Revelations of Iran's Confidential Response

Iran’s confidential response to the P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Russia, US + Germany) offer on August 22, 2006 was made public by David Albright for the first time on September 11, 2006.

According to the document, “The Islamic Republic of Iran does not intend to reject the whole issue unilaterally, and is ready to provide an opportunity for both sides to share their viewpoints on this issue and try to convince each other and reach a mutual understanding.” It also warns that if the UN Security Council deliberations on imposing sanctions on Iran continue, “the positions expressed in this response would be void and the Islamic Republic would choose a different course of action.”

While Iran’s proposal suggests that ending enrichment should not be a prerequisite to negotiations, as demanded by the United States and other countries, it does offer to temporarily suspend enrichment. On page eleven, the document states, “The remaining issue is suspension of Iran’s dossier in the Security Council during the negotiation period by the other party, and suspension of enrichment activities by Iran through negotiations. I.R. Iran essentially agrees with consideration of some principles and conditions for further assurances of productive negotiations and considers that as a correct step.”

On September 13, Dr. Jalil Roshandel opined on the significance of Iran’s offer to suspend enrichment:

• Tehran’s offer to suspend enrichment for a defined period is a concession born out of a trend towards moderation among Iran’s conservatives.
• This trend can reverse itself if Washington decides to push for sanctions at the Security Council.
• At this junction, when Iran has offered temporary suspension of its enrichment activities, support for talks rather than sanctions is more likely to lead to a much-needed breakthrough.

Iran’s response to the P5+1 also mentions that the country might be willing to adhere to the Additional Protocol. The response states that the country “would facilitate the necessary working conditions for IAEA’s inspections for clarification of the ambiguities, would provide the utmost cooperation for expedition of its work, and if deemed necessary, would consider voluntary steps towards implementation of the Additional Protocol, given the provision of the legal conditions.” But again, this offer is preconditioned on the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors suspending discussion of Iran’s nuclear program until a “final report” is presented by the IAEA Director General.

Among other significant elements, the proposal calls for “simultaneous mutual confidence-building” that would include a commitment by the foreign governments “to seriously follow up the fulfillment of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, particularly the commitment to disarm [Israel] from weapons of mass destruction and in particular nuclear arms.”

Meanwhile, after much internal debate, the European Union countries (Britain, France and Germany) finally reached consensus on their approach. After some successful private talks last weekend with Iran, the country allegedly offered to suspend enrichment for up to two months. The EU3 and Iran are set to resume talks with Iran on September 14. There is much speculation that EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will try to pin down Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani on the offer to suspend enrichment.

As for the rest of the UN Security Council, on September 12, Russia and China refused to endorse US-backed tough language to move to sanctions quickly, favoring continued negotiations instead. In a slight softening of position, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled this week that a temporary suspension of Iran's nuclear programs might be enough to pave the way for the first direct negotiations involving the US and Iran in more than a quarter of a century.

Pushing for Diplomacy with Iran

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and National Iranian American Council President Trita Parsi spoke at a Congressional briefing sponsored by Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, Women’s Action for New Directions and Friends Committee on National Legislation on September 8 to urge a new approach to the ongoing confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Both speakers agreed that there is no such thing as a military solution to resolve Iran’s nuclear program.

Gen. Gard, who serves as the Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, pointed out that even Ronald Reagan, the paradigmatic conservative and unabashed hardliner, was willing to negotiate with the “Evil Empire” in order to achieve the historic START treaty. “Sometimes leadership requires working with people we just don’t like,” he said. Gen. Gard recently spearheaded a letter signed by retired generals and admirals and former diplomats calling on the Bush administration to "engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and settle differences over the Iranian nuclear program."

Dr. Parsi revealed that Iran’s response to the P5+1 proposal on August 22 included a guarantee that Tehran will not quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). “If you can’t quit the NPT, you can’t weaponize,” he noted. He also said that Iran’s response included an agreement to suspend enrichment as long as talks continue, but that suspension should be tied to the progress of negotiations. Dr. Parsi explained that the lack of talks to date have given the Iranians time to proceed with their nuclear program and had negotiations worked three years ago, we would not be in the situation we’re in today.

Both speakers viewed the rejected May 2003 Iranian nuclear proposal as a “missed opportunity” that contributed to the ousting of former President Mohammad Khatami and led to the ascension of a more hard-line president.

Dr. Parsi concluded the session by saying that there is generally a pro-US population in Iran and most have a very positive view of the United States. Because the US has not meddled in Iran for the past 17 years, it has accumulated quite a bit of soft power in the country. “We don’t need to win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, we just can’t afford to lose them,” Dr. Parsi said, “The threat of a US attack over the past year is causing a loss of this view.”

Travis Sharp, the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation 2006 Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow, contributed to this report.

Khatami Calls for Dialogue

While hundreds of protestors stood across the street chanting slogans, former Iranian President Sayed Mohammed Khatami delivered a speech aimed at promoting dialogue, tolerance, understanding and peace inside the Washington National Cathedral on September 7, 2006. Mr. Khatami is the most senior Iranian official to tour the US since 1979 Iran hostage crisis.

