Saturday, June 19, 2010

It Pays to Unbelong

West’s shifting of the goalpost on Iran and its disregard for the Turkey-Brazil brokered Nuclear Swap deal has jeopardised the legitimacy of the UNSC, says Saurabh Kumar Shahi

Just a week before the Turkey-Brazil brokered Nuclear Swap deal, I, like many other Iran watchers, was pretty optimistic about its outcome. We had info that the deal will cover all the aspects of the previous deal that the West offered last October. However, a European diplomat friend of mine pricked my confidence just a night prior to the announcement. Casually, he put forward a question which I was not prepared for. “What if we shift the goalpost?” he said, with a smirk on his face. I did not take it just as another bout of cynicism which many diplomats suffer from. I, at least, was sure what fate awaits the deal. As the week unfolded, both I, and over and above, my diplomat friend, were right.

As it happened, the US had yet again shifted the goalpost on Iran in order to warrant that the face-off wasn't resolved even with Iran’s concession on the Uranium swap deal. And also, by doing so, the US has abandoned its own Uranium swap deal bid. Now, this should come as no revelation since experts have long maintained that Uncle Sam's present stance, like its earlier stands, was purely intended to drag out the confrontation rather than resolve it. The matter is now pretty clear: the US still persists on zero enrichment in Iran, a presumably unattainable touchstone proposed to avert a resolution.

Several of the pro-western analysts decrying Turkey-Brazil Swap deal--popularly called Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) deal--are harping on the fact that Iran never stopped producing enriched uranium since the Americans put forward the first version in October last year. This, according to them, means that albeit some of the low enriched uranium goes to Turkey, “the residual would be adequate to produce a theoretical nuclear weapon if Iran ever wished to exercise Article X of the NPT and broke out of the NPT regime. This analysis, nonetheless, completely discounts the fact that the initial offer by the US never reflected that Iran should stop enrichment. So, discontinuing the enrichment was by no means a part of the bargain.


“Actually, this aspect was the real disclosure of the initial proposal, for it was broadly understood as an implicit US acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich Uranium. It was, in effect, LEU generated at Natanz that was to be swapped over for new fuel cells,” says noted Iranian watcher and proliferation expert Cyrus Safdari, while talking to TSI. Moreover, the alarm of Tehran achieving “breakout capacity” is hogwash and relies merely on pretexts as, technically speaking, any nation with a nuclear programme could hypothetically produce bombs. Going by the IAEA’s own assessment, presently 42 nations can swiftly make nukes if they so desired, which essentially means that it is not an Iran specific issue. On the posturing front, the regime in Washington has suffered a credibility setback of biblical proportions. Therefore, understandably, the US is acting swiftly to reclaim the initiative and summon up the impetus. And to do that, Washington will need not merely to unravel the deal, but essentially discredit the whole idea of parley and negotiations with Tehran. However, above all, the regime will do whatever possible to badly humiliate Turkey and Brazil and show them their “right place”.

For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article

Source :
IIPM Editorial, 2009


An IIPM and Professor Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist) Initiative

Read these article :-