Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal

[Mira]

Source: NYTimes

BREAKING NEWS Sunday, March 29, 2015 9:16 PM EDT
Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal
With a negotiating deadline just two days away, Iranian officials on Sunday backed away from a critical element of a proposed nuclear agreement, saying they are no longer willing to ship their atomic fuel out of the country.
For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran’s deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass.
READ MORE »


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/world/middleeast/iran-backs-away-from-key-detail-in-nuclear-deal.html?emc=edit_na_20150329

[pscot]

1. Would Israel agree to the same deal?

Ship all their fissionable material out?

[Fred Sanders]

3. How about same deal but get to get half their warheads, an even 40?

[Fred Sanders]

2. Negotiations continue, as the 'Axis' refuses to lift some economic and travel sanctions effective immediately.

Negotiating conflict is less destructive than armed conflict....not as dramatc or headline catching, agreed.

Guns into ploughshares is tough work, but war is tougher.

[Flatpicker]

4. I wonder

How much Bibi and the Rebublican statements have done to damage this deal.

Would you agree to restrict yourself, if your neighbors keep threatening conflict?

[pscot]

7. To paraphrase LBJ

it's like letting someone else keep your pecker in their pocket.

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. Kindly show me where Israel threatens Iran's existence.

Knowing, of course, that I can show you the converse all day and all night.

[Flatpicker]

18. Just so that I understand

A Nuclear armed state whose PM has traveled hard right prior to elections, who has also had insider information regarding a multinational arms treaty given to him and claimed that "This is worse than was feared".

Yet, none of that would be considered an implicit threat to the neighboring countries in your opinion?

I don't agree with the Iranian government and it's policies, yet I can see how the climate in the last week would cause some backing down on an agreement in process.

It seems that the result that the Defense industry wanted is being fulfilled by leaking the details of the talks. The well has been poisoned and any progress we could have made has been lost.

[Fred Sanders]

27. 60 to 90 deliverable nuclear warheads of unknown megatons? Oops..forgot sbout that....

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. How many have they used so far against a country sworn to destroy them?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Fred Sanders]

52. Nuclear weapons main purpose is to create terror.....Iran folks iare terrified of Israel...for better reason

P.S. ..your generalizations border on being anti-Persian.

[wordpix]

54. my Iranian friend left Iran decades ago due to IRAN's gov, not Israel's

I'm not for Bibi anymore than I'm for repukes, but Israel does have a right to exist.

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. So terrified that they threaten to destroy Israel every few days.

Jesus Christ.

Anti Persian? What the fuck? Did complaining about Bush make us anti american?

[7962]

34. And none of their neighbors have said they'd get their own nukes either

But the threat of Iran's crazies having one has much of the ME promising to get one too. Israel isnt the instigator of a ME arms race, Iran is

[Abouttime]

49. Really?

How many times has Israel bombed Iran? Several. I do not blame Iran from seeking weapons to defend itself from Israel. I think Iran has shown they are willing to negotiate this at the diplomatic table while Israel has proven they will bomb and murder when they deem fit.
Screw Bibi and his neocon lapdogs in congress, a deal with Iran is in our best interests and I fully support our President and Sec of State unlike the last administration and their 'axis of evil' nonsense.

[Fred Sanders]

53. I too fully support the peace talks of Obama and 5 other nations and the United Nations over

the selfish self-interest of one tiny, though nuclear armed to the teeth, nation actively undermining America's democracy.

[Abouttime]

62. Diplomacy

President Obama and Secretary Kerry are serious about averting another crisis in the Middle East, they will get a deal that will be lasting and fair to the Iranian people. President Obama, unlike his clueless predecessor will long be remembered for his diplomatic acumen, where Bush would overreact Obama remains cool and keeps his long range goals in sight. I think he realizes that in the future Iran must be dealt with in a diplomatic not militaristic context. I think he knows it's inevitable if not already a reality that Iran will someday be a nuclear state and this deal will be setting the ground rules in which Iran will conduct diplomacy with the United States not war.
Obama is a very sharp and forward thinking man, his successor will appreciate the bold moves he has made both in foreign and domestic policy even with a right wing racist congress blocking him at every chance.
I know things seem chaotic now, President Obama was left with one hell of a mess to clean up, but decades from now when history is written I think Obama will be looked upon as a bold leader who took chances at peace when war sabers were being rattled by fools such as bibi and mc cain. Time will show that indeed, he more than deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, he was inspired by it.

[WestSeattle2]

63. Absolutely agree with your assessment - and prognostication

[840high]

25. I think you have it backwards.

[Flatpicker]

31. Normally I would

But this time hasn't been all that normal.

