In the Arena

Is Iran Coming Around?

The BBC–hat tip Laura Rozen–is reporting that the Iranians have agreed to resume negotiations about their nuclear program next month. This follows the Iranian appearance, and expressed desire to cooperate, at a meeting of Afghanistan’s neighbors in Rome last week (indeed, the Iranians–who played a positive role in the contact group effort to stabilize Afghanistan in 2001–apparently are very serious about the stablization of Afghanistan’s porous western border, through which heroin is flowing in great quantities).

The Obama response to these initiatives has been tough-minded and correct: Along with the other members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, the Administration is preparing a more demanding nuclear fuel swap proposal–to reflect the past year’s uranium enrichment in Iran. The Administration has also let the Iranians know that while it welcomes the cooperation on Afghanistan, that will have no effect on the non-proliferation talks or the lifting of the economic sanctions.

As always, the Iranians may be stalling for time. But this time the world has made clear that the mere willingness to talk is insufficient. The Iranians will have to take meaningful action in the nuclear sphere before any reciprocal gestures are made by the United States and our allies.

Related Topics: Iran
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • formerlyjames

    Good news for nonproliferation. Regardless of “tough minded” schizophrenic US foreign policy, here, there, everywhere, the stabilizing force in the world today is, of all places, Russia. This news follows the even better news that Russia is overseeing Iran’s nuclear activities, and has reentered the sphere of Afghanistan with logistical support, aid, and narcotics interdiction.

  • centfan

    Is Iran coming around? It’s quite possible… and I’ll be in the pumpkin patch Sunday night waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear and spread toys and candy to all the good children of the world. He’ll pick my patch this year. I just know it. Sincerity as far as the eye can see… although Tehran’s patch might give me a run for my money.
    -
    “The Iranians will have to take meaningful action in the nuclear sphere before any reciprocal gestures are made by the United States and our allies.”
    -
    I think Iran can limp along quite nicely with help from everyone who isn’t our ally… so send them a club card and an adorable picture of the nuclear missile that will be sent to their home if they try to use it.

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Thanks for this post.
    -
    Haaretz had a good interview recently with former IAEA inspector Olli Heinonen: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/behind-the-scenes-of-un-nuclear-inspection-of-iran-1.320599
    -

    Do you believe that Iran is taking steps toward the production of nuclear weapons?

    “We do not have enough information about the military aspect of the Iranian nuclear program; we need information that Iran is avoiding supplying to us. But when you look at what is happening at Natanz [a facility for uranium enrichment], it becomes clear that they are having difficulty moving ahead with uranium enrichment. They have installed 8,000 centrifuges at the facility, but only 3,000 of these are currently operating, and they produce a steady monthly average of 120 kilograms of low-grade enriched uranium hexafluoride. They have today about three tons of low-grade enriched uranium.”

    That should be sufficient to allow them to build at least one bomb, should they decide to enrich to a higher grade of 90 percent. In fact, 1,000 centrifuges would suffice for the production of a nuclear weapon, no?

    “The answer is yes and no. Theoretically, that is correct, but in reality, their situation is much more complicated. The centrifuges are not operating well, and some of them are failing. They are losing materials because of this; and so, with this defective equipment, they will have a hard time enriching the material to a level high enough to enable the production of nuclear weapons. They have a lot of problems, and they are not there yet.”

    -
    The fact is, we lived with a nuclear Joseph Stalin, and a nuclear Chairman Mao. Perhaps even worse than a nuclear Iran would be what it might mean for the norm of nonproliferation. India, Pakistan, and Israel were never NPT signatories, and North Korea is obviously on its own planet. But for a signatory in good standing to nuclearize would be a terrible precedent.

  • pintortwo

    Good news that the Iranians have “expressed desire to cooperate”- something they’ve done in the past. But, Mr. Klein, are you suspicious of these additional demands as a precondition?
    .
    The nuclear material swap is a bad deal for Iran in that having a nulear program dependant on another country is like not having your own nuclear program at all. The Iranians have rejected this offer in the past and may do so again.
    .
    Is this a tactic in “bad faith”– IOW, does the administration believe Iran won’t accept and plans to blame Iran for not holding negotiations that they themselves don’t want (or perhaps is the administration is “stalling for time”)?

  • michaelfury
  • cloudsendlib

    Hi Joe,

    How’s the air up there in the Ruling Class? Are you still smoking that stupid pipe? You are an arrogant man who is lacking in wisdom.

    Regards,
    Larry A.

  • apr2563
blog comments powered by Disqus