The event was sponsored by Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation at Washington National Cathedral. The Center's director, Canon John Peterson, said he hopes for greater dialogue between the Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. According to Peterson, "Even if a dialogue is not possible at this moment between our nations, certainly it is our hope that there would be more understanding between our faith communities.”

In his scholarly and theological speech, Mr. Khatami issued a call for leaders in both the West and the Islamic world to launch a historic dialogue. He said:

“For true inter-civilizational dialogue to materialize, the East should no longer be the 'object’ of understanding in the West…, but it must be recognized as a partner in dialogue and communication. The East, too, must differentiate between the political manifestations of the West such as colonialism and western rationale [and scientific thinking]; and while relying upon its distinguished moral heritage must prepare the psychological grounds for such a dialogue. Both sides must agree to fairly and impartially re-evaluate and critique modernism and tradition and open the path to a better tomorrow, and to rescue life from the claws of warmongers and violence-seekers and ostentatious leaders.”

In a press conference at the National Cathedral prior to his speech, Mr. Khatami also said Iran is prepared to discuss the suspension – both the timing and the scope – of its uranium enrichment in negotiations. According to Mr. Khatami, "I believe the best recourse (is) to talk and negotiate over these issues. The use of force, and the threat of use of force, and language of threat has never produced a resolution to this conflict and (such) conflicts." He also said China, France and Russia are now willing to negotiate without preconditions.

Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop of Washington, concluded the evening by saying it is critical that politicians and religious leaders tone their rhetoric down and stop using words to denigrate and demonize other cultures. He said that the demonization of other cultures must be ended if real dialogue and engagement are to occur. Too often religion is used as a weapon of choice against other nations and cultures with whom we do not agree. Rev. Chane said that diplomacy and statesmanship alone can no longer resolve today’s problems and the three Abrahamic faiths have a great role to play in initiating dialogue and in the peace process.

Mr. Khatami served as President of Iran for two terms, from August 2, 1997 to August 2, 2005. He became known as Iran’s first reformist president, though he has received criticism for not doing enough. It was under Mr. Khatami’s administration that Iran sent the US a letter through Swiss diplomatic intermediaries offering a “grand bargain” which included overtures to engage in a broad dialogue with the US on full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard on Bush's Terrorism Speech

This week, Lt. General Robert Gard, Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, responded to President Bush’s speeches regarding the war on terror. General Gard said:

"The President's remarks reflect the Administration's apparently belated realization that the American people see the occupation of Iraq as a disastrous distraction that has made America less safe and diverted attention away from efforts to combat Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. In addition, the Administration's refusal to negotiate with Iran is a signal that the President may be on the verge of making the same mistake in that country as he made in Iraq.

Ironically, the foreign policy of the Administration that pledged to make us safer after the tragedy of September 11 has resulted in an increase in the number of victims of terrorist attacks worldwide as well as the number of nuclear powers. With North Korea and Pakistan going nuclear on President Bush's watch, a new nuclear arms race has become more likely.

Platitudes are not planning. I urge the President to reconsider this disastrous foreign policy and seek a solution that is worthy of the trust of American troops and the American people."

Interview with Research and Technology Deputy at the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization

The following are excerpts from an interesting interview with Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh, Research and Technology Deputy at the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization. In the interview, he reveals details about Iran’s nuclear program. The interview aired on Channel 2 of Iranian TV on August 26, 2006 and was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. To view the clip, click here. Special thanks to Stephen Young and Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists for sending along.

Thursday, September 7, 2006 MEMRI: Iranian Atomic Energy Official Reveals Nuclear Project Details Special Dispatch - Iran
No. 1284

Interviewer: "I wanted to know what is the link between the Arak heavy-water reactor and what we now have at Natanz. Or perhaps these are two separate processes?"

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "Obviously, these are two completely separate processes. What happens in the enrichment process is intended primarily for light-water power plants, and for light-water research reactors. What we have in Arak is heavy water, which is used for heavy-water reactors and CANDU reactors. Since our future plans do not include the production of plutonium. In fact, we have no plans to separate uranium and plutonium for the purpose of fission. We are interested only in the radio-isotopes. We don't care which project will be the first to yield results - whether it is a heavy-water or light-water reactor. Canada has many heavy-water reactors. India has many heavy-water reactors - heavy-water research reactors. One country uses them to produce radio-isotopes, while the other uses them to produce weapons. It's up to the country."

Interviewer: "Does plutonium separation require a different technology? A complementary technology?"

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "Yes. As I told you, when uranium fission occurs, plutonium and other fission materials are formed next to it, right? The important point is that if any country wants to use the plutonium, it needs a very complex technology in order to reprocess the nuclear reactor fuel. This is not in our plans at the moment. As a matter of fact, we... If any country wants to use its plutonium - whether for weapons or for the production of energy - it must have a reprocessing plan to separate these three materials. This is a very complex technology. Since we want to use our reactor solely for the production of radio-medicine and radio-isotopes, we will not reprocess the fuel we use in it. Even if we wanted to do such a thing in the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the spent fuel is supposed to be returned to the country of origin [i.e. Russia]."

