• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Rejected 2005 Iranian Offer Ensuring No Nuclear Weapons

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Washington - France and Germany were prepared in spring 2005 to negotiate on an Iranian proposal to convert all of its enriched uranium to fuel rods, making it impossible to use it for nuclear weapons, but Britain vetoed the deal at the insistence of the United States, according to a new account by a former top Iranian nuclear negotiator.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who had led Iran's nuclear negotiating team in 2004 and 2005, makes it clear that the reason that offer was rejected was that the George W. Bush administration refused to countenance any Iranian enrichment capability, regardless of the circumstances.

Mousavian reveals previously unknown details about that pivotal episode in the diplomacy surrounding the Iran nuclear issue in memoirs published Tuesday.

Mousavian, now a visiting research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, had been a top political aide to former president Hashemi Rafsanjani and head of the foreign relations committee of Iran's Supreme National Security Council during his political-diplomatic career in Iran.

Once the fuel rods were fabricated, it would be practically impossible for Iran to reconvert them for military purposes.

The European delegations asked for a break to discuss it among themselves, Jenkins recalled, but soon decided to tell Iran they would "need more time to consider further".

But the Europeans did not seek to explore the Iranian offer further.

Mousavian reveals that Iran learned a few weeks after that meeting that the Europeans had no intention of negotiating any agreement that would allow Iran to have any enrichment programme. On Apr. 12, 2005, Mousavian recounts, the French ambassador to Iran, Francois Nicoullaud, told him it was impossible for the Europeans to negotiate on the Iranian proposal.

"For the U.S. the enrichment in Iran is a red line which the EU cannot cross," Mousavian quotes Nicoullaud as saying.

In June 2009, Nicoullaud signed a statement with five other former European ambassadors to Iran recalling that in 2005 "Iran was ready to discuss a ceiling limit for the number of its centrifuges and to maintain its rate of enrichment far below the high levels necessary for weapons," but that "the Europeans and the Americans wanted to compel Iran to forsake its enrichment program entirely."

Read more @: US Rejected 2005 Iranian Offer Ensuring No Nuclear Weapons

This is interesting. Why would we not take this deal? Was it because they were the "axis of Evil"? The idiocracy of our foreign policy sometimes...

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
 
the pendulum is returning in iran's favor

russia just gave iran a blank check to continue is nuclear development activities:
"We have always supported the right of the Iranian people to modern technologies, including the peaceful use of atomic energy," AFP quoted Putin as saying on the sidelines of a regional summit in China. ...
In a statement issued earlier in the day by the SCO, the group stated that "any attempts to solve the Iranian problem by force are not acceptable and lead to unpredictable consequences, threatening stability and security in the region and in the world as a whole." ...
Putin: We support 'peaceful' Ira... JPost - Iranian Threat - News

that is gonna sting for a while in tel aviv and DC
the upcoming moscow meeting should prove interesting ... especially since the 5+1 refuse to have their representatives meet with iran's representatives to establish a meeting agenda


makes the dicknbush decision to refuse the '05 proposal look stupid, about like arafat's refusal of a Palestinian state
 
any nuclear treaty with Iran isn't going to hold water. war with them would be equally useless and infinitely more destructive.

the solution to the Iran problem is to replace oil as a transportation fuel. that would defund their program fairly effectively.
 
any nuclear treaty with Iran isn't going to hold water. war with them would be equally useless and infinitely more destructive.

the solution to the Iran problem is to replace oil as a transportation fuel. that would defund their program fairly effectively.

Currently Iran is storing 23 million barrels of oil offshore.. Half their tanker fleet is parked at Kharg full of oil.. They can't reduce production dramatically without damaging the reserves...

Note that OPEC basket is currently at $84 a barrel.

They also need $117 a barrel to break even.... and the serious sanctions don't kick in until July 1.

Iran actually NEEDS nuclear power.. That is NOT unreasonable.. but nuclear weapons are a no go.
 
Currently Iran is storing 23 million barrels of oil offshore.. Half their tanker fleet is parked at Kharg full of oil.. They can't reduce production dramatically without damaging the reserves...

Note that OPEC basket is currently at $84 a barrel.

They also need $117 a barrel to break even.... and the serious sanctions don't kick in until July 1.

Iran actually NEEDS nuclear power.. That is NOT unreasonable.. but nuclear weapons are a no go.
where does that $117 breakeven figure come from?
 
Am I the only one that ever looks at the source of these kinds of stories? What in the hell is 'Interpress News'? A visit to their website doesn't exactly fill one with a sense of an impartial, neutral look at the news.

Let me know when a real news organization carries this story.

What is especially interesting are the other stories carried on the linked site - and the rational, balanced comments of the readers. It looks like a Far left facebook site pretending to be a news organization.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one that ever looks at the source of these kinds of stories? What in the hell is 'Interpress News'? A visit to their website doesn't exactly fill one with a sense of an impartial, neutral look at the news.

Let me know when a real news organization carries this story.


this is the forum which features the stories emanating from blogs, rather than widely recognized news sources
 
Yeah, which is what I said. There are blogs and then there are blogs. You consider the nature of the blog when evaluating the story.
 
Yeah, which is what I said. There are blogs and then there are blogs. You consider the nature of the blog when evaluating the story.

i missed your point
likely my shortfall rather than yours
but it's a blog. not a recognized news source. that would appear to make the position of those who rely on blogged stories easier to undermine with facts
 
Am I the only one that ever looks at the source of these kinds of stories? What in the hell is 'Interpress News'? A visit to their website doesn't exactly fill one with a sense of an impartial, neutral look at the news.

Let me know when a real news organization carries this story.

What is especially interesting are the other stories carried on the linked site - and the rational, balanced comments of the readers. It looks like a Far left facebook site pretending to be a news organization.

I remember this happening though.

Iran said they needed nuclear power (they do).

Europeans said they'd supply fuel rods to Iran (not convertible to weapons).

America said NO!

Iran said well **** you then.
 
Back
Top Bottom