Iran Sketches Possible Nuke Compromise

As the July 20 deadline for an Iranian nuclear deal nears, Iranian leaders have laid out a possible compromise, accepting stricter limits on centrifuges for power plants now with a chance for expansion later as the country’s energy needs grow, as Gareth Porter reports for Inter Press Service.

By Gareth Porter

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s comments on the nuclear talks Monday provided an unusual glimpse of diplomatic maneuvering by the U.S.-led coalition of five nuclear powers and Germany on the issue of enrichment capability to be allowed in a comprehensive agreement.

But his remarks also suggested that Iran was responding with its own diplomatic maneuver on the issue. Both sides appear to have put forward demands that they knew were non-starters with the intention of moderating their demands substantially in return for major concessions from the other side.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (Iranian government photo)

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (Iranian government photo)

Khamenei described the United States and the P5+1 as demanding initially that Iran’s annual enrichment capability be cut to the equivalent of as few as 500 to 1,000 centrifuges as little as 2.6 percent of its present level of 19,000 centrifuges. But he also suggested they were now aiming at getting Iran to accept a capability equivalent to the annual production of 10,000 centrifuges on the condition that it would be the final level for the duration of the agreement.

“They seek to make Iran accept 10,000 SWUs, which means the products of 10,000 centrifuges of older type that we already have,” said Khamenei in a speech to an audience that included President Hassan Rouhani. The P5+1 had “started with 500 SWU and 1,000 SWU,” he said, referring to demands advanced by the P5+1 in the negotiations last month.

The Iranian leader’s assertion about the coalition’s position last month is consistent with a statement by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on June 14 that “the West wants to slash the number of centrifuges” that Iran would be allowed to maintain to “several hundred.”

Secretary of State John Kerry had said in April that the U.S. intention was to demand very deep cuts in Iran’s enrichment capability, arguing it was necessary to lengthen the time it would take Iran to turn its uranium enriched to 3.5 percent into enough weapons grade uranium for a single bomb to six to 12 months.

What he did not acknowledge publicly, however, is that such cuts were not necessary to achieve such a lengthening of the “breakout” timeline, because it could be also be accomplished by the reduction of Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium and measures to avoid the accumulation of a new stockpile.

Iran pledged as part of the interim agreement to begin the process of converting its UF6, the gaseous form of low enriched uranium, into oxide powder, which would not be available for further enrichment without reversing the process. It is now ready to begin operating a new facility specifically devoted to that conversion, according to Reuters.

Khamenei was suggesting that that the U.S. is now ready to accept a 10,000 SWU limit in return for Iran’s agreeing to forsake the further increases that Iran has been insisting will be necessary. The 10,000 SWU would coincide with Iran’s current production capability, based on the 10,000 primitive first generation centrifuges that have been operational. Another 9,000 centrifuges have been installed but have never operated, apparently with the intention of using them as bargaining chips.

In what appears to have been a response to the diplomatic maneuver by the P5+1, Khamenei announced a new Iranian demand for an increase after 2021 to a level that is nearly twice as high as what independent experts have estimated is necessary to support the Bushehr reactor. Khamenei identified the level of enrichment capability that Iran’s atomic energy organization would eventually require as “190,000 SWU”.

A group of Princeton University specialists estimated in a recent article on Iran’s enrichment needs that it would require about 100,000 SWU to produce enough low enriched uranium to provide fuel for the Bushehr reactor the basis for Iran’s demand for an increase.

Khamenei also made a point of saying that the need was more than five years out, seeming to leave open the possibility that Iran would agree to hold off on adding the additional enrichment capacity he said was needed. “Maybe this need will not be for this year, or two years, or five years, but this is the final need of the country,” Khamenei said.

The head of Iran’s atomic energy organization, Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi, who commented on the issue to various news outlets in Iran on Wednesday, also employed a formula that avoided closing the door to negotiations on the question of when Iran would have to begin building more centrifuges. He told the Young Journalists’ Club that 190,000 SWU “is our real need, the most basic need, in an eight-year outlook.”

Salehi’s reference to eight years is related to the fact that the contract with Russia to supply nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor expires in 2021. Iranian officials have said Iran intends to take over the fabrication of fuel for Bushehr at that time, which would require much higher levels of enrichment capability.

