Skip to main content.

June 10, 2010

Obama shows his clenched fist to Iran

So the 15-member U.N. Security Council has at U.S. behest approved a fourth round of mild sanctions against Iran to keep on the pressure over nuclear issues. The vote was 12 to 2 with one abstention.

Interestingly, the resolution was opposed by Turkey and Brazil. I had read the news over the last month or so that these two countries and their leaders had brokered a potential solution satisfactory to Iran. Iran would give up substantial capacity to produce nuclear reactor fuel and move a significant amount of existing enriched uranium out of the country. These new sanctions, then, are slaps to the faces of Lula and Erdogan, Brazil's president and Turkey's prime minister respectively.

The importance to the U.S. of continuing tension is made clear by the observed reaction of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the threat of diplomatic success of the Brazil/Turkey/Iran negotiations emerged.

I was not made aware of just how extreme this reaction was until I read the entire story as told in an excellent piece by Esam Al-Amin posted on Counterpunch June 9. Obama stabbed his Brazilian and Turkish allies in the back:

Obama's Doublespeak on Iran
On April 12, 2010, President Barack Obama hosted a forty-seven nation Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. He met with dozens of heads of state making his case for a fourth set of crippling sanctions on Iran because of its intransigence on the nuclear issue. His main argument was the refusal of Iran to accept the proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of transferring the bulk of Iran?s low enriched uranium outside the country in exchange for medical nuclear isotopes.

The following day Obama met with President Luiz Lula Da Silva of Brazil and Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan of Turkey ... Obama not only encouraged them to pursue a diplomatic breakthrough, but he also vowed to be constructive and flexible, as well as promising to send them in writing the parameters of any deal deemed acceptable to the US. ...
The piece goes on to describe the conditions Obama laid out in an April letter, conditions the Iranians apparently were ready to accept. However,
On May 17, an agreement based on the American and IAEA proposals was signed by the foreign ministers of all three countries. A week later Iran submitted an official letter to the IAEA acknowledging the pact and stating its intention to transfer its LEU to Turkey within one month once the plan was accepted.

To the complete surprise of Brazil and Turkey, the White House and the State Department dismissed the deal out of hand within 24 hours, rejecting the same principles outlined in Obama?s letter. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even called it ?a ploy? before a hearing in the Senate?s Committee on Foreign Relations on May 18, declaring that a sanctions resolution against Iran in the Security Council is imminent.
Secretary Clinton now has her sanctions, the fist firmly is clenched, and Obama has revealed himself to be a backstabber. Evidently the U.S. leaders did not believe the Iranians actually would go for the quite rigid deal. So it was necessary to revoke it against the threat of success.

Evidently the U.S. prefers to coddle the one real nuclear power in the Mideast -- Israel -- while playing a game of threats, sanctions, and false diplomacy. How much stock should we put in Obama's now oft-repeated desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons when he won't stand behind his own diplomatic positions?

Comments

NY Times Editorial:

"The day?s most disturbing development was the two no votes in the Security Council from Turkey and Brazil. (Lebanon, at least, abstained.) Both are disappointed that their efforts to broker a nuclear deal with Iran didn?t go far. Like pretty much everyone else, they were played by Tehran. It is hard to see why either would want to enable Iran?s nuclear ambitions ? or put themselves on the opposite side of all the world?s major powers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010...

ROFL!!

Posted by The Owl on June 10, 2010 at 15:37

This is a very interesting piece:
http://www.raceforiran.com/...

Brazil explains just how "seriously" Iran was willing to negotiate on it's production of nuclear materials:

"The Declaration fully addresses all key elements that prevented the implementation of the IAEA proposal?i.e., quantity, timing and place of exchange. It signaled Iran?s flexibility in a number of aspects.

a. Iran agreed to send 1,200 kg of its LEU. Although the quantity may now seem insufficient to some, we concur with experts who note that Iran?s agreement to export a large portion of its LEU outside its borders for up to a year is worthy of consideration as a confidence-building measure.

b. Iran agreed to deposit the LEU in Turkey, thus accepting not to retain the uranium in its territory. The LEU is to remain in Turkey under IAEA surveillance.

c. Iran also accepted sending the LEU to Turkey before receiving the fuel. This is a positive development in relation to the previous position that the swap should take place simultaneously (i.e. upon receipt of fuel for the TRR).

d. Iran also agreed to officially commit to the terms of the Declaration. Since then, it fulfilled its notification commitment through a letter to the DG of IAEA."

Of course, to US officials and their analyst-community supporters, nothing is ever going to be good enough. Iran appears desperately to be trying to make positive steps to diffuse this crisis, but are learning that they will be rebuffed no matter what they do. Eventually they'll be left with no choice but to really move to develop nukes, and maybe that's the point of U.S. behavior.

Posted by The Owl on June 10, 2010 at 15:56