Iran agrees to ship enriched uranium to Russia for refinement

[Wetzelbill]

Source: McClatchy News




GENEVA — 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.

The agreement was announced after more than seven hours of talks here between Iran and six other nations, which also featured the highest-level official U.S.-Iranian encounter in three decades.

Iran also pledged that it would allow inspection, within weeks, of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced he will head to Tehran to work out the details.

In Washington, President Obama said the talks marked "a constructive beginning" and showed the promise of renewed engagement with Iran, but added that "going forward we expect to see swift action. We're not interested in talking for the sake of talking."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the talks had "opened the door" to potential progress on the nuclear issue. "It was a productive day but the proof of that has not yet come to fruition, so we'll wait and continue to press our point of view and see what Iran decides to do," Clinton said.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/76369.html

---

Significant concession.

[Chulanowa]

1. Cliffnotes version

Bush: halt your uranium enrichment NOW!
iran: no.
Bush: RIGHT NOW!
Iran: No.
Bush: Goddamn it i mean it, end it now!
Iran: no, fuck you.
Bush: I'mma kick your ass if you don't!
Iran: Come try it.
Bush: End it right this instant!
Iran: No.
Obama: Please?
Iran: Well, okay.

[TPaine7]

3. No "please" involved.

Simply the fact that Russia no longer has their back in the same way they once did. That probably has something to do with the sea-based interceptors and the strategic timing of the revelation of US intelligence.

Obama is not pleading, he's talking politely with the world at his back. Big difference.

[BR_Parkway]

6. And the GOP was stupid enough to think he traded missles in Poland for nothing

from Russia? Even now I don't see them connecting those dots, apparently they can't do that without someone faxing them talking points

[ShortnFiery]

19. ...

:spray:

[TPaine7]

2. Nice

I think Obama is playing a deep, insightful, farseeing game.

Isn't it nice to have a President who does that?

Isn't it nice to have a President who can?

[Wetzelbill]

4. my first inclination is to be skeptical

It's just how I am. I want to look at these things and say "Yeah but..." and figure out just how we're getting screwed etc. However, Obama is damn good at this stuff. Other leaders respect him and seem willing to work things out and give concessions that they maybe would not have done before. This surprised me. I usually can't be surprised that much.

[Ghost Dog]

12. Wait until Israel hears

they're going to be inspected.

[Poll_Blind]

5. This, IIRC, is a big deal for the better. BUT, Israel is not going to like it one bit.

And Israel traditionally does the bomb-dropping in situations like this. Unfortunately, their society has been been abused even more by successive right-wing governments than our own and non-military resolutions are not often presented to the Israeli people as a valid way out. The rhetoric has been ratcheted up by Iran and for every tweak Ahmadinejad gives Israel, Bibi turns around and tweaks the Israeli populace twice as hard.

How Israel chooses to respond will be interesting. I know the Russians have been pushing for this actually for at least a year because I recall reading previous news stories.

PB

[Wetzelbill]

8. I think you're right

on all accounts. It seems like I have heard Russia pushing to do this as well.

Hardline rhetoric is always puzzling to me. It undoubtedly prolonged the Cold War, for example. It certainly was a factor in preventing Bush from accomplishing anything positive in foreign policy for 8 years. Now watching Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu engage in it just makes me cringe. It's like watching two drunk guys in a bar arguing over something stupid until they are forced to back it up and start punching each other.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. Just like that?

But there were no bombs, no bodies, no war profiteering, no swagger, no "bring it on." How could such be possible with no grandstanding, no costumes, no oil profits soaring?

Where are the glory days of the Republican's reign? What have we been reduced to as a nation if mere words could achieve such a concession?

[Wetzelbill]

9. It's almost embarrassing

We didn't even torture anybody. I feel so ashamed.

[Thrill]

10. You mean diplomacy actually works?

Go Figure

[Purveyor]

11. Neocon heads are exploding! Thanks for posting. K&R eom

[SpartanDem]

13. Can't wait to hear how the GOP complains about this

[Psephos]

14. Wow. Words!!! Just as good as actions, especially with a proven record such as Iran's. n/t

[Wetzelbill]

17. It's different because it's with Russia

And ally who never pushed them to give any concessions before. What do you base the proven record on? Propaganda? Nobody has ever had substantial direct talks like this with all parties asking Iran to give up these type of concessions. There is no precedent for it. And before the Bush administration came to power and isolated Iran and badgered them with hardline rhetoric they were becoming more moderate and cooperative. Even during the Bush years they tried to get the US to the table and volunteered several concessions so that we could normalize relations but our administration wanted no part of it. Is Iran perfect? Of course not, but don't outright dismiss negotiations that appear substantial and in good faith. It's a big step.

