Iran yet to respond to uranium deal
Published: 30 October, 2009, 23:34
Edited: 01 November, 2009, 20:38
TAGS: Nuclear, UN, Middle East, Politics
Iran has not responded to the proposed uranium deal but is ready for further talks. Besides, the country is posing new conditions, according to the Iranian state news agency IRNA.
The agency has quoted the unnamed Iranian official as saying that “Iran only showed its positive attitude toward negotiations,” adding that Iran will give its view on the plan in further talks.
He added that in a message sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran on Thursday has not indicated whether it agrees with the plan or not.
Although details of the message have yet to be made public, some European officials have already expressed their dissatisfaction with the delay.
A French Foreign Ministry spokesperson has urged Iran to “give a formal and positive response to the (IAEA), without delay.”
Bernard Valero said on Friday that the proposed uranium agreement, in which France is directly involved, would “respond to Iran's need for the production of radioisotopes for medical use and would be a useful confidence-building measure” for the international community.
Meanwhile, IRNA also announced that Iran insists that smaller batches of its low-enriched uranium are exchanged for nuclear fuel produced outside of the country.The agreement proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency suggests that most of Iran’s low-enriched uranium should be taken out of the country to be enriched and turned into fuel rods. The whole process could take up to a year.
International media is speculating on counter-proposals from Iran. The Washington Post has questioned the next move for President Barack Obama, but says the West's plans have prompted serious debate in the Islamic Republic.
British newspapers reported Iran's response as contradicting the draft agreement hammered out last week in Vienna.
Vladimir Onishchenko works for the Iran news agency in Moscow and says there is a considerable opposition to the UN-backed deal in Tehran.
“Back in Iran, the authorities have held talks with the opposition, including former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, and the liberal, pro-Western Mousavi replied that if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agreed to ship all the nuclear fuel abroad, it would be treason,” Onishchenko said. “Iran has taken a wise move to calm down the opposition and meet Western concerns. It will ship the uranium out, but only in batches.”
30.10.2009, 22:21
1 comment
“Iran counter-proposal is normal bargaining process”The current exchange of proposals between Iran and the West is a normal bargaining process before reaching an agreement, said Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow from the New America Foundation. |
31.10.2009, 09:01
India’s Iron Lady still an icon 25 years after deathSaturday marks the 25th anniversary of the assassination of Indira Gandhi – one of India's most influential and most controversial leaders, as she was the country's first and only ever female prime minister. |
It does not pay to be hasty in journalism. The previous news stories were too quick to jump the gun, but now also too quick to quote an unofficial source. It is really regrettable that some principles cannot be followed. The only good source of information is IAEA. The proposal to Iran, while signed by Five Plus One, was in fact IAEA proposal, marked DRAFT. Iran has given IAEA a verbal response, that included proposed technical changes to the nuclear material transport. These are the ONLY real facts; everything else, a speculation. Therefore, the speculation on the response by other countries is fueled more by those trying to influence the process, then reality. It would pay to be patient, and report from reliable sources. When reporting on the reactions of others, it should be clearly noted that those reactions are based on speculation, as the real content of Iranian verbal response to IAEA has not been made public. Only the issue of scheduling has been mentioned.
There is more to this IAEA-Iran agreement than what the media says. Iran should not allow 75% of its fuel to leave the country. What guarantees does Iran have that this fuel will be given back, or given back in normal quantities and not witheld or rationed as part of some type of blackmail campaign? France's involvement makes this very possible. Iran does not need to give most of its fuel up as a confidence buidling measure. This can be achieved by Iran giving 25% of its LEU at one time, as an example. The west has a history of witholding nuclear fuel and equipment from Iran, so Iran's refusal to ship out most of its LEU overseas is understandable.