Iran Ahead of Upcoming Nuclear Talks: Majlis Member: We Can Manufacture Bomb, But We Won't; 'Kayhan': The U.S. Has Capitulated
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6256.htm .....”The most important question that has faced and is still facing the Americans is... when will Iran take the decisions that the U.S. expects it [to take on the nuclear issue]?... Examining an entire decade of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, one can characterize it as a record of [instances in which] the U.S. adapted its "red line" to the Iranian [stance]. The Americans always started out with an extreme [position] and ended up with a nominal one... "Initially, in the matter of the Iranian nuclear program, the Americans demanded a complete freeze of enrichment activity and all related activities. Then... [they agreed] that Iran would enrich [uranium] but would not expand its [nuclear] facilities. Then, the mechanism of the [uranium] swap was suggested, which tacitly accepted [the existence of] Iran's enrichment program and was merely aimed at removing the enriched material from Iran on some pretext or other. The [suggestion] currently on the table, which is probably the most important issue that will concern the Americans in the upcoming talks, does not include any of these demands. The Obama administration wants to replace all its [previous] demands with a demand to 'stabilize the uranium [enrichment] level' – that is, [it wants] Iran to stop enriching [uranium] to 20% at the Fordow [nuclear plant] and be content with 5% enrichment at Natanz. "Regardless of Iran's response to this demand, the [pertinent] question is what we can infer from the thrust of the changes in [the American] positions. If we plot [these changes] on a graph, it will show an amazing downward plunge... The American administration... always sets large goals [for itself], and makes a huge fuss over them, but, once it realizes that they cannot be implemented, quietly adapts them [to reality] and replaces them with other, humbler, goals, while continuing to make a fuss. We see that, in this process, the [Americans'] main solutions for the controversy quietly faded away. Originally, the controversy was precisely over the issue of 5% enrichment – recall the Tehran Declaration [issued after the May 17, 2010 meeting of Iranian, Brazilian and Turkish leaders in Iran].[iv] But now it seems that everyone in the West understands that this era is over, [so] they are suggesting ideas that quietly accept the assumption that this key issue [of uranium enrichment] is resolved.”.....
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6256.htm .....”The most important question that has faced and is still facing the Americans is... when will Iran take the decisions that the U.S. expects it [to take on the nuclear issue]?... Examining an entire decade of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, one can characterize it as a record of [instances in which] the U.S. adapted its "red line" to the Iranian [stance]. The Americans always started out with an extreme [position] and ended up with a nominal one... "Initially, in the matter of the Iranian nuclear program, the Americans demanded a complete freeze of enrichment activity and all related activities. Then... [they agreed] that Iran would enrich [uranium] but would not expand its [nuclear] facilities. Then, the mechanism of the [uranium] swap was suggested, which tacitly accepted [the existence of] Iran's enrichment program and was merely aimed at removing the enriched material from Iran on some pretext or other. The [suggestion] currently on the table, which is probably the most important issue that will concern the Americans in the upcoming talks, does not include any of these demands. The Obama administration wants to replace all its [previous] demands with a demand to 'stabilize the uranium [enrichment] level' – that is, [it wants] Iran to stop enriching [uranium] to 20% at the Fordow [nuclear plant] and be content with 5% enrichment at Natanz. "Regardless of Iran's response to this demand, the [pertinent] question is what we can infer from the thrust of the changes in [the American] positions. If we plot [these changes] on a graph, it will show an amazing downward plunge... The American administration... always sets large goals [for itself], and makes a huge fuss over them, but, once it realizes that they cannot be implemented, quietly adapts them [to reality] and replaces them with other, humbler, goals, while continuing to make a fuss. We see that, in this process, the [Americans'] main solutions for the controversy quietly faded away. Originally, the controversy was precisely over the issue of 5% enrichment – recall the Tehran Declaration [issued after the May 17, 2010 meeting of Iranian, Brazilian and Turkish leaders in Iran].[iv] But now it seems that everyone in the West understands that this era is over, [so] they are suggesting ideas that quietly accept the assumption that this key issue [of uranium enrichment] is resolved.”.....
No comments:
Post a Comment