Israel Matzav

Unanswered questions on the nuclear swap

There are some important unanswered questions arising from the nuclear swap deal worked out among Iran, Brazil and Turkey. First, the deal in which Iran would swap 1,200 kilo of 3.5% enriched uranium for 120 kilo of 20% enriched uranium, says nothing about stopping Iran from enriching more uranium to the 20% level. And Iran says openly that it intends to continue to do so.

What's seemingly potentially more problematic is that since February, Iran has been higher enriching small quantities of low enriched uranium to 20% at a research facility at Natanz, allegedly for nuclear medical needs. It is currently producing about 1 KG of the 20% higher enriched uranium a month, the Federation of American Scientist's Ivanka Barzashka said.

But scanning the text of the agreement, there's no mention of Iran halting its 20% higher enrichment under the deal, even though the deal would make way for the international community to provide Iran with the higher enriched fuel it supposedly requires for nuclear medical purposes.

Barzashka and her FAS colleague Ivan Oelrich said it makes no sense for Iran to enrich to 20% if it's essentially agreed to a deal to acquire the higher enriched fuel for its nuclear medical needs from abroad.

And Haaretz is citing the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi saying that Iran will continue its 20% enrichment work. "There is no relation between the swap deal and our enrichment activities," Salehi reportedly said. "We will continue our 20 percent uranium enrichment work.

Second, Iran is gaining an extra 120 kilos of 20% enriched uranium (a total of 240 kilos).

By negotiating a swap with Turkey, Iran adds a step to the process — 1,200 kilograms go to Turkey. They are swapped with 120 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium fuel rods; the 1,200 kilograms go to Russia and France to be reprocessed and then they return to Iran.

You can see this as a bazaar trick to get a discount — for the same price, now Iran gets 240 kilograms of fuel rods instead of 120. Or you can see it as an exchange of hostages — you take our fuel, we take yours.

Still, the question remains unanswered — who supplies 120 kilograms to Iran within a month of delivery?

Turkey? Brazil? The original Vienna group of France, Russia, and the United States?

And while we are at it: who ensures the safety of the nuclear material once it reaches Turkish territory? Turkey is not known to have the facilities to do so.

Here's what the agreement says:

5. Based on the above, in order to facilitate the nuclear cooperation mentioned above, the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to deposit 1200 kg LEU in Turkey. While in Turkey this LEU will continue to be the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA may station observers to monitor the safekeeping of the LEU in Turkey.

6. Iran will notify the IAEA in writing through official channels of its agreement with the above within seven days following the date of this declaration. Upon the positive response of the Vienna Group (US, Russia, France and the IAEA) further details of the exchange will be elaborated through a written agreement and proper arrangement between Iran and the Vienna Group that specifically committed themselves to deliver 120 kg of fuel needed for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).

7. When the Vienna Group declares its commitment to this provision, then both parties would commit themselves to the implemention of the agreement mentioned in item 6. Islamic Republic of Iran expressed its readiness to deposit its LEU (1200 kg) within one month. On the basis of the same agreement the Vienna Group should deliver 120 kg fuel required for TRR in no later than one year.

8. In case the provisions of this Declaration are not respected Turkey, upon the request of Iran, will return swiftly and unconditionally Iran’s LEU to Iran. FINAL

The Obama administration may actually accept this deal.

"Given Iran’s repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran’s nuclear program, the United States and international community continue to have serious concerns," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

"While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October," Gibbs continued, "Iran said today that it would continue its 20 percent enrichment, which is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and which the Iranian government originally justified by pointing to the need for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor."

Gibbs also said the 10-point joint declaration signed by Iran, Brazil and Turkey is "vague" about Iran's willingness to meet with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany about outstanding international concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Actually, the agreement's point 10 would seem to make way for Iran to meet with the so-called P5+1 group in Turkey.

No doubt part of the White House's restrained reaction is due to the diplomatic regrouping among key allies, as well as because of domestic political concerns.

But Israel won't accept it.

But here’s the hitch: Israel isn’t going to buy this nonsense. So we return to what is becoming the only meaningful question: will Obama support Israeli military action? American Jewish “leaders” should press Obama to answer that question now. After all, the survival of the Jewish state hangs in the balance and their muteness, like that of American Jewish leaders of the 1930s, will be remembered quite unkindly by history.

And the IAEA isn't jumping for joy either.

– The International Atomic Energy Agency has received the text of the Joint Declaration by Iran, Turkey and Brazil, signed today in Tehran.

– In line with what was stated there, we are now expecting written notification from Iran that it agrees with the relevant provisions included in the declaration.

And by the way, under the deal, Iran will retain about half of its low enriched uranium, which is enough for one nuclear weapon.

What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:50 PM