Kerry Proposes to Offer Iran a Nuclear 'Great Bargain'?

[Evilmav2]

Kerry's Proposal to Offer Iran A Nuclear 'Great Bargain' Draws Fire

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 9/02/04 | Patrick Goodenough

Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - Sen. John Kerry's proposal to offer Iran a "great bargain" to retain its nuclear plants but give up nuclear fuels (which could give it weapons capability) has been questioned by critics who point to a similar Clinton administration initiative that failed to end North Korea's bid to build atomic bombs.

The plan was outlined by Democrat vice-presidential candidate John Edwards in a Washington Post interview earlier this week.

The paper quoted Edwards as saying that if Tehran rejected the proposal, it would effectively be admitting that it is pursuing a goal of nuclear weapons. A Kerry administration would then, in concert with European allies, subject Iran to "heavy sanctions."

Iran is becoming an issue in the presidential campaign at a time when the U.N.'s atomic watchdog is preparing to consider whether it should refer the Islamic republic's nuclear program to the United Nations Security Council.

The 35-member governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will hold a crucial meeting on Iran in Vienna beginning Sept. 13.

Iran denies U.S. charges that it is pursuing nuclear weapons, insisting that its nuclear program -- being built with Russian help -- is a peaceful one designed solely to generate electricity.

A new IAEA report to governing board members says no definitive evidence has been uncovered pointing to a bomb program, but notes that Iran is preparing to refine about 37 tons of "yellowcake" uranium into a form that could, in turn, be processed further and used to make nuclear weapons.

In response, John Bolton, the administration's chief arms control official, said in a statement Wednesday that Iran's actions showed how urgent it was that the Security Council considers the matter.

Bolton believes the time to report Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council is long overdue.

"To fail to do so would risk sending a signal to would-be proliferators that there are not serious consequences for pursuing secret nuclear weapons programs," he said in a recent speech at the Hudson Institute.

The Security Council could in theory vote on sanctions, although widely-predicted opposition by Russia, for one, makes that highly unlikely.

In his Washington Post interview, Edwards criticized President Bush's policies, arguing that Iran was closer to nuclear weapons capability now than it had been when he took office.

He said the administration had abdicated responsibility for the Iranian threat to the Europeans -- a reference to efforts by Britain, France and Germany to get Iran to end its nuclear-enrichment program. Tehran reached an agreement with the EU trio last October, but has since renounced it, saying it reserves the right to enrich uranium.

The "great bargain" proposal outlined by Edwards appears to mirror the Clinton administration's Agreed Framework, a 1994 initiative which sought to end North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions.

Under that agreement, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program in return for U.S. fuel aid and the provision by the U.S. and its Northeast Asian allies of alternative, civilian reactors for power supply purposes.

But in Oct. 2002, it emerged that Pyongyang had reneged on the deal by carrying out a covert uranium-enrichment program. When confronted with evidence, the North Koreans admitted to the violation, according to the State Department.

The Agreed Framework quickly unraveled: The U.S. and allies suspended fuel aid shipments and work on the civilian reactors; North Korea kicked out U.N. inspectors from nuclear facilities frozen under the 1994 deal and restarted a mothballed reactor.

Pyongyang then withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and later claimed to have reprocessed a stockpile of spent fuel rods - a step experts warned could provide sufficient material to build half a dozen nuclear bombs.

Three rounds of six-party talks have so far failed to resolve the North Korean crisis.

In the view of American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Tom Donnelly "the Kerry team has apparently learned nothing from the disastrous [Agreed Framework] deal."

"In that earlier 'bargain,' North Korea promised to halt work on nuclear weapons in return for American assistance with 'peaceful' nuclear programs," Donnelly wrote in an item posted on the AEI website.

"We now know that the North Korean government lied all along and used the agreement to proceed with its nuclear weapons programs."

Donnelly said the proposal was in line with the Democrat candidate's "generally soft approach to dangerous regimes like the one in Tehran," and recalled Kerry's assertion earlier this year that he sought a "non-confrontational" approach toward Iran.

Center for Security Policy president Frank J. Gaffney also noted that a deal like the one being touted by Kerry and Edwards had "failed abysmally" to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

"Based on what is known about Iran's program and intentions - let alone its history of animus towards us - only the recklessly naive could still believe that such a deal is necessary to divine the mullahs' true purposes," Gaffney said in a decision brief.

