Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

IRAN: Fuel Swap Deal Shakes Sanctions Push

Despite continued U.S. efforts to dismiss the Iran nuclear deal with Turkey and Brazil, there are signs that the deal is spurring diplomatic pressure from UN Security Council members, particularly Russia and China.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inter Press Service

Although the Barack Obama administration has continued to dismiss the May 17 Iranian fuel swap agreement with Brazil and Turkey, there are indications that Iran’s move has shaken the agreement among U.N. Security Council members on sanctions, and is bringing Russian diplomatic pressure on the United States to participate in new talks with Iran on the swap arrangement – something the administration clearly wished to avoid.

In a hastily arranged conference call with reporters last Friday afternoon, three “senior administration officials” assailed the new swap agreement, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, for failing to address what was described as Iran’s decision to continue enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, the increase in Iran’s low-enriched uranium (LEU) stocks since last October, or U.N. Security resolutions demanding a suspension of all enrichment.

In a telltale sign that the Iranian move has shaken the previous unity among the permanent Security Council members on sanctions, however, one of the officials sidestepped a question about the present stance of Russia and China on sanctions.

Far from expressing confidence that the agreement still held, the official would only say, “We’ve been working with the full Council to resolve any outstanding issues.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced an agreement on a draft resolution on sanctions within hours of the May 17 announcement of the Iranian fuel swap agreement in Tehran.

An article published on Xinhua News Agency Saturday by Zhai Dequan, the deputy secretary-general of China’s Arms Control and Disarmament Association, appears to signal that China is backing out of the previous agreement on sanctions against Iran.

Citing Iran’s agreement to the specifics of the swap deal, the article concluded, “Since the situation has changed, pre-planned punitive actions, too, should be altered accordingly, meaning there is no longer any rationality in imposing further sanctions on Iran.”

The views expressed by the association have often reflected the policies of the Chinese foreign ministry, which had already issued a statement welcoming Iran’s agreement on the swap proposal.

In remarks to reporters Thursday reported by RTT News, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow “welcomes” the fuel swap deal. “The arrangement serves the interests of settling the Iranian nuclear problem,” Lavrov said, “and, therefore, we believe everything should be done to implement it.”

Lavrov said Russia was talking with Brazil and Turkey, as well as with the U.S. and France, on how to implement the swap deal.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement Friday, also reported by RTT News, confirming that Lavrov had a phone conversation with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Thursday. Summarising the conversation, it said, “Russia expressed its readiness to actively support the advancement of the process of negotiation aimed at resolving the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme.”

Mottaki was meanwhile expressing confidence Friday that the “Vienna Group” (the United States, Russia, France and the International Atomic Energy Agency) would reconvene to work out the details of the swap proposal Iran had communicated to the IAEA.

Speaking to reporters at an economic forum in Bulgaria, Mottaki said he had spoken to Lavrov by phone Thursday about the fuel swap plan. “[T]to my understanding, I think the Vienna Group are considering [it] positively,” said Mottaki.

“As soon as their response to [IAEA Director General Yukiya] Amano comes, I think negotiations will start,” he added.

A website associated with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Friday that Obama had ordered Clinton to send a representative to Vienna for another meeting with Iran on the details of the swap proposal within three weeks.

The site said the U.S. aim at the meeting would be to ask Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium to 20 percent that had begun in February.

In the conference call Friday, one official emphasised the U.S. complaint that Iran is enriching uranium to 20 percent to provide fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor, which is used to make medical isotopes. The official alleged that, after the May 17 agreement, “the head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran said that even if the deal… materialises, Iran will continue to enrich at the 20-percent level…”

But that allegation was based on the interpretation of Ali Akbar Salehi’s remarks to Reuters in the lead of the May 17 story. A careful reading of the actual statements quoted in the story support a very different interpretation.

What Salehi said was, “There is no relationship between the swap deal and our enrichment activities,” by which he appears to have meant that Iran was not obliged under the swap deal to change its enrichment activities in general.

Salehi also said, “We will continue our 20 percent enrichment.” He did not specify that the enrichment would continue even after an agreement was reached to provide fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor.

In another case of apparent misinterpretation, the Washington Post quoted Ramin Mehmanparast, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, as saying on May 17, “Of course, enrichment of uranium to 20 percent will continue inside Iran.”

But the IRNA English language story says, “Talking to reporters, Mehmanparast said that of course, Iran will continue 20 percent enrichment in the duration.” The context of the remark was the announcement by Mehmanparast that Iran would “ship fuel to Turkey in a month in case of the Vienna group readiness and conclusion of a deal between Iran and the group”. The phrase “in the duration” thus appeared to refer to the period up to such a deal.

In February, when the enrichment to 20 percent began, Salehi and other Iranian officials clearly stated that the enrichment would stop if and when the fuel rods were supplied.

The more ambiguous statements by Salehi and Mehmanparast after Iran’s agreement to the original U.S.-IAEA swap proposal suggest a desire to force the Obama administration to negotiate with Iran over the issue of when that enrichment would end.

The State Department’s spokesman P. J. Crowley asserted on May 20 that the United States would not negotiate further with Iran unless Iran first agreed to discuss suspension of all enrichment activities.

The diplomatic maneuvering of the past week suggests, however, that the Obama administration may be forced to meet with Iran without any promise to talk about a general suspension of enrichment.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share