Iran signs nuclear swap deal with Turkey and Brazil

Politics International Politics
1

Iran signs nuclear fuel swap deal with Turkey and Brazil
Iran has signed a nuclear fuel swap deal to ship 1,200 kilos of low enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel for a Teheran reactor.

Published: 7:51AM BST 17 May 2010

The agreement was signed in the Iranian capital between the foreign ministers of Iran, Turkey and Brazil after three-way talks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Under the agreement “Turkey will be the place to keep Iran’s 3.5 per cent (low enriched) uranium,” foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters. “One thousand two hundred kilos (of LEU) will be exchanged.”
He added that Iran will officially notify the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the agreement “within a week.”
“The IAEA should inform the Vienna group (United States, France and Russia) of this proposal,” he said of world powers which have wanted Iran since last October to accept a UN-backed deal to ship its enriched uranium abroad.
Israel, which along with many Western powers suspects Iran is using its nuclear enrichment programme to mask a drive for atomic weapons, immediately accused Teheran of “manipulating” Turkey and Brazil over the deal.
“The Iranians have manipulated Turkey and Brazil in appearing to accept the enrichment of part of their uranium on Turkish soil,” a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem said.
There was no immediate reaction from the IAEA, which had in its proposal suggested Iran send its uranium stockpile to Russia to be further enriched and then on to France to make nuclear fuel for a research reactor in Teheran.
Iran had stalled, insisting it wants to keep the LEU on its own soil for a simultaneous swap with reactor fuel.
Following news of the deal, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for fresh talks with major powers over the country’s disputed nuclear programme.
“Following the signing of the nuclear fuel swap deal, it is time for 5+1 countries to enter talks with Iran based on honesty, justice and mutual respect,” he said.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … razil.html

I don’t know what to make of this. I guess a nuclear-armed middle east is inevitable. Can you imagine who Iran will be selling nukes to once it gets them? Bye-Bye Israel. :cry:

2

What’s the bet they swap for storage into Turkey half a tonne of really dirty very low grade waste from their ‘only’ facility at Natanz, and claim it’s the entire output, or even use some older stuff from another site now demolished (Lashkar Abad or Lavizan ) and then continue full speed ahead with high enrichment at their once-secret but still unlocated high-grade enrichment facility, Qom.

3

[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]I guess a nuclear-armed middle east is inevitable. Can you imagine who Iran will be selling nukes to once it gets them? Bye-Bye Israel. :cry:[/quote]Of course it’s inevitable. And no, it’s not going to be bye-bye Israel.

4

I’m not arguing with you, cuz I hope you’re right, but Israel seems to make the claim that Iran wants to nuke them pretty often. Has Ahmadinejad acknowledged Israel’s right to exist recently and I haven’t noticed? Why do you say?

I do hope you are right, but can you explain?

5

I really doubt ANYONE will be able to get away with SELLING nuclear weapons. There are some lines that cannot be crossed, even in this day and age.

6

I’m not arguing with you, cuz I hope you’re right, but Israel seems to make the claim that Iran wants to nuke them pretty often. Has Ahmadinejad acknowledged Israel’s right to exist recently and I haven’t noticed? Why do you say?

I do hope you are right, but can you explain?[/quote]
Sorry, little time at the moment. I’ll have to let the links and your reading carry my end of the argument.

I recommend reading Thomas Barnett. (As well as writing and teaching, he gives an entertaining show on security.)

He suggests putting yourself in the place of Iran’s regime. You’re sitting on a park bench, wedged between Iraq and Afghanistan; the US walks up, blows away the Taliban, double-taps Saddam, what do you do? Do you debate the benefits and morality of arming yourself, or has someone made that choice for you?

The Iranian regime is corrupt and vile, not crazy. North Korea – ha ha! sank your sub! shot the tourist! kidnapped Japanese beachcombers – is crazy. There are, I don’t know, three main reasons why North Korea hasn’t been pummeled into submission: nukes, Seoul sitting within artillery range, and threat of making things worse via its massive army/Chinese patron. Iran currently enjoys none of that protection, so it makes sense to reach for a nuclear shield (after which Israel becomes its Seoul-sitting-down-range).

