US may cede to Iran's enrichment

[Crazy Horse]

Financial Times
April 4, 2009

US May Cede To Iran's Nuclear Ambition

By Daniel Dombey, in Washington

US officials are considering whether to accept Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

As part of a policy review commissioned by President Barack Obama, diplomats are discussing whether the US will eventually have to accept Iran’s insistence on carrying out the process, which can produce both nuclear fuel and weapons- grade material.

“There’s a fundamental impasse between the western demand for no enrichment and the Iranian demand to continue enrichment,” says Mark Fitzpat rick, a former state depart - ment expert now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “There’s no obvious compromise bet ween those two positions.”

The US has insisted that Iran stop enrichment, although Mr Fitzpatrick notes that international offers put to Tehran during George W. Bush’s second term as president left the door open to the possible resumption of enrichment.

“There is a growing recognition in [Washington] that the zero [enrichment] solution, though still favoured, simply is unfeasible,” says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “The US may still have zero as its opening position, while recognising it may not be where things stand at the end of a potential agreement.”

Mr Fitzpatrick adds: “Obviously, no country wants to flag its fallback positions in advance. As soon as you let your falback position be known, it becomes the new position.”

On Friday, Mr Obama summarised the US message to Iran as, “Don’t develop a nuclear weapon” – a form of words that would not rule out a deal accepting Iranian enrichment. Mr Bush was much more specific in calling Iran to halt enrichment.

A series of UN Security Council resolutions since 2006 has forbidden Iran from enriching uranium, with the European Union, Russia and China backing US calls for Tehran to halt the process.

But Iran has sped up its programme during that time and has installed more than 5,500 centrifuges to enrich uranium and has amassed a stockpile of more than 1,000kg of low-enriched uranium – enough, if it were enriched to higher levels, to produce fissile material for one bomb. “Across the political spectrum in Iran, enrichment as a right has become a non-negotiable position,” Mr Parsi said.

Asked last month whether the administration was considering allowing Iran to keep a limited enrichment capability, Robert Wood, a state department spokesman, said: “I don’t know . . .  Let’s let the review be completed and then we can spell out our policies.”

Some analysts say priority should be given to winning greater access for UN inspectors, to acquire more information about Iran’s enrichment plant in Natanz and fill in gaps in knowledge on Iran’s nuclear-related activities across the country.

That could provide warning of any move to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels at Natanz and ease fears of clandestine facilities.

Privately both US and Israeli officials say that even the current, more limited inspection regime at Natanz would provide sufficient warning of any “breakout” towards a nuclear bomb. Outside Natanz, by contrast, information on Iran’s programme is diminishing.

Indicating possible space for negotiations, Dennis Blair, Mr Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, said last month that he believed Iran had not yet made the decision to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a wearhead for a bomb. He added: “Iran at a minimum, is keeping open the option to develop deliverable nuclear weapons.”

The US line that Iran is seeking the capability to develop nuclear weapons – but not necessarily such weapons themselves – contrasts with Mr Bush’s insistence while in office that it sought nuclear weapons.

Iranian regime insiders have said they would expect a compromise by the US on enrichment to be reciprocated. Such a move before the Iranian presidential elections in June would also be seen as a huge victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, who has accused his internal critics of submitting to western pressures.

--Additional reporting from Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87571cc6-206b-11de-b930-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Just great..............Thanks Thumpy, I really didn't believe this country could be destroyed in 100 days...........you seem to be trying to break a record.

[Bluesuiter-Retired]

Damn, another bill clinton.

Hillary was more of a man than bill was and we're finding out that Michelle is cut from the same cloth.

Israel will be forced to take care of the problem on their own.

Anyone care to bet that after Israel takes out iran's nuclear program, obama will stab Israel in the back?

[thundley4]

Note that they are still blaming Bush for their failure.
The US has insisted that Iran stop enrichment, although Mr Fitzpatrick notes that international offers put to Tehran during George W. Bush’s second term as president left the door open to the possible resumption of enrichment.

If this clown manages to get reelected , he'd still blame Bush for his continued failure. On a side thought, "hey Israel, welcome to "under the bus". 

[Zathras]

And the Cheese Eating Surender Monkey's administration strikes yet again.

[TheSarge]

Well I guess that bending and kissing of the Saudi Kings ring was more than just a gaffe the other day.

[Dragon]

And the Cheese Eating Surender Monkey's administration strikes yet again.

Anyone care to bet that after Israel takes out iran's nuclear program, obama will stab Israel in the back?

Yes, to you both, and he will smile about it. 

People will remember J.Carter fondly after this boob leaves, if he leaves.
Think Venezuela.

[JohnnyReb]

“There is a growing recognition in [Washington] that the zero [enrichment] solution, though still favoured, simply is unfeasible,” says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “The US may still have zero as its opening position, while recognising it may not be where things stand at the end of a potential agreement.”

