The Real Reason America Can't Make a Nuclear Deal with Iran

[Purveyor]

The outlines of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran have long been obvious: Western recognition of Iran's nuclear rights in return for more intrusive monitoring and verification of Iranian nuclear facilities. With agreement so readily at hand, the Obama administration's refusal to take it is baffling to many international observers. But the reason for American obstinacy becomes clearer when one considers that that the Iranian nuclear issue has at least as much to do with the future of international order as it does with nonproliferation. Conflict over Iran's nuclear program is driven by two different approaches to interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These approaches, in turn, are rooted in different conceptions of world order.

-CLIP
For those holding that the NPT's three bargains have equal standing -- including the non-Western world, virtually in its entirety -- Tehran's right to enrich is clear. It is clear from the NPT, from the treaty's negotiating history, and from at least a dozen states having developed safeguarded fuel cycle infrastructures potentially able to support weapons programs. On this basis, the diplomatic solution is also clear: recognition of Iran's nuclear rights in exchange for greater transparency.

Those holding that nonproliferation trumps other NPT goals -- America, Britain, France, and Israel -- claim that there is no treaty-based "right" to enrich, and that weapons states and others with nuclear industries should decide which non-weapons states can possess fuel cycle technologies. From these premises, in the early 2000s the George W. Bush administration sought a worldwide ban on transferring fuel cycle technologies to countries not already possessing them. Subsequently, the Obama administration pushed the Nuclear Suppliers' Group to make such transfers conditional on recipients' acceptance of the Additional Protocol to the NPT -- an instrument devised at U.S. instigation in the 1990s to enable more intrusive and proactive inspections in non-weapons states.

Under both Bush and Obama, America has pressed the UN Security Council to adopt resolutions telling Tehran to suspend enrichment, even though it is part of Iran's "inalienable right" to peaceful use of nuclear technology; such resolutions violate UN Charter terms that the Council act "in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations" and "with the present charter." Washington has also defined its preferred diplomatic outcome and, with Britain and France, imposed it on the P5+1: Iran must promptly stop enriching at the near-20 percent level to fuel its sole (and safeguarded) research reactor; it must then follow Security Council calls to cease all enrichment. U.S. officials say Iran might be "allowed" a circumscribed enrichment program, after suspending for a decade or more; London and Paris insist that "zero enrichment" is the only acceptable long-term outcome.

MORE...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flynt-and-hillary-mann-leverett/the-real-reason-america-c_b_3178637.html

[daybranch]

1. George Bush

the reason we cannot make a deal with Iran is that we cannot be trusted. Lok at Iraq, we toldHussein to give up his nuclear activity and he did. We told him to get rid of the nerve gases and otrher weapons of mass destruction and he did. In exchange when he had given up his ability to defend his rule, we invaded. America is ruled by a government who often exhibits disdain for our own citizens, why should other countries take risks and give up weapons? I certainly would not.

[yurbud]

2. it has nothing to do with nukes and everything to do with Iranian independence from the economic

order.

If they will not follow the orders of central bankers and oil companies, the pressure will continue until they do or the power of those pressuring us to pressure them is broken.

[bemildred]

3. We don't want a deal, we want obedience.

Absent obedience, we want Iran as weak and ineffectual as possible, both to keep it from thwarting our will and to improve the chances of introducing a more obedient government later.