Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, May 01, 2012

US now says it's not willing to accept any enrichment by Iran

On Sunday, I blogged a Friday Los Angeles Times article that claimed that the United States is willing to concede Iranian uranium enrichment up to 5%. In Monday's State Department briefing, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied that story and claimed that the United States insists that there be no enrichment of uranium by Iran. Or did she?
Jill.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. NULAND: Yes.

QUESTION: Could you catch us up on the state-of-play right now? It appears that the United States would be willing to accept some enrichment, five percent, with the idea that anything further enriched would be taken out of the country, let’s say 20 percent. Can you just walk us through where we are in talks?

MS. NULAND: I’m not sure what your assertion is based on. It might have been based on one poorly reported story that I saw over the weekend. But I would say that –

QUESTION: (Inaudible) that. (Laughter.) So that poorly reported story.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: But in any case, where are we?

MS. NULAND: I would say that our position remains as it has been, that we are – we want to see Iran live up to its international obligations including the suspension of uranium enrichment as required by multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: So suspension of uranium enrichment. To what percent, though?

MS. NULAND: Again, Jill, we’re not going to be negotiating this from the podium. What we need to do is continue the conversations that we’re having with Iran and the P-5+1. And as you know, we’re headed to a second round in Baghdad in May.

QUESTION: But is --

QUESTION: Just a quick --

QUESTION: But is this a subject for negotiation? The UN – there’s multiple resolutions that say all enrichment has to stop. Is that not correct?

MS. NULAND: Exactly. That’s what the resolutions say.

QUESTION: So that --

MS. NULAND: So I’m not going to be negotiating this arrangement. What we want to see is Iran come forward with a concrete plan to meet its obligations.

QUESTION: And just to take it one step further --

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- to do that, to come into compliance with its obligations, it would need to stop all uranium enrichment. Isn’t that correct?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think you know what the UN Security Council resolutions say. That’s the standard that we will hold Iran to.
That sequence was not very straightforward, was it? It was followed by this:
QUESTION: On the same topic, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the Ambassador – the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA, said that their right to enrich uranium is inalienable, much like other countries --

MS. NULAND: Is what, Said?

QUESTION: Is inalienable. It’s a God-given right, as far as he’s concerned. Do you agree with that?

MS. NULAND: Well, you know where we are on this. We want to see them come clean on their nuclear program. We have said all along that we don’t have a problem with a peaceful nuclear energy program once they have come clean with the international community about the full scope of what they’re involved in.

QUESTION: And on Jill’s point --

QUESTION: Do you have --

QUESTION: -- on Jill’s point, would you say that the margin – the – I guess the U.S. requested that it be five percent, and the Iranians are saying 20 percent. So we have a negotiating margin of, let’s say, 15 percent?

MS. NULAND: Said, as I said, I’m not going to be negotiating this deal from here.

Please.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) If you’re saying you want them to come clean – so in other words, they theoretically – legally, they have the right to enrich. But at this point, that is in abeyance because they have to come clean, and then, they could possibly enrich?

MS. NULAND: What I said --

QUESTION: Because you can’t have it --

MS. NULAND: -- is they have the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program. There are many ways that that could be achieved, but not before we’ve come to an agreement and they have met their international obligations.
It sounds like the Times story was correct, doesn't it? What could go wrong?

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google