Yes we still have Zero and will have him for 3+ more years.....and at the end of that time he'll still have zero ideas on any and all subjects.

Even an empty suit has to be right sometimes......our empty suit is occupied by an idiot.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

"We got this."

[JohnMatrix]

"We got this."

doubtful at best.

[TheSarge]

doubtful at best.

Yeah...the Iraqi's probably said the same thing in 1983.


Idiot. 

[JohnMatrix]

Yeah...the Iraqi's probably said the same thing in 1983.


Idiot. 

yea, because iraq and iran and one and the same.  And because iran and iraq really are the same distance from israel.  I guess the planes will magically refuel themselves.  etc, etc, etc.


Idiot.

[TheSarge]

yea, because iraq and iran and one and the same.  And because iran and iraq really are the same distance from israel.  I guess the planes will magically refuel themselves.  etc, etc, etc.

See Comrade Ivan...the above is what happens when you try to think...when you attempt to be witty.

As always you fail miserably.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I can't say this surprises me, an Administration that wants to rebrand GWOT to something without the word "War" in it, wants to call terrorism "Manmade disasters," and thinks GITMO should be closed because Obama the Legal Genius can take care of all those little problem actors in US courts donchaknow, would clearly have no stomach for taking a showdown with Iran to the hard edge.

The Israeli response is much more problematic.  It's a far tougher problem than the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, much farther and not as concentrated, already full of radioactive material, and on the other side of an active war zone full of airspace that is crawling with sensors, and it would involve flying for several hours over territory full of people with cell phones and no great love for anything with a Magen David painted on it.  Would they resort to ballistic weapons, and if so carrying what kind of package?   We shall see.

[JohnMatrix]

See Comrade Ivan...the above is what happens when you try to think...when you attempt to be witty.

As always you fail miserably.

and this is a typical non response from you, usually mixed with some kind of ad-hominem.

[NHSparky]

John, the logistics will no doubt be much more complex that Osirisk in 1981.  That being said, you don't actually think that Netenyahu is just going to sit and twiddle his thumbs while Iran gets the missiles needed, enriches its own uranium, and probably buys/steals the technology it needs to trigger those devices?

Tanker and TRG are both right--and the reason Israel will be pushed into action is because this administration is going to bend over and spread its ass cheeks, as it has shown itself more than capable of doing for the Saudis most recently and pretty much everyone else over the past 3 months.  Frankly, Obama doing nothing is going to lead to far more difficult issues than if he tries to work out the issues now, but this administration doesn't recognize that simple fact.

[Attero Dominatus]

Obummer's appeasement is going to get a lot of Americans killed 

[formerlurker]

Israel has tankers to refuel their own aircraft;

Israel striking Iran on their own is very bad for the region, the United States, and our allies (we can all stand on our heads discussing that again for the upteenth time, but the Israel haters and Ron Paul loons will soon learn why this is very very bad);

Big callout of thanks to the Jewish-Americans who voted for the Messiah.  They can watch the destruction of their homeland now.  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Israel has tankers to refuel their own aircraft;

Israel striking Iran on their own is very bad for the region, the United States, and our allies (we can all stand on our heads discussing that again for the upteenth time, but the Israel haters and Ron Paul loons will soon learn why this is very very bad);

Big callout of thanks to the Jewish-Americans who voted for the Messiah.  They can watch the destruction of their homeland now.  

They also have modified fighter-bombers with extended range, subs and I wouldn't be too surprised if they had an Ace-up-their-sleeve satellite floating around somewhere.

Still, the fact remains: Obama is forcing Israel to strike by leaving no other option.

[DumbAss Tanker]

There is a much more robust detection environment now than there was in the 80s, and any refueling would be taking place over hostile airspace with active air defense, and learing them a corridor through Coalition airspace is not going to happen.  Jordan, Iraq, and a Iran are a whole Hell of a lot bigger than people who haven't been in that part of the world think, I do not think under current constraints that the Israelis could do it by airstrike.  They have pretty close to zero space capability but they do have missiles that will reach, problem is that missiles aren't likely to reliably take out the target unless you put a nuke in the payload, and the price to pay for doing that is second only to being on the receiving end of an Iranian one later.

[NHSparky]

There is a much more robust detection environment now than there was in the 80s, and any refueling would be taking place over hostile airspace with active air defense, and learing them a corridor through Coalition airspace is not going to happen.  Jordan, Iraq, and a Iran are a whole Hell of a lot bigger than people who haven't been in that part of the world think, I do not think under current constraints that the Israelis could do it by airstrike.  They have pretty close to zero space capability but they do have missiles that will reach, problem is that missiles aren't likely to reliably take out the target unless you put a nuke in the payload, and the price to pay for doing that is second only to being on the receiving end of an Iranian one later.

Good points, all, tanker.

