More on those Iran talks

Posted: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:01 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Andrea Mitchell

From NBC's Andrea Mitchell
GENEVA -- A senior U.S. official tells NBC News that the significance of the proposal to farm out Iran's enrichment is that if it is done it would remove most of their stockpiles of enriched uranium.

Although they could always produce more that takes time and the official says it could extend by at least a year the time frame before they could produce a bomb.

Officials in Geneva are trying to avoid overplaying the proposal because, one said, "We don't want to spook the Iranians. But if they end up doing this, it would be a very big deal."

If they now refuse, it raises serious questions about whether they their nuclear program is really peaceful as they claim.

More on the talks from NBC's Michelle Perry, also in Geneva:
A U.S. official said the talks in Geneva today represent the beginning in a process to move on practical steps that will address the international communitiy's request that Iran be transparent on the Qom site and in allowing IAEA inspections.

The Oct. 18th talks will be held at an "expert level" and will be an opportunity for confidence building measures that will serve to allay concerns aboput Iran's intent regarding their nuclear program.

The talks today were "sober" in terms of a first step, but there needs to be "practical implementation" now.

There was the bilateral talk between the Iranians and the U.S., as had been reported during the lunch, and there were "several other encounters" between U.S. and Iran during the rest of the afternoon. They discussed "specific issues" such as Iran's nuclear program and U.S. concerns over human rights in Iran -- the three American hikers being held in Iran also came up. The U.S. official said the Iranians recognize this is an important issue for us.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

FR states: "If they now refuse, it raises serious questions about whether they their nuclear program is really peaceful as they claim."

No. You think? Not peaceful? Who would have thought.

What exactly is not clear when Iran keeps saying it will "Wipe Israel off the map!"? They mean that in the literal sense, and I don't think they're kidding.

Sol Manchester, NH (Sent Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:11 PM)

Iran's objective is to build nuclear weapons. They intend to use them to utterly destroy Israel specifically, and more generally to attack the Western non Islamic countries. I don't understand what can be negotiated here. Do we agree to let them kill half of us as a compromise?

Mike Nashua NH (Sent Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:19 PM)

Obama isn't this naive, is he?

BeBe (Sent Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:20 PM)

It is amusing to see how many words are spewed out by the media without ever once mentioning the elephant in the room. Israel has secret "nuke" sites and secret nuclear weapons to go with them. Of the two countries, Israel is the only one who has attacked its neighbors. The hypocracy is obvious to anybody who lives outside of the bubble.

It was also amusing to watch as the networks breathlessly announced live coverage of the news conference was preempted once it became apparent that the meetings went well. "Nothing to see here, move along."

While the U.S. frantically worries about an imaginary threat to the only nuclear armed nation in the region, China is quietly buying up all of the natural gas reserves in Iran. (Russia doesn't mind since that means that they can continue to be the sole source of supply to Europe.)

To those who question why Iran would want nuclear power when they have so much oil, the answer becomes obvious when you look at Israel's (oops, I mean the G5) proposed sanctions. The sanctions are against gas supplies and refining equipment. The West, Israel, and the Saudis want to use energy as a lever against Iran. (Note how well that worked against the Japanese in the 1940's.) It is obviously in Iran's strategic interest to have an independent energy supply, and they see a nuclear program fueled by domestic uranium to be the answer.

(I believe that going with nuclear power is a mistake, but it was pushed heavily by the Soviets -- and earlier the U.S., who do not want the worlds second largest holder of natural gas reserves to develop their infrastructure.)

It is time for the United States to start worrying about its own strategic interests and let Israel worry about theirs. We have created a spoiled brat of a nation in Israel and the world is not a safer place for it.

George, Seattle, Wash. (Sent Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:51 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2086678