Iran’s Khamenei throws support to a Practical Nuclear Deal with West

[polly7]

By Juan Cole
Source: Informed Comment
February 10, 2015

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s clerical leader, gave a speech on Sunday in which he said he supports an agreement with the West on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that is practical and can be achieved, but added, “I will not accept a bad deal.”

The speech is being seen as a sign that Khamenei is throwing his support behind President Hasan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in the latter’s go-for-broke attempt to conclude successful negotiations with the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5 + 1) regarding Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program. The P5 +2 are seeking an agreement tat would allow Iran to continue to enrich for reactor fuel but would include safeguards to prevent Tehran from ever militarizing the program.

Khamenei said,

“I concur with the continuation and progress of the negotiations and the reaching of a good agreement. And the Iranian nation is also with any agreement that is consistent with its honor and respect. It is not opposed.”

Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/irans-khamenei-throws-support-to-a-practical-nuclear-deal-with-west/

[cascadiance]

1. Wouldn't it be better in trying to help Iran with solar or other non-nuclear energy?

It looks like there are already efforts within Iran to try and make transition to solar and wind power energy there...

http://www.elp.com/articles/2014/07/iran-looks-to-solar-power-to-transition-from-nuclear-energy.html

It would seem that this would help on two fronts:

1) Getting them to pull back on their nuclear energy program, which would reduce concerns about them building nuclear weaponry too.

2) Helping them move to non carbon-based energy generation would help the world in general in dealing with climate change.

If the U.S. could help Iran more with the second effort it would help elevate the U.S.'s reputation as trying to help us all with nuclear proliferation and diffusing Iran as a threat, and at the same time build our reputation as taking the lead in addressing climate change concerns.

Perhaps with the timing of us just saying NO to Netanyahu's efforts to try and undermine our political system with his attempts at providing a slanted address to congress, the rest of the middle east will take that along with helping Iran to wind down its nuclear ambitions as a sign of us trying to help bring more peace there and not emboldening Israel. Maybe even within Israel it will put pressure on the Likud and Netanyahu types to wind back some of Israel's nuclear ambitions as well if they see Israel losing more strategic influence with the U.S., with their current government's efforts trying to have us "arm up" against Iran and other neighbors of Israel.

[polly7]

2. I agree, but they still need nuclear energy for medicine, just like everyone else.

I don't know how much that's being discussed in the deal, and I do think they, like we in Canada, have the right to nuclear energy as they're in the same position we are, they lack refineries for the energy their population requires. They deserve assurance to that right. But yes, moving to non carbon-based energy generation would be great. (For everyone everywhere).

(Also, Iran is a signatory of the NPT and has called for a nuclear-weapon free ME. They don't want weapons - they aren't stupid people, if they'd wanted them they'd have had them years ago, sanctions or no sanctions, just as Israel got theirs (secretly). I don't get the non-stop propaganda from the right and certain Israel leaders that they're dead set on getting nuclear weapons .... well maybe I do, the real prize has always been Iran).

[stevenleser]

3. Iran's position is that they are allowed to enrich uranium for fuel use like any other country and

any attempt to prevent them from doing that is infringing on their rights.

Any attempt to do as you say would be viewed by them as subterfuge to accomplish the same goal.

[cascadiance]

5. But what is their goal then? Energy use efficiency or being a nuclear power?

Arguably they have a case if absent other more efficient avenues, nuclear energy provides them a better means of providing energy to their people. But if the U.S. can help make it so that equation has solar energy or other renewable forms of non carbon-based energy being a better alternative than nuclear power as an energy source, then why would they choose nuclear energy in that instance, if their real goal is providing better and cheaper alternative forms of energy.

I would say now would be a good time before they make a heavy investment that is hard to pull out of in nuclear energy, to provide Iran a means to provide less costly forms of non-nuclear non-carbon-based energy to use.

If their concern is that they need to have that capability of getting nuclear weapons power to answer the challenge of what Israel presents them as neighbors, then that's where the U.S., could now be applying pressure to Israeli leadership to pull back on its current paths of using nuclear weapons as a means to impose its will on its neighbors.

The U.S. shouldn't be trying to force Iran to stop its efforts with nuclear energy, so as not to be viewed as trying to "prevent" them from exercising their rights as a sovereign country, but it should be trying to encourage them in their efforts to have their energy needs met by solar and wind instead.

The U.S. SHOULD have as a goal to try to get the world, including itself from moving away from both nuclear weaponry and power, and I think would gain more world respect by being more active in doing so with its foreign policy objectives. Helping encourage Iran away from nuclear power and weapons as well as doing so with Israel can only be helpful in this regard I would think, and would serve all of our interests.

[stevenleser]

6. I'm 99.99% sure its not for weaponry. The IAEA is onsite at all of Iran's facilities

observing what they are doing and testing the enriched product to ensure it isn't enriched to the point of being usable in a bomb.

They want to use it for energy use but it has become a symbol of their fight for complete autonomy and independence.

[polly7]

7. I agree with that completely.

And they deserve it.

[cascadiance]

11. If it is being used for things like medicine, where there are no other options, I support that too..

I'm not speaking in terms of necessarily questioning Iran's motives here myself, though there are many others that do so out there.

I'm saying that I'm also just in general against us still working to increase usage of nuclear energy, whether it is here at home, in Iran, in Israel, or anywhere else in the world. I'm saying to be consistent with that goal, I'd like to see our foreign policy try to wind down nuclear energy and encourage alternative energy sources not so much as a means to stop nuclear weaponry, but to stop us from having more Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushimas from happening in the future, or potentially even worse scenarios. If in the process we can do what Iran really wants to do (assuming they want a status of being very in control of its energy future), and we can also help allay others' fears of them getting nuclear weaponry power, then those are fringe benefits, but necessarily the only goal. If we're consistent in how we apply that policy to other nations (including our own), and not just Iran, we can make the case that our goal isn't to subjugate them and force them to not have nuclear technology available to them.

Getting nuclear power shouldn't be a status symbol of independence and trust as some seem to indicate it is here. I trust the oversight agencies are also doing the right things too in watching over what Iran is doing too, but I just don't trust the technology itself, and feel we should be doing more to move away from it. We're missing an opportunity to make this more about us all working together to help with better energy consumption, not a politicized one of just helping Iran have its "rights" to have nuclear power.

If we help Iran with nuclear energy, then what's to stop other nations from wanting that same help? And we've then made the problems of increasing the threat of Fukushimas, etc. that much greater around the world.

[stevenleser]

12. I get it and am on board with your goal, it's just not possible for us to do that with Iran right

now. They are going to assume this is another attempt to get them to not enrich uranium as is their right.

Google statements by them, they are all about asserting their rights in this regard. They will be suspicious of any and all attempts to get them to not to enrich.

[stevenleser]

4. This is excellent news. nt

[Rhinodawg]

8. This is great. We should TRUST him 110%.

You'd be a fool not to trust a guy like that.

[Bandit]

9. I think I would trust him over the leader of Israel.

When was the last time Iran attacked a neighbor? When was the last time Israel did? Which country is more the war monger nation?

[stevenleser]

10. Trust really isnt necessary in this case. The IAEA is there observing and taking periodic samples.

You can feel pretty good about it.