Nuclear fuel swap deal: US sabotages ‘unique opportunity’ for peaceful resolution with Iran by Finian Cunningham

[tweetmeme source= “DandelionSalads” only_single=false]

Bookmark      and Share

by Finian Cunningham
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
19 May, 2010

In his inaugural speech in January 2009, US president Barack Obama promised a new beginning in foreign policy towards Iran, saying “we will extend a hand if you are willing to un-clench your fist”. He didn’t actually mention Iran by name then, but everyone knew he was saying that the Bush administration’s confrontational approach to the Islamic Republic was being replaced by a more reasonable policy based on mutual dialogue.

Well, we better return to examine everything else promised in that address – about “decent jobs and affordable healthcare” and “America being a friend to each nation and to every man, woman and child” – because the 44th president is now shown to be a liar.

Three days ago, Obama’s fine words were put to the test when, on 17 May, Iran announced a joint declaration with Turkey and Brazil on a nuclear fuel swap deal that, in the words of Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdorgan, provides a unique opportunity to resolve the long-running dispute between the US and its western allies and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme.

“There is a unique chance before us and I believe that we should take this chance,” said Erdogan following the signed accord, which was also brokered in Tehran by Brazilian president Lula da Silva.

“I urge the international community to support this final declaration, which is going to have a very positive impact on the establishment of world peace in the future,” added Erdogan.

But less than 24 hours after the nuclear fuel swap plan – which was hailed as a positive development by diverse opinion, including UN chief Ban Ki-moon, China’s foreign minister Yang Jiechi and even French president Nicolas Sarkozy – the Obama administration moved swiftly to sabotage the deal.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced on 18 May that a draft document for a fourth round of sanctions drawn up by the US had been agreed by all five permanent members of the UN security council (after weeks of arm-twisting on China, it has to be said [1] [2]). The proposed sanctions will have “more teeth” than the previous three rounds, and are aimed at hitting Iran’s international finances and trade.

So much for Obama’s promise of extending a hand to what is clearly a significant bid by Iran to build confidence and trust. More like extending a punch in the face.

The unprecedented agreement between Brazil, Turkey and Iran would see the Tehran government sending over half of its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey – some 1,200 kg – which would serve as a guarantee for Iran receiving a precise supply of enriched uranium from France or Russia within a specified time. The latter supply would be enriched to a level of 20 per cent which can then be used in radioisotope cancer treatments. It is far below the enrichment level – 80-90 per cent – that would be required for weapons manufacture (which Iran has consistently said is not the purpose of its nuclear programme). The uranium swap transaction would be overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A similar arrangement was first proposed last October in negotiations in Vienna between Iran and the so-called P5 + 1 group – the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany. That proposal failed because Iran was not sufficiently assured that France or Russia would deliver on its commitment to supply the enriched uranium. The Iranians were entitled to be distrustful then about handing over their hard-earned and rightful possession of LEU to world powers that have a long history of treachery and duplicity towards Tehran – from the US/British engineered coup d’état in 1953, to, according to author and historian Dilip Hiro, the French theft of $1 billion dollars from Iran when a nuclear deal fell through in 1979 following the overthrow of the pro-West Shah, to the ongoing delay by Moscow in honouring a contract to deliver surface-to-air missiles  – not to mention Russia’s mercurial stance over UN sanctions. Indeed, Russia’s zig-zagging over backing sanctions against Iran is probably more motivated by its self-serving agenda to stymie Tehran as a major energy rival, than by any perceived nuclear threat. [3]

Nevertheless, the latest nuclear fuel swap accord potentially bridges this crucial trust gap – with both Brazil and Turkey acting as honest brokers. A measure of the deal’s potential for a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Washington and Tehran – which has at times seen the US and its allies threaten Iran with military attack, even a nuclear strike – can be ascertained by the alacrity with which the Obama administration moved to smash the new diplomatic bridge.

‘Iran deal sets back US goal of sanctions,’ reported the Financial Times (17 May). Sure enough, the next day, declaring the renewed push for sanctions on Iran, Hillary Clinton had this to say: “I think this announcement [for sanctions] is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide.”

Clinton’s evident glee from pushing for tougher sanctions in place of a workable dialogue reveals that the US is hell-bent on confrontation with Iran. And the western mainstream media dutifully fell in line, with Iran’s breakthrough nuclear swap deal buried by other news only two days after its signing.

This US stonewalling of any avenue for dialogue with Iran has disturbing echoes of Washington’s deliberate sabotaging of diplomatic overtures for a peaceful resolution prior to its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It also exposes Obama’s vow of a new beginning in US foreign policy to be cynical lie, trotted out in front of his nation and the world with hand on heart.

One thing, however, that Obama said in his inaugural address may turn out to be true: “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict… know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.” For first among such deceitful leaders is one Barack Obama.



Finian Cunningham is a journalist and musician


NATO: Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts and ballistic missile stockpile could trigger a collective response from NATO countries

14 thoughts on “Nuclear fuel swap deal: US sabotages ‘unique opportunity’ for peaceful resolution with Iran by Finian Cunningham

  1. Pingback: Iran’s Disappeared Nuclear Scientist: Video Points to Unlawful US Abduction By Finian Cunningham « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: The IAEA: From UN Nuclear Watchdog to US Lapdog by Finian Cunningham « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Operation Justified Vengeance by Michel Chossudovsky « Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Words Fail: People Of Conscience Condemn Terrorist Israel’s Actions by Cindy Sheehan « Dandelion Salad

  5. Pingback: Gaza Aid Convoy Attack: Israel’s Murderous Sea Piracy a Horrendous Moment of Truth for US Policy By Finian Cunningham « Dandelion Salad

  6. Pingback: UK’s new prime minister: An Iran free from nuclear weapons is vital to our security « Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: Korean Stand-off: US Soft Power Play To Maintain Aggression Towards Iran By Finian Cunningham « Dandelion Salad

  8. Pingback: On the edge with Max Keiser: Gerald Celente on Fascism, the Tea Party protests, Israel & Iran « Dandelion Salad

  9. Pingback: Chossodovsky: Obama doesn’t want a nuclear free world « Dandelion Salad

  10. No country goes to war unless someone thinks they can make a profit out of it. Wonder who in our government plans on making a profit.

  11. I’ve been puzzling over that NYT headline since it appeared, it’s so much Deja Vu, like no matter what they do, Iran is toast as was Iraq.

    If past performance is any indicator of future rewards, Iran should do a Kaddafi and get off the US hit-list.

    Nuclear is never worth it, nor are the inevitable militaristic consequences, especially when the actual people of iran have had enough of the Mullahs and made their opinions heard.

    The people are not to blame, but it’s they who will suffer if the likely inevitable conflagration with US/Israel happens (please prove me wrong!).

    • I agree, Natureboy. Why even bother with nuclear energy especially considering it may lead to your country being bombed? Invest in alternative energy sources. Much better for the environment. Although the US/Israel would still come up with some reason to threaten Iran.

Comments are closed.