[quote=“Thomas Barnett”]
The five principles that translate just fine:

deterrence

conventional military strength

containment

diplomatic engagement

a readiness to engage in arms control.

Krepon doesn’t believe in going to zero, and neither do I. These five principles got us through a Cold War, killing great-power war in the process.

No reason to believe we can’t do the same with today’s batch of “irrational” regimes, to include policing the possibility of transfer to proxy non-state actors (something we mastered in the Cold War too, did we not?).

Ah, but I forget. Iran is a crazy state full of crazy people and leaders who want only to kill themselves. That’s why Iran’s been around for about five centuries but is intent on disappearing next week. [/quote]

7

As usual Jaboney has things backward. Iran did not start developing nuclear weapons when the US invaded Iraq and certainly not because of the double tap that we gave Saddam. IF that had been the case, the Iranians would have been much more likely to “negotiate,” but whoops we have seen that. I guess the lesson is that Bush was very wise to remove Saddam when he did not have nuclear weapons or as Bush put it before he became an imminent threat. Oh how the halls pealed with the laughter at his stupidity then but now that we are faced with a runaway Iran… he does not seem so stupid after all. That said, Bush knew that there was little that he could do about Iran. Obama can do little about Iran. The rest of the world engages in its usual “negotiations” so beloved of the Europeans and Canadians but… as usual impotence is the only result. Viagra anyone?

8

No, the Iranians had their eye on the bomb under the Shah. And members of the current regime learned the required lessons regarding regime change before that.

The analogy holds for current thinking within the regime. They already understood the utility of the bomb; recent events drove the message.

9

Dude that’s nuts what you’re saying here. Why don’t we remove Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria as well before they become an imminent threat too. Saddam wasn’t anywhere near where Iran is on nukes (AFAIR he was actually nowhere), and we all know about the BS search for WMDs in general. The runaway Iran issue is probably worse with Saddam done, and now our conventional military is spread too thin to do anything else, and Iran knows it.

W does still seem incredibly stupid after all, even worse than when we weren’t sure just how much of a twat he was.

10

Man, you come up with some damn fine ideas. You should work for the State Department.

I can’t type upside down M because some stoopid Democrat removed the Upsidedown M key from all my keyboards.

11

Iran’s work on nuclear weapons has continued unabated regardless of who has been president. What does this have to do with Bush? Could Bush have taken out the leadership of Iran? doubtful. Can Obama? doubtful. Can a surgical military attack work? Maybe. The US prior to taking out the Taliban and Saddam was not capable of doing much on Iran. I do not think that we are capable of doing anything today. Blaming Bush may be easy for the simple-minded and that clearly would appear to be what we are dealing with. Most are very happy that Saddam is out of the picture. He, too, had learned his lesson from Gulf War I. Eventually, he would have developed nuclear weapons just like Iran has been able to and for the same reasons. The UN and collective “concern” are really not much of a barrier to action if you wish to flout “international law.”

12

There’s not a shred of evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligence has concluded all work stopped in 2003 and hasn’t resumed:

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

The same bozos who repeatedly told us with absolute certainty that Iraq was sitting on an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and we had to act before it was too late are telling us now that Iran is building the bomb.

Show us some real evidence or STFU before you drag us into another stupid, ruinous war.

13

Ah… Politburo… it must all be about Israel then? and the Jewish control of the US government? strange then that everyone else seems to be buying into the nuke weapons thing… so easily fooled/controlled… these people… and then of course there are all those centrifuges NOT developing nuclear material NOT for nuclear weapons. Okay… I may be back for a visit in June/July. Shall I hold a Fredfest?

14

Yes. Do something worthwhile for a change. It will be good to see you and catch up on events. Hope all has been well. I have to go to Mexico on business in June though and won’t be back until the 15th. Also have to go to Japan June 27-30 so if you can schedule Fredfest around those times I’d be much obliged.

15

Honestly, you would think that Fredfest is only about Politbureau. I, Fred Smith, to be dictated to in such a fashion? Increible. Blah, blah blah, (insert demagoguery and ad hominems)…

fred