Speaking today on Iranian television, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had “no problem” with the third party enrichment deal’s terms, and that the nation was willing to send its uranium abroad for further enrichment.
“There is really no problem,” Ahmadinejad insisted. “Some made a fuss for nothing. There is no problem. We sign a contract. We give them 3.5 percent and it will take four or five months for them to give us the 20 percent.”
The draft agreement reached in October had been at a deadlock for months as the Iranian government debated over the wisdom of turning so much of its uranium over to France on the assumption they would eventually get it back. Ahmadinejad insisted that even if France reneged on the deal they would just enrich more.
But the US State Department was dismissive of the comments, saying that it was long past time for Iran to “give us a definitive answer” on the draft deal, and insisting that today’s comments were not technically a response.
Western officials were also looking for wiggle room in Ahmadinejad’s “four to five months” timeframe, insisting that the project could actually take years. The IAEA has yet to comment on the offer.
15 thoughts on “Iran Accepts Third Party Enrichment Deal Terms”
It seems the United States government cannot take "yes" for an anwser. If it is unrealistic to return the 20% enriched uranium to Iran in the time frame suggested by Ahmadinejad then why not just return to Iran uranium already enriched to that level? The flat out negative reaction to what is clearly a significant concession by the Iranian government is proof that the United States government is not negotiating in good faith, and is hell bent on a policy of starvation sanctions and war.
Indeed. There is absolutely no other way the US response can be regarded but as sabre-rattling malice. Especially telling is the horse manure about it taking years for Iranians to get their 20% enriched uranium.
You are 100% correct sir!
Yep! You see it quite clearly for what it is. I've said it time and again that the Iranians could never "please" Uncle Sam because thats something no one could ever hope to do unless they roll over and die. Democracy, in the US's twisted lexicon, can only spring forth from your dead body.
No Iran. Don't cave in.
Don't be like Libya.
Stand your ground. I remember libya was destroying reactors. Iran wont do this.
I think the US changed the deal where only sending ALL the uranium in one bulk pile will be acceptable. Basically giving them an offer they can't accept. Iran wanted it in stages, but the US refused.
Iran would send out 3% just in case france takes them and destroys them, Iran will have enough left over to make more.
Even if Iran sent out all of it's uranium in one swoop, it would not be enough for the US because they will say "well, Iran still has the means to make nuclear weapons" "They cannot have the means to make nuclear energy".
That is illegal. Just the way the US likes it. Nice and illegal just like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm disappointed…. I was hoping Iran would tell that puppet of those Israeli Nazis, the USA, to go hump its self.
It is not going to happen. There is no way Iran would risk all (or most) of thier hard earned enriched uranium.
Even if they do I am willing to bet that the contract will be so Iron clad that the US or the West could not get out of it. I bet the contract would envolved China and Russia as part of that contract makeing them responsible for the return of the enriched uranium of %20.
remember Iran is the country who invented Chess. They not likely to be out witted by the Zionist.
America was the first country to create nuclear weapons. It opened Pandora's box. It was the first (and still only) country to ever use them. Not once, but twice. And on an already defeated foe. America has more nuclear weapons then any country on earth. All of this is "okay", but it is "wrong" for other countries to obtain them, even though possession of them is your best defense against American aggression. (I doubt very much slick Willy and Co. would have attacked Serbia if it had had nuclear weapons). American hypocrisy is staggering.
Andy, indeed the hypocrisy is staggering. The Serbs were defiant and for that their civilians were killed by the KLA's "air force"… i.e. NATO. Notice how the US doesn't invade North Korea. Here is a country with people living in a totalitarian dictatorship, WMD's no less, missles that can most definitely fly to their neighbors, and our government doesn't do a thing. Instead it spends hundreds of billions chasing a handful of ghosts in the mountains or hanging ex assets post haste lest they burble out some inconvenient truths.
I've been reading antiwar.com for about ten years now, and in the last six months I've noticed a striking change in the substance of the comments. Where there used to be some credence given to the "mainstream" slash "US govt" position, now, almost to a man (or woman), the commenters start out with "What a load of horseshit!" and then follow up with a short summary of the truth (with of course their own slight variations from person to person), followed by a short explanation of whyn the govt is lying and what they're really up to.
A year ago Bush and the GOP was hated with a ferocity rarely seen in the American electorate. One year later, Obama and the Dems have brought that anger, undiminished, down on their own heads, the consequence of their embrace, rebranding, and expansion of the Bush/Cheney/GOP clusterfuck.
Great time to be an independent candidate. Great time to start a third party. Maybe call it the Accountability Party. Change you can breathe in.
Both of the establishment parties are essentially the same Jeff. I call them the Republicrats. Both are essentially owned and controlled by special interest groups and powerful circles. Neither party truly represents ordinary Americans.
The Iranians need 20% uranium to run a medical isotope generator. We could give them the fuel rods off the shelf, so to speak, but out of spite do nothing.
Very good point. If this nation really wanted to move any country in a peaceful direction and had any interest in "dialogue" they would do it in a heart beat. I guess killing people is far more profitable than healing any wounds.
Why doesn't the AP source for this article show up in a search on the AP website?
Comments are closed.