[cstanleytech]

41. That or Russia itself is behind this in an effort to get

the US to ease up on the sanctions on Russia.
After all Russia really no real interest in accepting this deal except they know that the Obama administration wants this deal and thats gives Russia some power it hasnt had since it invaded the Ukraine.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Well the sanctions will continue. If the other countries sign the deal the US will be doing the

Sanctions will not be effective. Maybe we could send Cotton to fix the problem. His defense contractors needs another war , he don't care how it happens just do it.

[Scootaloo]

6. Well, with the current economic state of Russia...

The Iranians would be "okay, we'd like our fuel now" and Russia's all "Fuel? What fuel? I am having no fuel."

[TwilightGardener]

8. Well, time to walk away. They already refused snap inspections.

They're playing games now. Fuck them. They want a war, they're going to get one.

[still_one]

11. You signing up to fight?

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. Iran never intended nor intends to live up to any deal whatsoever.

I am prepared to get shouted down, but that's how it is.

[7962]

36. You're ABSOLUTELY right.

[aquart]

43. How can they?

They need the Bomb as insurance against an American invasion as threatened by Our Idiot George in his Axis of Evil declaration. (They have cleverly noted we do not invade fellow nuclear powers.)

The geniuses in Congress wrote a nice note implying the next administration or the next will invade no matter what deal is struck.

You think ANYTHING will convince Iran it does not need a Bomb?

P.S. I understand Ukraine gave up its nuclear stockpile under good faith assurances that we would come to their aid if they were attacked. How's that working for them?

[Dreamer Tatum]

45. Iran wants the bomb because it intends to use it.

Period. Paragraph. The moment they are sure they can destroy Tel Aviv, they will.

I put nothing past them. I don't put past them that they would first detonate one in an Iranian city to create a pretext.

[aquart]

64. Nobody who has the bomb has used it. It's a Deterrent.

But you think the Iranians are so monstrous and so stupid they will destroy the MidEast to be mean to Israel. A nation so small and weak that every citizen has to be under arms.

NUCLEAR POWERS DO NOT ATTACK EACH OTHER. Look it up. Figure out why. I know you can do it.

Jesus H. Christ this is the last place I expected such determined prejudice-drenched ignorance.

[Dreamer Tatum]

66. Yes, I do think the Iranian regime is monstrous and stupid. Next question. nt

[aquart]

67. So is Russia. Which also hasn't nuked anybody.

Russia uses its nukes as protection against armed retaliaton while they try to reclaim the USSR satellite nations. NUKES ARE DETERRENTS.

The amazingly successful worldwide nuclear policy is called MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. Perhaps you've heard of it. No nuke power has been invaded since it was instituted.

We NEVER would have set a foot in Iraq if we really believed they were nuclear capable. Not one foot. The fact that we did was the clearest possible proof that we KNEW they were nukeless.

I'm sorry for those in Israel and here who fell for Bibi's election propaganda which was designed to create hysterical fear in his voters. It worked well but it was the same lie BushCo used to justify destroying Iraq.

Right now the Syrian refugee fund is only at 10%. The world is now responsible for feeding over 4 milion Syrians because they can no longer feed themselves. We are FAILING at it. Do you have any fucking idea what will happen to Europe and Asia and US if 76 million Persians go on the run?

12 pitiful Yazhidis were beaten to a pulp trying to flee into Bulgaria yesterday. Now think 76 million hungry Iranians pounding on the gate.

Nukes are not the problem. They won't be used on Israel or anyone else. The problem is that Iran would use nukes to protect itself while it moves in to collect the nations Bush's shortsighted stupidity has toppled. Making Iran a world power. THAT is the threat we are trying to prevent. But it's not sexy enough to talk about and it won't get voters to the polls.

[Dreamer Tatum]

69. Has Russia publicly and repeatedly stated its plans to destroy another country?

Even one WITHOUT nukes? No. Because Russia isn't INSANE like Iran is.

If Iran gets a nuke, Iran uses a nuke. It has already stated its intention to destroy Israel quite clearly.

[aquart]

67. So is Russia. Which also hasn't nuked anybody.

Russia uses its nukes as protection against armed retaliaton while they try to reclaim the USSR satellite nations. NUKES ARE DETERRENTS.

The amazingly successful worldwide nuclear policy is called MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. Perhaps you've heard of it. No nuke power has been invaded since it was instituted.

We NEVER would have set a foot in Iraq if we really believed they were nuclear capable. Not one foot. The fact that we did was the clearest possible proof that we KNEW they were nukeless.

I'm sorry for those in Israel and here who fell for Bibi's election propaganda which was designed to create hysterical fear in his voters. It worked well but it was the same lie BushCo used to justify destroying Iraq.

Right now the Syrian refugee fund is only at 10%. The world is now responsible for feeding over 4 milion Syrians because they can no longer feed themselves. We are FAILING at it. Do you have any fucking idea what will happen to Europe and Asia and US if 76 million Persians go on the run?

