Friday, May 18, 2012

P5+1 Forge Joint Approach to Talks with Iran

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) have reportedly agreed to offer a joint proposal to Iran at the Baghdad talks on 23 May. The proposal would open a path to curtail any military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program and to ease the threat of war on Iran [LA Times, 18 May].

The six powers will offer to provide 20-percent enriched uranium fuel for Iran’s research nuclear reactor and in return Iran must halt the production of 20 percent fuel and operation at Fordo enrichment facility. Iran would also need to surrender its stockpile of the material.
The sanctions against Iran will be lifted if and when the country takes verifiable confidence building-steps and allow IAEA to rigorously inspect its nuclear facilities for any possible weaponization programs.
It is unlikely that Iranian representatives would accept the proposal with all its components during the Baghdad talks, needing the approval by the country’s supreme leader and the senior leadership. The joint proposal, however, ends speculations that there were major rifts within P5+1 positions on Iran.
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had said during an interview with UAS Today earlier this week that the group had indeed reached a "unified position.”
“[We have reached] unified position that sets forth what we would expect to see Iran do on what kind of timetable to reassure the international community that it is not and will not seek nuclear weapons," Clinton said. “[The support of Russia and China] is a significant statement that the rest of the world is placing on a peaceful resolution of this problem," Clinton added.
Source: LA Times, 18 May 2010


Anonymous said...

If recognition of Iran's right to enrich (at 5%) is recognized, and if elements of the existing Russian plan are followed (stripping away of sanctions in tit-for-tat fashion), this may work.

But hopefully we won't have a repeat of the 2010 Tehran Declaration, where an Iranian "yes" wasn't expected and therefore wasn't accepted by the U.S.

Anonymous said...

The caveat you failed to mention is that this LA Times piece also stated: “But some diplomats say that they will consider it progress if the Iranians agree to negotiate in detail over the proposal in subsequent meetings.” Regrettably, this means that P5+1 will begin the negotiations with Israeli demands; the Iranians will be obliged to reject it; face-saving concessions will be made; and this farce will be rescheduled for another day. Since the outcome is already baked, the war-rhetoric will also be kicked down the road.

Why am I still scared?

It is farcical like this that leads to unforeseen circumstances. The side threatening WW3 will be forced to continue posturing, while the Iranians (who are inept at big time diplomacy) will continue their incoherent policies. One misstep is all it will take for the unthinkable to begin. I am beginning to realize that there are just too many fools at this party to sustain the status quo. I pray that my analysis is wrong.

Nader Uskowi said...

@ 3:44 AM,

LA Times article is a long one, including facts and analysis. We mainly covered the factual portions, not the analyses that could be right or not.

The passage you're referring to: “But some diplomats say that they will consider it progress if the Iranians agree to negotiate in detail over the proposal in subsequent meetings," is a sort of analysis that I do not agree with. If there would be no outcome, except more meetings in future, the sanctions regime will continue, and the central bank sanctions go into full effect at the end of June, and I do not consider that progress for Iran, or for the West for that matter.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:44---you're correct to say that the side arrayed against iran is threatening. they are

but you're quite incorrect to say that they're threatening WWIII--- they are not.

A war against iran by much of the world does not equate to a world war.

Such statements smacks of the grandiosity too often displayed in the rhetoric of the Iranian government.

This war, if it comes to that, will no more be a world war than was the the coalition war waged against Iraq to expel it from Kuwait.

Anonymous said...

@Anno May 19, 2012 10:53 PM

I want to see the coalition who goes to war against Iran.

I donot know how many US/Nato soldiers must be killed in Afganistan/Irak and how much debt must be collected by the G-8 until
some people understand war gainst iran ist suicide

US versus Iran = Istael against Hisbullah.

Anonymous said...

Balance of Power in the region is neutralizing the Turks and making them understand how little sympathy they have in Europe.

That they shall never get into that UNION is a thing they must accept at some point and Iran shall be waiting..