Arak and Natanz are nearly 900 air miles from Tel Aviv, and as you can imagine, the route any planes would fly would NOT be anywhere near straight line.  Even the raid on Osirak was over 700 miles each way, which means tankers, possibly several.  Also consider that the air base the Israelis used in 1981 was actually returned to Egypt as it was in the Sinai.  The options available to them now are much more limited than 1981.

That being said, what happens when Zerobama basically throws Israel to the wolves, will they be FORCED to act based on the fact that they feel they have no choice?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The joooooooz did a pretty good job getting across hostile Syrian airspace to take out the North Korean reactor. While detection capabilities have improved dramatically so have counter-detection capabilities.

And one must consider what is the true definition of "hostile" airspace. To be certain there is no love lost between the Arabs and Israelis but the Arabs also know that a nuclear Iran reduces them to mere fiefdoms whereas Israel, despite distractionist mewlings by Arab corruptocrats, is a contained stated with no expansionist ambitions. A conventional strike on Iran (and even Israel would be reluctant to go nuclear beyond a strict "bunker-buster" capacity) will only draw half-hearted, boilerplate protests from the Arabs. Even Israel's last incursion into Gaza saw the Arab world complaining far more about the Iranian-puppet Hamas than any presumed excesses committed by Israel. Ditto Israel's dealing with Hezbollah.

I can see a situation where some Arab state could watch Israeli jets crossing the Gulf of Adan, riding the ambiguous space along the Saudi-Iraqi border towards Iran only to have the Defense Minister say, "Ya know, we'll have to complain about that...

...after they land."

[NHSparky]

The joooooooz did a pretty good job getting across hostile Syrian airspace to take out the North Korean reactor. While detection capabilities have improved dramatically so have counter-detection capabilities.

And one must consider what is the true definition of "hostile" airspace. To be certain there is no love lost between the Arabs and Israelis but the Arabs also know that a nuclear Iran reduces them to mere fiefdoms whereas Israel, despite distractionist mewlings by Arab corruptocrats, is a contained stated with no expansionist ambitions. A conventional strike on Iran (and even Israel would be reluctant to go nuclear beyond a strict "bunker-buster" capacity) will only draw half-hearted, boilerplate protests from the Arabs. Even Israel's last incursion into Gaza saw the Arab world complaining far more about the Iranian-puppet Hamas than any presumed excesses committed by Israel. Ditto Israel's dealing with Hezbollah.

I can see a situation where some Arab state could watch Israeli jets crossing the Gulf of Adan, riding the ambiguous space along the Saudi-Iraqi border towards Iran only to have the Defense Minister say, "Ya know, we'll have to complain about that...

...after they land."

North Korea?

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

The Germans?

Forget it, he's rolling.

But if you look at the map/route of the raid on Osirak, they took off from the Sinai, and took a southerly route through Jordan and Saudi Arabia border region (much lower defenses) before they turned north to Osirak.  Even then, it was nap-of-the-earth for over 700 miles to the target.

[GoldieAZ]

I agree the Ohole will leave the Israelis to fend for themselves, and they will, they have no choice. Iran wants to wipe them off the map.

It is a good point, as well, that the other Arab nations do not want Iran to have nuclear capabilities because they will dominate them...so they may not take any action against Israelis during their strike.

However, the only thing the Arab nations hate more than each other is Israel. When Israel makes a strike against against Iran, successfully or not...all the Arab nations will go after them...and the Ohole will sit on the sidelines.

I agree with the above posters comments about the Ohole bowing to the Saudi king being of much greater significance than a mere gaffe.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

North Korea?

The Syrian reactor came from North Korea.

But if you look at the map/route of the raid on Osirak, they took off from the Sinai, and took a southerly route through Jordan and Saudi Arabia border region (much lower defenses) before they turned north to Osirak.  Even then, it was nap-of-the-earth for over 700 miles to the target.

About a year ago I read a defense article about Israeli jets having their range extending to 1000+ miles (perhaps as much as 1400). Also the Israelis have trained for routes that would take them through southern Turkey into northern Iran for some of the more distant sites.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1002.html

[TheSarge]

Israeli jets carried out a long-range bombing mission against a convoy in Sudan that was suspected of bringing arms from Iran to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, it emerged yesterday.

Sudan confirmed that an illegal arms convoy was destroyed by an airstrike near the Egyptian border at the height of the war in Gaza in January. It declined to identify which country had launched the attack.

The American news network CBS, citing US defence sources, said that the raid had been carried out by Israeli long-range fighter-bombers at the same time that Israel was hammering the Gaza Strip in an attempt to stop Hamas militants firing rockets into southern Israel.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5980794.ece


Heard John Bolton talking about this on the Bauer and Rose show this morning.


Mr. Bolton believes it was a test run for Iran since the distances according to him were about the same as it would be to Iran.