichment, but that, of course, is tangled up in the debate over whether Tehran is looking for a pretext to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Under the Obama Administration's plan, "Iran...would have to give up about 80 percent of its stockpile to get back the same amount of uranium supplied by Argentina in 1993". Kessler, obviously using Administration sources, says that "White House official Gary Samore broached the idea to Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's atomic energy agency, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. A senior U.S. official said, 'Both of them immediately said this is a great idea.'"

France is also involved, shaping the enriched fuel into uranium-aluminum
metal plates. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has helped broker the plan in talks with Tehran, including Mohammad El-Baradei's recent visit.

In the slow-moving world of international diplomacy, these are dramatic developments. However, there are two important points that Kessler --- in part because he feels obligated to sprinkle his article with superficial nay-saying ("critics question why the United States would be assisting a nuclear pariah"; "it will be too easy for Iran to extract the more highly enriched uranium for weapons") --- does not address.

First, this is the clearest possible sign that Washington --- come the hell or high water of its domestic opponents --- will be pursuing engagement. This is high-profile public relations: "senior Administration officials" have gone out of their way to place this story with the Post, knowing that it will get maximum attention over Sunday breakfasts through the capital. Every one of the boilerplate criticisms in Kessler's article is knocked back with an assurance such as "Iran has no known technical expertise at extracting uranium from a metal alloy".

Talk of deadlines and sanctions are now just window-dressing to distract the sceptics. While the Iranian regime will undoubtedly draw out negotiations, ensuring that the deal is not seen as a sign of its weakness, it sees value in the proposal: as Kessler notes, "[US officials] were relieved when, on the eve of the Geneva talks, he was quoted as saying that Iran would ship its low-enriched uranium to a third country for processing."

But here's the second point that does not even dawn on Kessler. "Four months ago", when Iran contacted the IAEA, was also "four months ago" when Iran was holding its Presidential election. Kessler does not identify when the US was informed of Tehran's approach, but one can assume it was soon afterwards.

So the Obama Administration took the decision that any position on Iran's internal turmoil was secondary to striking a nuclear deal. If the cost of that bargain was a granting of "legitimacy" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was a price worth paying.

Afghanistan: The Real Importance of Today's "Non-Story" of 13,000 Support Troops

Afghanistan: Did Clinton Just Say to the BBC, “Talk to the Taliban”?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

It's a pity that Ann Scott Tyson and The Washington Post have wasted so much effort in bigging-up this morning's declaration, "Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan", as Page 1 headline drama.

Why? Because the news is more than six months old.

Here's the supposed scoop: "President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials."

Unannounced move? Enduring America noted in March, and on repeated occasions afterward, that Obama had given the military a total of 30,000+ troops when the support forces were added to combat units. Indeed, we pointed to Obama's initial teaser for the press --- 4000 "trainers" --- as a marker for this public-relations/military strategy. The only person in Washington who has apparently missed this, as the months of the US escalation have unfolded only to reach another critical stage in the autumn, is Anne Scott Tyson.

The significance of Tyson's article is not in a sudden, naive recognition of the overall increase in the US commitment. Instead it is in this message tucked away in the fourth paragraph:

A significant number of support troops, in addition to combat forces, would be needed to meet commanders' demands. It also underscores the growing strain on U.S. ground troops, raising practical questions about how the Army and Marine Corps would meet a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

In other words, White House officials are using Tyson, whether she is a willing accomplice or an unwitting channel, to put out another dampener on the McChrystal recommendation for 40,000 more soldiers.

I have thought for weeks that a lot of the White House "dispute" with its top commander in Afghanistan is for show until a compromise is reached. That may still be the case: as in March, Obama will give the military less than 40,000 combat troops but a total of 40,000 when combat and support troops are added together.

However, the longer this drags on, the greater the possibility that this is not compromise but real conflict over the way forward for a US strategy which seems lost over its next steps beyond the mantras of "Al Qa'eda" and "security".

The Latest from Iran (10 October): The Death Sentences

NEW Nobel Peace Prize Shock: Ahmadinejad Wins!
Iran’s Power Politics: A Warning To Moscow
Iran: Karroubi Reply to Ahmadinejad’s Appearance on US TV (9 October)
Now, for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize: Mehdi Karroubi
The Latest from Iran (9 October): Almost Four Months

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

1920 GMT: A Bit of Official Hesitation? Press TV's website posts an article confirming the death sentences on three post-election detainees: "two are responsible for a deadly bombing and the remaining convict is a member of a terrorist organization". It names only Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani.

Some of the article is repetition of the very thin pretext for conviction: Zamani and the other member [Arash Pour-Ramani] of the "Iran Royal Association" are not tied to any criminal incident; however, "the group is responsible for a deadly bombing in the southern city of Shiraz back in April 2008, in which 13 people were killed and hundreds were wounded". The third detainee [Naser Abdul Hosseini] will die simply because his alleged membership in the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization, the armed wing of the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran.