Khamenei’s remarks suggest that Iran has adopted its own maneuver aimed at positioning Iran to negotiate for a much smaller increase after a period of years in which Iran would hold at roughly the present level of operational enrichment capability.

An unnamed U.S. official who briefed reporters on July 3 said that the capability for “industrial scale enrichment” i.e., the capability to provide fuel for Bushehr, “isn’t anything that’s under consideration.” But the same official also said, “What choices they make after they get to normalcy, that is after a long duration of an agreement, when they will be treated as any other non-nuclear weapons state under the NPT will of course be their choice.”

The official’s reference to Iran’s freedom to undertake enrichment once the agreement expires raises the question whether the negotiation of the termination date for the agreement could be the vehicle for reaching a compromise on the issue.

U.S. officials have not said anything publicly about the issue of the duration of the agreement. However, Robert Einhorn, whose long paper for the Brookings Institution published on March 31 was widely regarded as reflecting Obama administration thinking, said the United States wanted the comprehensive agreement to last “about twenty years.” Iranian statements appear to rule out agreeing to any duration of more than five to eight years.

Another way to bridge the large gap between the two sides in the final days of the negotiation, however, may be to agree on a provision for review and adjustment of the level of enrichment capacity allowable under the agreement that would come shortly before the expiration of the Russian contract in 2021. Einhorn suggested such a review process for different provisions of the agreement.

Reviewing the longer-term level of Iranian enrichment after several years would allow Iran to demonstrate that it has not pursued a “breakout” capability by drawing down its existing stockpile of low-enriched uranium and not allowing a new stockpile to accumulate. That is what Iran’s proposal is aimed at doing, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told IPS in an interview last month.

Especially if the trend toward U.S. and Iran interests in relation to jihadist forces in the Middle East continues to develop during that period, a future administration might be far more willing to ease the present political restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in the final years of the agreement.

Whether the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) will continue to hold sway over Congress would remain a crucial question governing the politics of the issue, however.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published Feb. 14.

4 comments for “Iran Sketches Possible Nuke Compromise

  1. July 12, 2014 at 23:59

    This isn’t a simple numbers’ game of how many centrifuges are to be spinning.

  2. Hillary
    July 12, 2014 at 20:21

    The tiny state of Israel the size of New Jersey with 7 home to million Jews has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons.
    Submarines equipped with nukes, all the latest missiles and a huge air force and army.
    All this has allowed it to continue to steal Palestinian land and not allow the return of the millions of Palestinian refugees Israel has driven out.
    Yet the original Zionists signed agreements to the Balfour Declaration which stated
    ” nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine “.

  3. George
    July 12, 2014 at 19:49

    The problem is that Obama does not have the guts to make a decision on this subject. He is totally under the control of Congress which in turn is a slave of Israel. So, unless there is a big surprise, this farce will continue for 30 more years.

    • Dan Huck
      July 14, 2014 at 02:42

      George, there’s a lot of emotional tension at this juncture. A President was assassinated around the time he was being lied to by Israel.

      Israel’s problem with every Iran nuclear deal is Clandestine Facilities: Why? Because that’s how they cheated their way to being a nuclear weapons state.

      As you know, in the 1960’s, according to the Federation of American Scientists, Israel went so far as to install false control room panels, and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the Dimona facility, to avoid detection of the real purpose of the program during seven US attempts at comprehensively evaluating the facility.

      In addition to domination issues, regional power, and the ability to be economically and militarily unchallengeable in the Mideast, Israel makes Iran a scapegoat because of Israel’s guilty conscience. Israel’s cheating has been proved. Not confronted, they are an international loose-cannon, even threatening world conflagration if they don’t get their way with Iran.

      Some people are concerned about long-standing power bases, extra-constitutional, operating alongside our government, but threatening Constitutionally established officer’s mandates. Most recently, to all outward appearances, in June of 2010, for example, SOS Hillary Clinton contradicted President Obama’s straightforward correspondence with the President of Brazil outlining his agreement with the nuclear swap deal worked out by ElBaradei, Brazil, Turkey and Iran.

      This was a radical assumption of power away from the President. How did that happen? Who was really behind it?

Comments are closed.