Syria shall stay loyal to the East and all the North African mercenary armies financed by KSA & Qatar shall not do much except harden Syrias loyalties to its allies a la Russia/Iran and China.

Afghanistan is a cultural and natural neighbour of Iran and KSA money in training and schooling Wahabi style Islam and causing conflicts with Iran shall backfire as it always has. Afghanistan will move towards Iran as Iraq did...

At the end of the day, Yemens problems as Bahrains..will pour into KSA and one day KSA shall be divided into 3 countries instad of the hoped Union they dream of....

What Israel is concerned, in 10 years the majority rule shall take place and Israel will be like South Africa, ruled by its majority (its Arab citizens).. conflict over !

Iran must only stand its man, and wait out..

Dariush London

Anonymous said...

Iran has the prize, that the U.S./Nato forces lost to the resistance. These Negotiations are not about use or misuse of Nuclear Energy. Its about the second largest oil reserves in the world!, which are located in Iraq, under Iranian control. The So called, Globalist- anti nuclear commitee,P5+1 is a farcical ploy. They know, full well, that Iran doesn't posses Nuclear weapons. They want to use this desparate ploy as an excuse to attack, the IRI. this last and final desparate attempt, to save their failing economies, will proove to be the nail in the coffin of Western Imperialism.It is only a matter of time.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:24 AM

The majority in Israel are Jews and not Arabs.

And Syria is not Iran's personal lapdog for them to be "loyal" too.

Anonymous said...

anon 7.55
in 10 years it wont be (Jews anymore)

Loyaties are shown towards friends and not masters.... as Iran is loyal to its friends like Syria.

Please do learn to comperhend what you read and then write NOT what you immediately think.

Dariush London

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:22 PM

Your narrow minded hatred towards Jews doesn't change the facts that the majority in Israel are Jews and will remain so for many years to come.
If you call Iran a friend of Syria then god forbid what Syria's enemies are like.

Anonymous said...

I actually love the jews, I married one ;)
Her Dad hung black curtains in Tehran upon her converting.

You dear 7:03 are not very intelligent. You do not seem to understand what you read.

You sloganeer and you absolutely detest Iran and Iranians.

I wish you no luck in life and love should I be right in my assumption.

Dariush London

Anonymous said...

"Her dad hung black curtains in Tehran upon converting."

You are a typical mullah lover that cannot resist lying and spreading your hatred and bigoted mullah ridden nonsense towards individual Iranians who oppose a tyrannical occupying anti Iranian regime from the dark pits of Wahhabi Arabia.
And contrary to you DEAR,with your venomous and spiteful tirade towards me(which typifies all mullah lovers with low IQ)I wish you all the luck in the world because you may soon need it.
So everything else you type out of your loathsome little mind is of no consequence to Iran or Iranians.

Anonymous said...

Either a daughter or the wife of...

I don't argue with other peoples families who have the ability to edit my posts.

Azari by fortune & Iranian by Grace of God
Dariush London

Steve said...

"P5+1 want do provide 20-percent enriched uranium fuel for Iran’s research nuclear reactor and in return Iran must halt the production of 20 percent fuel and operation at Fordo enrichment facility. Iran would also need to surrender its stockpile of the material".
As Iran is able to produce 20% enriched nuclear fuel itself, Iran has not the slightest incentive to consider that P5+1 offer. And why should Iran stop production of that fuel ?
To produce it is in accordance with the NPT, regardless of whether it is carried out in plain air or deep underground as it is the case at the Fordo site.
Iran is wise to negotiate, but in the end it shouldn't adopt one single of those crappy P5+1 proposals, regardless of how heavy sanctions the P5+1 will threaten to slap on Iran.

Anonymous said...

@ steve

I agree, giving up is surrender and the west will come at it and at the end bomb it and attack it.
All countries who negotiated and gave up in the past were invaded and attacked like Iraq and Lybia.