12 pitiful Yazhidis were beaten to a pulp trying to flee into Bulgaria yesterday. Now think 76 million hungry Iranians pounding on the gate.

Nukes are not the problem. They won't be used on Israel or anyone else. The problem is that Iran would use nukes to protect itself while it moves in to collect the nations Bush's shortsighted stupidity has toppled. Making Iran a world power. THAT is the threat we are trying to prevent. But it's not sexy enough to talk about and it won't get voters to the polls.

[rpannier]

16. Ypu'll look good in desert cammo

Feel free to sign up
If you thought western Asia was a mess now, wait til you see Act III
But enjoy

[840high]

26. I'm one of the few

on DU who agrees.

[Fred Sanders]

28. You forgot the sarcasm emoticon? At the first sign of not getting what you want, walk away and let the arrows fly..got it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

33. Yeah, we haven't started enough illegal wars of aggression this century.

[movonne]

42. Yea just what we need is war...well maybe that should be Israel???no more wars

for this country... the only way we go to war is everyone has to be drafted...that means the kids of the wealthy...and see how that works out...

[TwilightGardener]

44. I don't want a war. But eventually it will happen, because Iran

does not appear to be bargaining in good faith and Obama has less than two years to go.

[Fred Sanders]

58. The lack of "good faith" by Israel's MANY underminings of America's President...does not bother you?

[bananas]

9. It's looking more and more like a bad deal. nt

[still_one]

13. I will wait to see what happens in the next couple days before I take the" WMD NY times"

Report as having any validity

Sorry for my skepticism but the times is not what it used to be

[karynnj]

22. Agree - it would seem we should at least wait until morning in Europe

It seems they are missing any comments on this from --- the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China. One would think if this were really an official change, there would have been some reaction. (The comment on diluting it was a solution that was used for the interim phase - so the quote on there being other options likely was not new.

As to the NYT --- It really makes me sad. I remember when I was a young new college grad, moving from Indiana to NJ. I know it sounds snobbish and pretentious, but it seemed so cool that the newspaper I received on the doorstep every morning was the NYT.

Part was likely the neo con politics (and liberal/moderate Republican) leaning of the owners. Yet, I was completely shocked with their 2002/2003 coverage of Iraq.

I see that Bananas has a link from another source (AFP) -- where it was (surprisingly) not the headline -- it was likely the source of the deputy negotiator's quote.

As you said, the talks are ongoing -- I hope this was either a balloon or a junior person speaking out of turn.

[still_one]

30. Even in the article they state their are other methods of deactivating the fuel without shipping

It out

Personally I think if there is an agreement, the real problem will be getting the republican Congress to signing onto it

Of course if an agreement happens and the Europeans accept it and we reject it, than the sanctions will no longer be effective

I also do not believe Obama will do a pre-emptive attack if the talks fail. However, all bets are off in 2016

[Cha]

47. Mahalo, karyn.. I always learn something reading your posts.. ergo I enjoy them!

[EEO]

14. Now if the bombing starts in Iran everyone can say we gave it a go.

How convenient.

[still_one]

19. First of all that isn't what would happen if the talks break off, and in spite of this NY Times

headline the talks have NOT broken off.

In addition, there are other means to deal with the fuel rather than shipping it out, including blending it into a more diluted form

We will see what happens in the next few days

[Cha]

48. Thanks for setting that post straight, still one.

[Fred Sanders]

59. What? That makes no sense...and almost anti-Persian.

[karynnj]

15. I would wait for confirmation - as no one else is reporting this

It is kind of weird as the story came out at what would have been about 3 am in Switzerland.

In addition, Michael Gordon was part of the NYT that cheerled into Iraq. He had a weird article a few weeks ago and Mass posted this information on him:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11094436#post9

In this article, there is no direct source - just that a deputy negotiator (named - so at least sourced) was said to have said this to an Iranian paper. Note there is NO comment from the US, France, Germany, Russia, or China.

If true, I would imagine that the negotiations will fail. What is suspicious is that Iran would change on a major point at this time assuring that they --- not the US -- not the Republicans -- not Israel get the blame. Given that they are motivated by wanting the sanctions removed, you would think they would let the various forces against a deal (on our side) cause the failure - in hopes that some nations drop the sanctions.

[still_one]

20. I noticed that too.

[bananas]

21. NBC is also carrying it, and the source is AFP

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-nuclear-talks-running-out-time-n332141

With Nuclear Talks Running Out of Time, Iran Rejects Key Demand

 BY JON SCHUPPE AND M. ALEX JOHNSON

<snip>

Iran tentatively agreed in November to ship much of its uranium stockpile to Russia, where it would be de-weaponized by converting it into fuel rods for Iran's commercial nuclear power plant.