Yet, if you read closely, there are a couple of chinks in the article's open-and-shut case. You'll notice in the headline, "In Iran, three 'terrorists' are placed on death row", the quote marks of uncertainty. And the text notes that Ali Zamani's case has been highlighted by Amnesty International.

1630 GMT: A report by AUT News names the three post-election detainees sentenced to death: "monarchists" Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Pourrahmani (both of whom are in the mid-August "confession" video run by Press TV, posted in a separate entry) and Naser Abdol Hosseini, alleged to be a member of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

1530 GMT: Yahoo! Makes It into State Media. It looks like the allegation over Yahoo! passing 200,000 usernames to Iran authorities will now die down, as there is no verification of the Iranian Students Solidarity Organization's claim of a source inside the Iranian Government. Still, the Islamic Republic News Agency gave the story several paragraphs today.

1520 GMT: Radio Netherlands has posted an English summary of the condemnation by the Dutch Foreign Minister (noted in comments below) of the death sentence for Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani.

1505 GMT: Minutes after we told a BBC radio reporter of the death sentences for post-election detainees, the BBC website adds, from the judiciary official who spoke to the Iranian Students News Agency, that "MZ" (probably Mohammad Ali Reza Zamani) and "AP" had been convicted for ties with the Kingdom Assembly of Iran, a banned monarchist group, and "NA" for links with the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran, which has sought the overthrow of the Islamic government since 1979.

On Thursday, an Iranian reformist website reported that Mr Zamani, 37, had been sentenced to death. It is unclear whether he is the "MZ" mentioned by Isna.

1445 GMT: Parleman News reports that Mir Hossein Mousavi met Thursday with the representative of Grand Ayatollah Mousavi-Ardebili in Tehran. The description of the discussion is vague, saying that it apparently centred on senior clerics' input into Mousavi's plans for a "social network" for the Green Path of Hope.

1435 GMT: The original Iranian Students News Agency report says only that three post-election detainees have received death sentences. The three cannot be named, according to the newspaper, because appeals are ongoing.

1410 GMT: More Death Sentences? Al Jazeera English, claiming information from Iranian Students News Agency, says a total of three post-election detainees, including Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani, have been sentenced to death by the Tehran Revolutionary Court.

Caution is needed here. We've been following this assertion, first posted by Twitter activists, for several hours. Those reports say three death sentences in addition to Ali Zamani. With the help of readers, we have now found the original ISNA story (see 1435 GMT), but there is no other verification.

0920 GMT: The Persian2English blog has published the English text of a new post-election movement, The Green Thinkers’ Network. Considering "What Is True Freedom For Iran?", the Network writes, "Are we liberal democrats? Is it even necessary to label ourselves with these names? Each name has a history. Why should we carry the history of liberalism on our shoulders? Maybe we can have new customs. In our custom we have religion, but also freedom."

0755 GMT: The Washington Post's alternative to Barack Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize? Neda Agha Soltan.

0630 GMT: Another quiet start after a relatively gentle Friday, but no doubt that there is one development of significance.

Mehdi Karroubi's letter, posted in the name of his son, to the head of Iran state broadcasting may not seem that dramatic. On the surface, it restates Karroubi's charges of detainee abuse, made since late July, to counter the message of President Ahmadinejad put out on American television. It returns to the battleground of the "enquiry" by the three-member judiciary panel, which unceremoniously threw out Karroubi's claims last month.

But there is a broader message here, both symbolic and very practical. Ahmadinejad might be posing himself on the international stage as Iran's leader, but Karroubi's letter is a reminder that the President has very clay feet. And it comes after weeks in which the Government appeared to have cut off Karroubi's communications. The Etemade Melli newspaper was closed and the website of Karroubi's reformist party was taken down, shutting off the daily drip-drip of allegations that was wearing away the Government authority.

Now the cleric is back, with a resurrected website and the certainty that he is still noticed. He is not mincing words --- Ahmadinejad's "[US] interview was pure lies"; "traitors have viciously attacked me" --- and telling the authorities that he will not be stopped: "The late Imam [Khomeini] said that he would sacrifice his life for the people of this nation."

And the last line of the letter contains pages of meaning, after all the Government attempts to bottle up the opposition in a vacuum of news: "Despite all the efforts, borders have been broken and people have access to information."

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Big Win for Tehran at Geneva Talks

LATEST Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama’s Balance Wobbles
Latest Iran Video: Nuclear Official Jalili on CNN (1 October)
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Remarks on Geneva Talks
The Latest from Iran (1 October): From Geneva to “Unity”?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

First Things First. We may have underestimated the significance of yesterday's discussions between Iran and the "5+1" power when we wrote (1640 GMT), "The Iranians have achieved their primary objective, which is to avoid an immediate condemnation and the threat of sanctions from a “breakdown” of today’s discussions."

