Iran Ready to Purchase 20 Percent Uranium from the West
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticized Western countries for politicizing the country's nuclear program, while reiterating Iran’s 2009 offer to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent level if the West were willing to sell Iran the enriched uranium.
“Iran's nuclear program, which is a legal issue, has been turned into a political one by certain Western countries,” said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Associated Press chief editors in New York on Friday [Press TV, 24 September].
Ahmadinejad added that Iran was willing to negotiate a solution to the nuclear impasse. In recent interviews with the New York Times and the Washington Post, Ahmadinejad has raised the prospect of stopping enriching uranium to 20 percent purity.
In an interview with Nicholas Kristof of New York Times during his recent visit to New York, Ahmadinejad made an unambiguous offer to the West.
“If they (the West) were willing to sell us the 20 percent enriched uranium, we would have preferred to buy it,” Ahmadinejad said. “It would have been far less expensive. It’s as though you wish to purchase a vehicle for yourself. No one is willing to sell it to you, then you must set up your own production line to produce your own vehicle,” he added [New York Times, 21 September].
Ahmadinejad had made similar offer during an interview in Tehran on 13 September with Lally Weymouth of Washington Post.
“For power stations, we need uranium of 3.5 percent and we are producing that fuel. For the Tehran Reactor we need uranium grade of 20 percent and we are producing that. We have no other requirements. Of course at the beginning we had no interest to produce uranium grade 20 percent. But the West refrained from giving us that uranium, so we had to start producing uranium grade 20 percent.
“Even if they gave us now uranium grade 20 percent, we would not continue with the production of this fuel,” Ahmadinejad said. “We don't want to produce uranium of 20 percent. Because they did not give us that uranium, we had to make our own investments. If they start to give us that uranium today, we will stop production.” [Washington Post, 13 September].
President Ahmadinejad had made a similar offer in 2009 only to be rejected by the supreme leader and the hardliners inside Iran. It was not clear whether this time he had cleared the offer with the supreme leader and had his support and approval.
11 comments:
This regime acts like a dog that chases it's own tail !
wow...interesting offer.
Speculations anyone?
yeah, the offer is entirely insincere and Ahmadinejad is just being his usual self and talking trash.
Iran doesn't need anybody to sell them enriched uranium for any non-military purpose at this point. they've refined more than they can use.
Excellent, now the IRGC can use the mountain fortified Fordow facility to test for Neutrinos rather than drive toward HEU.
(actually, like N Korea, they stalled for enough time to place facts on the ground... to the extent that US politicians would not touch)
Israel cornered into defense only mode.
Exactly where the IRGC and Mullah's want them.
well, nwospook,
maybe, just like NKorea, the people of Iran might end up living without electricity or food or any personal freedom because all will be sacrificed for the IRGC.
but the IRGC and the mullahs don't much care about the citizens of Iran, so why shouldn't the people be reduced to NKorean standards?
I guess it's not going to bother you either, nwospook
Ahmadinejad and co went to New York with a delegation of 400 people that is 100 delegates and 300 family members and 100 hotel suites costing millions of dollars all for an 30 minute speech of no significance.
While the people in Iran have no jobs and food also live under bridges and street corners begging for something to eat.
Disgusting shameless regime with not one ounce of morality.
Anon 12:30 AM
That's right lets sacrifice Iran for the IRGC why not let Iran be auctioned off to China so that the mullahs could rule for a little longer.
To hell with Iran as long Islam is not harmed who needs Iran !
Lets call Persian gulf the Islamic gulf and instead of being called Iranian lets be called Arabian.
This is where our country is heading too total Islamization and de-Iranization.
>>I guess it's not going to bother you either, nwospook
September 25, 2011 12:30 AM<<
Anon, during the 1990s, B Clinton, W Perry, M Albright et al, all agreed to kick the can down the road re NK... Bush had a "special job" and was preoccupied. He is not half as stupid as many believe... but He played it well enough to spoof the press and public.
No, but what does bother me is waiting to find out where mossad is to run the next "false" up the "flag" pole... Denver? I wonder if they'll send another pre-incident film crew to "document the event".- For the moment, focus on Yemen and get King Abdullah to front more cash for the UAV bases- this all is not simply sectarianism or "Arab Spring"... the Houthis are on the IRGC payroll and Pak ISI pleased with Al Qaeda presence... King Abdullah can no longer play both sides, Sunni Pak funding, wahabbi aligned ISI sub cell, baluchistan ops etc... and Yemen is another key piece. Admiral Mullen recently outed the central narrative- everyone must soon chose sides... the players are beginning to assemble on the field. Israel approaches Her last , and final war. Unfortunately, the US is likely to be engineered in again too.
nwospook----that was really nice conspiratorial gibberish...you sound quite practiced at it.
the situation in North Korea was not identical to the iranian one. there's no Great Power allied with iran or willing to provide a deterrent against attacks on Iran.
As well, Iran can't mount a threat against an American ally analogous to the threat posed to South Korea by the Norks.
Iran can't project any conventional military power, and has no military allies of note...which is why the grown-ups aren't gonna hesitate the kick the Iranian regime down the road if they persist in building nukes.
>Anon September 25, 2011 6:37 PM<
"grown ups
gibberish
the "C" word
norks"
.... more bravado, arrogance, discrediting damage control... I support the concept... what Bush senior called the "big idea" I get it... but you and your zionist handlers are fighting like brutish dogs in an era where you must fight smarter. At "mission accomplished" speech- I noted that they had better find those WMDs fast, either that, or plant them quick. You and "slam dunk" Tenent and "mushroom cloud" Rice can go find them, Zelikow will provide the necessary travel docs. Until then, run some laps and do some pushups- stay away from the keyboard and any weapons.
Here is the truth:
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
February 1, 2007
Mr. Chairman:
Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.
It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:
1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.
2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.
Mr Uskowi and team,
Good site for the exchange of ideas. Never more important than today, those in positions of leadership would do well to strenuously endeavor to rise above the hindsight bias, the cold war era's paradigm of Hegelian Dialectic. Donald Rumsfeld indicated as much when He warned of a new era of asymmetric war and further mused that sometimes "You go to war with the Army you have, and not the one you want"... He was not simply referring to numbers in the field, equipment, and support... but also leadership... not a skill or dedication deficit, but rather... wisdom.
In my own humble view, I believe the Iranian youth represents a unique asset, a force multiplier for positive change... importantly- if that same demographic is "turned" against progress, in response to overt blunt military incursion, such as an Air and Naval bombardment of nuclear infrastructure- this same asset will quickly turn into in an unmeasurable liability- and the sentiment could undermine the revolutions we see in the region at present. It is time for those of clear mind in Israel to regain control of their politics, and destiny, before it is too late.
A redesign of "the social order" has been underway for many many years... we're not about to allow an element with poor judgement skills undermine the progress... bullets and bombs are necessary, while intelligence and design are better, and work to employ the adversary itself, against itself... in reading Sun Tsu in War College these guys knew this long ago, although it was conditioned of their strategic view... hence the posters response to my comment.
Post a Comment