[...]

"A country that pursues the production of radio-medicine and radio-isotopes can use any kind of reactor, whether heavy-water or light-water."

Interviewer: "We are supposed to produce nuclear fuel as well, right? We say we want to supply the fuel to the Bushehr power plant, and to other power plants that we want to build. Right? Does this mean we must also have the complementary procedure of reprocessing?"

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "No, there is no need for it. In the program of the Islamic Republic of Iran, energy production... Many countries do not reprocess [the fuel] Germany, for example..."

Interviewer: "So how do they supply their own fuel?"

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "It's not a problem. They use uranium ore, not processed uranium. Some countries, such as China, Russia, France, and England, use processed uranium and plutonium - especially France. But our country will not do so. It will use only uranium ore. Many countries do this - Germany, Sweden, and America."

Interviewer: "There is no reprocessing at Natanz?"

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "No. Only [uranium] 235 separation is conducted at Natanz."

Interviewer: "In other words, enrichment..."

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "Enrichment is one matter, and the reprocessing of spent fuel is another. These two processes are separate. In enrichment, uranium 235 isotopes are separated. As for the process, much has been said about it - about the centrifuges, the way they operate, and their mechanism..."

[...]

Interviewer: "So on what do they base their claims that Iran is moving towards making bombs?"

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "They say we can produce the raw materials [for bombs]."

Interviewer: "So they are saying we can begin reprocessing..."

Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh: "We are not going into the reprocessing, but they say that if we produce plutonium, the construction of the [reprocessing] facilities would not be so complex, and that we have the capability of doing it. The important thing is that the plutonium produced in research reactors is purer."

The Economics of Iran’s Energy Independence

On September 1, 2006, John Fleck reported in the Albuquerque Journal about the National Laboratories’ role in providing intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program. According to Fleck:

"While Iranian leaders say the program is peaceful, many in the international community fear it is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

So the question before the labs was this: Does Iran’s claim to be pursuing nuclear energy rather than bombs make economic sense?

The answer, according to a report by Los Alamos National Laboratory expert Jeff Bedell and colleagues at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, was a resounding 'no.'"

The sponsoring agency hasn’t been named, and its only appearance in the public record is a short description published last spring on a State Department Web site and a footnote in an unclassified report from the House Intelligence Committee.

Jeffrey Lewis has posted a copy of the report entitled “The Economics of Energy Independence” on his blog Arms Control Wonk.

According to the report:

"Iran has pursued an ambitious nuclear program with the declared goal of long-term energy independence. While this is a worthwhile and generally accepted national planning objective, it is clear that Iran’s nuclear program as now structured will not achieve this goal, and in fact may delay it by diverting capital and other resources from projects that would address pressing current energy sector problems and contribute to ultimate energy independence for Iran."

The report also found:

"Iran’s estimated uranium reserves are not commensurate with its declared program of reactor development, and would not in their most optimistic variants allow for life-cycle operation of these reactors. In what we consider the most likely set of scenarios, Iran’s uranium reserves would be exhausted before the seven-reactor construction program was even completed."

Iran-EU Nuclear Talks Postponed

According to Iranian envoys, talks between Iran and the European Union 3 (Britain, France, Germany) over Tehran's nuclear program have been postponed for several days. They are now likely to take place after top United Nations Security Council members meet on September 7, 2006 to discuss the deadlock over Iran. The US is pushing for sanctions against Tehran, claiming it wants to develop nuclear weapons. According to a Kremlin official, hitting Iran now with sanctions over its nuclear work could drive it “away from the civilized world,” in a hint of strong Russian opposition to punitive steps backed by the US. China has said that it still wants major world powers to negotiate with Iran even after it ignored a 31 August deadline, set by the UN Security Council, to stop uranium enrichment.

On September 6, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on the international community to remain unified in trying to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear program, but reiterated that she saw no military solution. Speaking before parliament, Merkel also said Tehran's response to the P5+1 package of incentives was "not satisfactory."

As the five-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks approaches, the Bush administration is spotlighting an explicit terror threat: the danger that Iran could someday supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. The possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands was central to both a new terror-fighting strategy the White House issued yesterday, and to a speech Mr. Bush delivered. In both cases, the White House is arguing that the reason to worry about terrorists wielding such weapons is the prospect that Iran, with its oil wealth and potential nuclear capability, might cooperate with them.

Meanwhile, on the eve of his first trip to Washington, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami warned that US military action in the Middle East has backfired, producing greater terrorism, imperiling the future of Iraq and damaging America's long-term interests. He also predicted that the danger of even greater instability in the region will ultimately prevent the United States from launching military strikes against Iran over disputes about its nuclear intentions. According to Khatami, although an attack on Iran would create “great damage,” “prudence and wisdom” are likely to prevail because of the incalculable “detriment and damage” it would cause to both the region and the United States.

I will be attending Khatami’s speech at the National Cathedral in Washington on September 7 and will report on it more.