"While it may be inconvenient to say so, Iran is clearly putting into place a complete nuclear fuel cycle so as to obtain both weapons and power from its reactor and enrichment facilities."

[madape]

Haven't we been down this road before? Is Kerry planning on appointing Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter into his cabinet? IMO, Iran is ten times more dangerous than North Korea.

[LRB]

So Kerry wants to help Iran get nuclear weapons? Sounds about right. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

Did he get UN approval for this? [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: LRB
So Kerry wants to help Iran get nuclear weapons? Sounds about right. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif[/img]

That is not what this article states, you should read it. The thing that bothers me is that Clinton tried the same thing with North Korea, which failed.... But there is a huge difference, IMO. It is highly argued and even supported by N. Korean leadership that they need the US support. Tehran does not make such claims.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

That is not what this article states, you should read it. The thing that bothers me is that Clinton tried the same thing with North Korea, which failed.... But there is a huge difference, IMO. It is highly argued and even supported by N. Korean leadership that they need the US support. Tehran does not make such claims.

U2 I know that the article didn't spell out that Kerry wants to help Iran get nuclear weapons. However that is what the end result of his plan would be. After veiwing the debacle with North Korea I can't believe that even Kerry would be so stupid as to actually believe this plan would work.

[Dooby]

Uhmmm.... I hate to break it to you, but after the election, I expect Bush to do pretty much the same thing in this case. The issue is you have to get into Iran to monitor what they are doing. And we aren't getting in without building the damn reactors for them. The problem with North Korea is there was no follow up. We basically gave them the reactor and left. We need to get into Iran's nuclear program and stay there. ANd if they ever try to kick us out, the reaction must be swift and absolute.

Another point, Iran wants a single nuclear weapon to keep the USA from screwing with it. Which, BTW, is why we don't screw around with Pakistan anymore, like we used to. A single nuclear weapon is a very liberating thing for a small country.

In contrast, North Korea wants a lot of nuclear weapons so it can sell them (or threaten to sell them) to every third world country on the planet. And as an extension, not have to be messed with by the USA. Furhter, we already think N. Korea has a nuke and that is why we treat them with kid gloves while treating Iraq like a little bitch.

[LRB]

Dooby I hear what you're saying and agree with you to a point. But the whole world knows that when George W Bush says do it or face serious consequences, he really means he's going to kick your ass. When Kerry says do it or face serious consequences all he's going to do is whine and complain, just like Clinton did. Kerry has no credibility that he will follow through with anything that would be significantly worse for Iran than what they have now. That's not true about Bush.

[Mavdog]

There is a great deal of difference between Iran and North Korea, both in terms of where they are currently in their pursuit of nukes and also the political dynamics of each.

North Korea is a pariah in the world with few friends and no extensive economic and political connections. Iran has very strong economic ties to Europe with many expatriates living there.

Europe has a large role to play here in forcing Iran to remain in the IAEA and follow its directives. The US by itself would be ineffective.

[Dooby]

Putting Iran aside, would you trade Taiwan for N. Korea? The free people of the world may soon be faced with that choice. The United States could agree to "not deter" an aggression against Taiwan in exchange for China isolating N. Korea. With the exception for the people of Taiwan, it is probably the safer course for the rest of the planet.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: LRB
Dooby I hear what you're saying and agree with you to a point. But the whole world knows that when George W Bush says do it or face serious consequences, he really means he's going to kick your ass. When Kerry says do it or face serious consequences all he's going to do is whine and complain, just like Clinton did. Kerry has no credibility that he will follow through with anything that would be significantly worse for Iran than what they have now. That's not true about Bush.

Problem, of course, is that no matter what, Bush won't be in the White House in Jan. 09. Maybe Leiberman or Guiliani would take the hard line, but I have little faith in anyone else.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Dooby

Problem, of course, is that no matter what, Bush won't be in the White House in Jan. 09. Maybe Leiberman or Guiliani would take the hard line, but I have little faith in anyone else.

You've got a point Dooby. I too worry about who will replace Bush. Logically it would be the Vice President, but I just don't see Cheney being a very viable candidate for president although I love him as the VP.