Back in late October, we posted this bit of news regarding a tentative deal for Iran to “temporarily” export “75% of its known stockpile of low-grade nuclear fuel to Russia for additional enrichment.”
We questioned then what the benefit of this deal would be:
"Other than President Obama taking credit for “accomplishing” something through engagement with Iran, what would this deal actually achieve, other than buy Iran more time? Notice the key words in the deal… “temporary,” “if” and “known stockpile?” In other words, Iran will ship 75% of its low-grade nuclear fuel that is known about and will only do so temporarily. And so what do we get in return?"
That question was partially answered days later when Iran refused the deal the country had previously agreed to. Now we’re finding out more of what the repercussions are:
Yesterday, Iran Declared “It Would Construct 10 More” Nuclear Fuel Enrichment Plants. “Iran angrily refused Sunday to comply with a demand by the United Nations nuclear agency to cease work on a once-secret nuclear fuel enrichment plant, and escalated the confrontation by declaring it would construct 10 more such plants.” (David E. Sanger ad William J. Broad, “A Defiant Iran Vows To Build Nuclear Plants,” The New York Times, 11/29/09)
• “According to Iranian state television, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s cabinet voted to begin construction at five new sites designated for uranium enrichment plants — it did not specify where — and to determine locations for another five in the next few months.” (David E. Sanger ad William J. Broad, “A Defiant Iran Vows To Build Nuclear Plants,” The New York Times, 11/29/09)
Has anything been gained in attempts to reign in Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons, or has the Iranian regime been emboldened by negotiating absurd deals that they can balk at after wasting time negotiating for?
ThinkFY's full feed