But Araqchi told reporters Sunday, according to Agence France-Presse: "The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our program, and we do not intend sending them abroad. There is no question of sending the stocks abroad."

<snip>

http://www.afp.com/en/news/iran-negotiator-says-nuclear-deal-doable-issues-remain

<snip>

Araqchi said Sunday that sending abroad its stocks of nuclear material, a key demand of world powers in talks in Switzerland, was unacceptable.

"The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our programme and we do not intend sending them abroad... There is no question of sending the stocks abroad," Araqchi told reporters.

[karynnj]

24. Thanks

I had looked at google, but missed them as the headlines don't hint at the claim. I really hope that this turns out to not be true. It almost seems that the original source and the other non-NYT one didn't get that this was "news", as the articles are upbeat.

[still_one]

17. good headline NY Times. However, since the talks are continuing, and since the same article also

indicated there were other options, including blending it into a more diluted form, sounds like this is very much ongoing talks

[George II]

23. This is REALLY going to piss off a bunch of republicans and "Bibi"

[840high]

29. That's your concern?

[Flatpicker]

32. Except it's not

because this is what they wanted.

These talks needed to break down, that's why they have been sabotaged.

Could you imagine if Obama had a hand in middle east peace?

It's bad enough he's Presidentin' while Black, he can't be allowed to accomplish anything.

[Scrabbleddie]

35. Mostly trumped up horse hockey.

I struck up a conversation with a Iranian fighter pilot
in the Nellis AFB NV. bowling alley. He and three other uniformed Iranians
were bowling alongside me and my buddies. We were
training them to fly the newer F14s a year or so before they were exported to Iran in 1976,
when the U.S. had our man the Shah in Iran. Now they simply will not follow orders.

[7962]

38. So you think those same guys are still flying 40 yrs later??

Of course they'll follow orders; they followed orders to rush the Iraqis in the 80s and get slaughtered. Why would they be any different now?

[Scrabbleddie]

39. The F14s we sold the Shah are still flying.

I don't know where they get parts to keep them flying.

Remember Reagan funding the Contras
with Iranian parts money? Sheesh

[7962]

50. Yes, the PLANES are still flying but I doubt the pilots you met are.

They may not have even made it through the "revolution". The way they keep flying is that fewer and fewer of them keep flying because of cannibalization, just like their F-4s
Our B-52s are still flying at 50+ yrs of age. Has nothing to do with the pilots following orders. Sheesh.

[Scrabbleddie]

51. I was refering to Iran not following orders... sheesh.

F4s suck. Especially to be around on take-off--
they will rattle your back teeth. I'm surprised they're still used.
But anyway... cheers.

[7962]

57. Ha! Got it. When I was a kid, I LOVED to see an F4 hit the afterburners. God they were loud!

At least thats what I thought they were doing; i was 4th grade at the time. My dad was AF and they were stationed at a couple bases where we lived. Great jet for its time.
But my favorite for the past 30 yrs has been the A10.

[Scrabbleddie]

61. Yes, Cheers. n/t

[hrmjustin]

37. Damn!

[cosmicone]

46. Iran is holding all the aces and trumps

The Americans holding fast on rigid requirements is making the Europeans (except our poodle the Brits) queasy and the sanctions will fall apart anyway. China and India have safe harbors in the sanctions regime and Russians are not abiding by sanctions anyway.

The repigs gave Iran the perfect excuse to drive a harder bargain .. and Obama is not in a position to attack Iran.

Iranians win this one.

[Sunlei]

55. doubt a deputy even is involved with the talks.

[Jefferson23]

56. The neocons, not Obama, not Iran, are making this difficult and where is it discussed

here about the sanctions? Because that will be the deal breaker..and rightfully so.
It would be dumb on many levels for Iran to leave themselves open to the whim
of the congress to level sanctions when they felt like. Iran will most likely adjust to the
sanctions again than agree to be controlled that way.

[eridani]

65. A couple of days later, it turns out that that is bullshit

Last night, the New York Times sent me a scary "breaking news alert":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/rumor-control-iran-didnt-_b_6971290.html

"Breaking News: Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal"

This morning, the New York Times corrected the record, after US officials pushed back on the NYT's misleading headline and story. They noted:

1. Iran had never agreed to ship enriched uranium out of the country.
2. The issue is still under negotiation.
3. There are other perfectly good ways to limit the military potential of Iran's nuclear program, and these are also under discussion in the talks.

Of course, you know how it goes with a misleading headline. Many people see the misleading headline; far fewer see the more careful follow-up.

That's why I wrote about this in the media section of Huffington Post. Can you help me spread the word around? You can read and share my piece here:

Rumor Control: Contra NYT, Iran Didn't Renege on Shipping Uranium