The biggest signal of a breakthrough at the talks was not the declaration, from all sides, that Iran would invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the second enrichment facility at Qom "in the next couple of weeks" (1715 GMT). That was always the likely Iranian concession to "the West": contrary to the exaggerations in the US and British media, Qom is not that significant a plant, serving at this point as potential back-up to the main enrichment site at Natanz. So Tehran can accept inspections, provided its sovereignty is also maintained in an agreement, with the assurance that there's nothing illegal to be seen at the second facility.

No, here was the white smoke of a larger deal: "the Western media continues to miss the announcement, enthusiastically proclaimed by Press TV, that officials from Iran and the “5+1″ powers will have technical talks on 18 October on 'third-party enrichment'" (1935 GMT). A couple of hours later, McClatchy News Service put out the news:

Iran agreed in principle at high-level talks here to ship most of its enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim measure, to ease concerns over its nuclear development.

Under the tentative deal reached here, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3.300 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia where it would be further refined. French technicians would then fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran, to insert into a nuclear research reactor that is used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.

This morning, The New York Times headlines, "Iran Agrees to Send Enriched Uranium to Russia", and The Washington Post also picks up on the development. Perhaps most importantly, President Obama slipped the news into his statement last night, "Taking the step of transferring its low-enriched uranium to a third country would be a step towards building confidence that Iran’s program is in fact peaceful."

Of course, this is far from a done deal. The head of Iran's delegation, Saeed Jalili, was cautious when he appeared on CNN last night, saying that the matter would not have to be discussed by the "experts" in the IAEA, rather than the 5+1 Powers. Press TV's website, in contrast to the network's excited declaration of the technical talks on 18 October, is now silent on the matter.

Yet make no mistake. At this point the outcome is a victory for the Ahmadinejad Government. A week ago, President Obama, flanked by the British and French leaders, was loudly declaring that the US would be punishing Iran economically if Tehran did not concede on the "secret nuclear plant". The White House scrambled last night to keep the stick on the table, with Obama putting out boilerplate warnings, Talk is not substitute for action. Pledges of cooperation must be fulfilled....Our patience is not unlimited." An official added the specific caution to The New York Times, "[This] would represent a major accomplishment for the West, reducing Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon quickly and buying more time for negotiations to bear fruit. If Iran has secret stockpiles of enriched uranium, however, the accomplishment would be hollow."

Now, however, that stick would have to be waved in the face of not one but two tracks of conversations. There are the technical talks, and there is the next meeting of the 5+1 powers with Iran, flagged up for the end of October. So, unless the US is prepared to pull the plug suddenly on both processes (or unless the Iranian Government is foolish enough to abandon the discussions), there is no pretext for further sanctions before the end of the year, even if Tehran draws out the talks with the IAEA over access to the second enrichment facility.

And even then, Washington's stick has been a limp one. Juan Cole enthuses this morning, "Barack Obama pwned Bush-Cheney in one day, and got more concessions from Iran in 7 1/2 hours than the former administration got in 8 years of saber-rattling," but the Obama Administration probably could have had the same result that it got yesterday had it kept its collective mouth shut last week. Instead, the President and his advisors raised the stakes with threats and then found, in the 72 hours leading up to Geneva, that they could not deliver if necessary: neither Russia nor China was on board, and the European Union as well as the IAEA signalled their preference for genuine discussions.

This alone would be excellent reward for Tehran, but President Ahmadinejad's victory --- and this will be the unnoticed side-effect of the discussions --- is even greater. For over the last week, the "Western" powers have given him the legitimacy for which he has struggled at home. Have no doubt: the President and his advisors will be proclaiming loudly that they have defended Iran's sovereignty, upheld the rights of other peoples with their insistence on discussion on wider political and economic issues, and forced the US, Britain, and France to back down. Last night Jalili was already denouncing the "media terrorism" which tried to humiliate Iran and refusing to acknowledge a question from an Israeli reporter.

In other words --- I doubt you can find many non-Iranian commentators who will note this, although The Guardian has noted somewhat clumsily, "An Islamic regime involved in rape...is more of an issue in Tehran than the nuclear one" --- the Geneva discussions were the second theatre for the Ahmadinejad Government. What it needed, even more than the disappearance of the sanctions threat and space for its nuclear programme, was the drama and spectacle of recognition to take back home.

The President and his advisors may have been playing to the Western galleries, but they recognise that the primary theatre is still at home. So now the question arises: can the regime use the nuclear talks to push aside the challenges to its authority or will other issues --- detentions, abuses, Constitutional manipulations --- now return to centre stage?