[ronnie624]

22. It's so strange to me that presumably informed progressives,

can believe so fervently that the U.S. government has an inherent right to dominate and dictate to other nations.

Scott Ritter is very succinct here, in a link posted by ShortnFiery:

SCOTT RITTER: Well, I’d like to see diplomacy succeed. The bottom line is, the more the United States and Iran talk with one another, the less likely it is that the two will engage in hostile actions against one another. But you can’t have diplomacy if it’s a one-way street. If the talks open up with the United States providing a whole list of demands that Iran must accede to or else the talks will fail, then the talks are doomed to fail.

The United States—you know, here we have a president who says he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons in the world today, and he recognizes that a key aspect of this is a viable, valid nuclear nonproliferation treaty. But for a treaty to be viable and valid, it must be applicable to all powers. That means that when Iran signs the treaty, Iran must not only abide by the treaty, but also to be able to operate fully within the context of the treaty. And Article IV of this treaty clearly allows Iran to have the right to enrich uranium for the use—for use in nuclear power. The United States, in citing the law, must be willing to abide by the law, not only in terms of its own actions, but also to allow Iran full obligations and rights under the law.

If this isn’t what’s going to happen, then these talks are doomed to fail. I want these talks to succeed. And I’m hopeful that the Obama administration right now is carrying out pre-game posturing but, once it comes time to sit down at the table, will actually let the tools of diplomacy work, which means it has to be a two-way street.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4083700#4083709>

[Wetzelbill]

23. You don't think that's what I meant did you?

Because I agree with what you just posted.

[ronnie624]

24. No, I found your message informed, accurate and genuinely progressive. n/t

[Wetzelbill]

25. cool

:)

[Cant trust em]

15. Damn that Obama. So naive for thinking that direct talks could ever produce results.

:sarcasm:

Really though, if Iran's got two weeks then time will tell how serious they are.

[excess_3]

16. I give up....... how is this helpful? .nt

[Wetzelbill]

18. Really?

If it's done in Russia it can be easily verified that it's low-enriched and only being used in commercial light water reactors for civilian purposes. If Iran does that until they open everything up for inspectors we -Intcom- can verify that they are only using enriched uranium for civilian purposes and hopefully avoid harsh sanctions and a war in the short term. And maybe it will be a stop towards bigger concessions and normalized relations. The process has been so bogged down that this is something that we've been trying to get for years, so even getting it is a breakthrough.

[excess_3]

28. bombs are usually made from plutonium,

bombs are usually made from plutonium,
which is contained in used reactor fuel rods.

unless accompanied with inspection,
this act is meaningless.

[Wetzelbill]

30. it's harder to explode

and considered a lesser threat in this case, but yes it can be used for it. But what, we're talking a few weeks for inspectors to be allowed in, maybe a little longer? Nobody said it's not going to be accompanied by inspections, it's a way for Iran to show some transparency in the interim, and the article says it's been a stop gap concession that the parties have been trying to get Iran to agree with for awhile now.

[hugo_from_TN]

20. They have other hidden facilities.

This is a shell game. When you hide an enrichment facility under a mountain inside of a Republican Guard base, the purpose of that facility is not for power generation.

[bemildred]

21. Q+A: What's behind Geneva agreement on Iran's enriched uranium?

WHAT WAS AGREED?

---

But with Iran under U.N. sanctions for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program, purchasing nuclear fuel for the reactor would be difficult. The United States and Russia proposed to the IAEA that Iran's stocks of low enriched uranium, which it has been building up for several years, be used to produce the fuel but that the further enrichment of the uranium to a higher level of purity be done by a third country.

---

HOW WOULD IT WORK?

If implemented, around 1.2 metric tons of uranium enriched to a level of around 3.5 percent would be shipped to Russia and enriched further to a purity level of 19.75 percent. This is far below the level needed for a weapon, which would require a purity of around 90 percent of the uranium atom needed for a nuclear explosion.

Iran's low enriched uranium stocks that it has produced at its Natanz plant over the last three years total around 1.5 metric tons, so most of Iran's enriched uranium would be transferred to Russia.

Once enriched further in Russia, the uranium would be sent to France, where it would be placed into fuel assemblies so that it could be used in the reactor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59129F20091002

[MidwestRick]

26. I'll wait until it actually happens

before counting this as a victory.

[Newshues]

27. missing is what happens to the spent fuel assemblies.

Remember that North Korea got their bomb by reprocessing spent fuel assemblies.

Progress, since in the past Iran has flatly rejected the idea of enrichment happening outside of Iran whether it would be done by Iranians or some other entity, but call me skeptical until the details are hammered out with verifiables.

[Odin2005]

29. This is good news!

Intelligent diplomacy is BACK!!!