The U. S. has offered to give Iran nuclear technology if Iran stops enriching uranium:
A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium—a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.
The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.
The package was agreed on last week by the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia _ the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, in a bid to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran.
This offer is already striking some as too reminiscent of the “Agreed Framework†with North Korea which failed to halt its nuclear weapons development program and I have no doubt that others will dismiss it as another meaningless ploy by an administration that’s already determined to go to war with Iran.
Put me down, along with Jon Henke of QandO Blog, as hoping that this is a genuine offer and that the Iranians seize it. Jon delineates the important considerations:
Briefly, the important considerations are as follows:
- Inspections must be comprehensive, transparent and ongoing. Unlike the Agreed Framework, Iran must agree to inspections concurrent with concessions.
- There must be immediate, automatic consequences for Iranian failures. In addition, international cooperation ought to be predicated on a peaceful Iran — that is, Iranian intransigence with regards to Israel or Iraq could be punished with a cessation of nuclear fuel delivery.
- Concessions to Iran must not precede Iranian cooperation. Concessions may be concurrent with cooperation, but we must not make concessions in exchange for future cooperation, nor should we give permanent concessions for temporary cooperation.
- Finally, account must be made for all of Iran’s nuclear fuel. Preferably, the nuclear fuel would be supplied to Iran by a third party, monitored and then removed from Iran when the nuclear process is completed.
If properly negotiated, this could be a significant diplomatic achievement. We would have given up nothing we were not already legally obligated to give, while Iran would have agreed to inspections to pursue the nuclear program they were already legally allowed to have and encumbered themselves with additional disincentives to create tension in the Middle East.
I don’t believe that the Bush Administration is determined to go to war with Iran; I hope that war is not the only method for preventing the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I do believe that they’re convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. I also believe that a nuclear-armed mullahocracy there would be very difficult to live with for a host of reasons not the least of which is that we shouldn’t be in the business of propping up a government as heinous as theirs which we certainly would be if only to prevent the nuclear arms that the Iranians are pursuing from falling into even worse hands than theirs.The next move is up to the Iranians.
UPDATE
There’s been a tentative favorable response from the Iranians:
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Tehran’s chief negotiator said proposals on Tuesday by six world powers to end a dispute over Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment had positive points but also some “ambiguities” that must be removed.
The proposals, which have not been made public but include incentives and penalties, seek to persuade Iran to give up enriching uranium, which the West fears will be used to build atomic bombs. Tehran says its nuclear aims are purely civilian.
[…]
“If the Iranians agree to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, then we’ll be able to discuss more openly what the incentives are and we certainly hope that that’s the case,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters traveling with President George W. Bush.
So far, Iran has refused to give up uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to make fuel for nuclear power stations or, if enriched to a sufficiently high level, material for bombs. Iran says enrichment is a national right.
Iran’s IRNA news agency said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Solana: “What is important in giving the incentives is supporting Iran’s rights on research in (nuclear) technology. This issue should be very clear and without any ambiguity in the negotiations.”
ANOTHER UPDATE
Allahpundit at Hot Air notes that it doesn’t make much difference whether it’s a legitimate offer or a feint:
Bush has nothing to lose by doing the deal because if he doesn’t, Germany will. If Germany doesn’t, Russia will, etc. It’s a prisoner’s dilemma, and like all prisoner’s dilemmas it’s made possible by the disunity of the participants (read: the west). Some on the left will ignore that and blame our lack of strategic options on Iraq, but if we weren’t there most of them would oppose a military strike on Iran anyway. It’s no different from when they whine about why we haven’t captured Bin Laden: they’re unwilling to accept the consequences of the action they prescribe — invading Pakistan and risking all-out war with a nuclear-armed country — but it’s a clever-sounding little “gotcha†against Bush so they use it anyway.
To borrow a phrase, with great multilateral power comes great multilateral responsibility. An Iranian version of Operation Desert Storm would solve the problem, but how many nations would be willing to contribute troops? Iran’s Arab neighbors and its European “partners in peace†are threatened as much as we are, so why is it America’s and/or Israel’s responsibility alone to rise to the occasion if need be?
