@@ Dr. Prather shits all over jews again @@
Arash
March 5, 2005
Sandbagging the EU
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/Prather.jpg
Dr. James Gordon Prather
Nuclear weapons physicist
gpra...@worldnetdaily.com
Well, the media elite report that President Bush was dismayed by the
reaction he got from the E3 [United Kingdom, France and Germany] of the
European Union to his opposition to their agreement with Iran of 15
November, 2004, wherein:
--- The E3/EU recognize Iran's rights under the NPT, exercised in
conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination.
--- Iran reaffirms that, in accordance with Article II of the NPT, it does
not and will not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. It commits itself to full
cooperation and transparency with the IAEA.
--- To build further confidence, Iran has decided, on a voluntary basis,
to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and
reprocessing activities,
--- The E3/EU recognize that this suspension is a voluntary confidence
building measure and not a legal obligation.
--- Sustaining the suspension, while negotiations on a long-term agreement
are under way, will be essential for the continuation of the overall
process.
What would constitute an acceptable long-term agreement?
--- The agreement will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear
program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm
guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm
commitments on security issues.
So why have Bush and the Likudniks opposed it?
Well, for one thing, the Iranians have made it clear that they have no
intention of permanently suspending uranium-enrichment activities. That's
all right with the E3/EU, but it's not all right with Bush and the
Likudniks.
And it is the IAEA's job to provide "objective guarantees" that Iran's
nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. That's good enough for
the E3/EU, but it's not good enough for Bush and the Likudniks.
Then there's that part about the Iranians and the Europeans establishing
normal nuclear, technological and economic cooperation. That means the
Europeans ignoring the threat of US sanctions on European private sector
entities that have prevented such cooperation in the past.
It also means overcoming US objections to Iran becoming a Member of the
World Trade Organization.
So, in a reversal of U.S. policy, Bush is considering dropping U.S.
opposition to Iran's WTO membership if the E3/EU-Iran negotiations are
successful. But Bush and the Likudniks would only consider the negotiations
"successful" if the Iranians agree to permanently suspend uranium-enrichment
activities, which they have no intention whatsoever of doing.
Then there's that part about the Europeans providing Iran "firm commitments
on security issues."
Now, obviously, the EU cannot provide such guarantees. Hence, there is no
possibility that the negotiations will be successful unless Bush guarantees
that U.S. or Israeli Likudniks won't attack Iran's IAEA-safeguarded
nuclear-energy facilities.
Nevertheless, senior U.S. officials have argued that the U.S. must at least
appear to form a united front with Europe – just as we appeared to form a
united front with Europe in the months leading up to our invasion of Iraq –
so as to prepare the diplomatic ground for "joint action" in the event that
the negotiations are not "successful."
The U.S. would drop its opposition to Iran starting talks on accession to
the World Trade Organization, would waive sanctions on European sales of
commercial aircraft and spare parts, and possibly offer some kind of
security initiative.
But, in return for such concessions, the U.S. would demand from the EU a
firm commitment to take action – or allow the Likudniks to take action – if
Iran ever resumes development of a uranium-enrichment capability.
In other words, Bush and the Likudniks get to define "success" as Iran's
permanent suspension of nuclear-enrichment-related activity.
Now, that is obviously not the French definition of "success." It is not
even the German definition. True, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in a joint
press-conference with Bush said "Iran must not have any nuclear weapons.
They must waive any right to the production thereof, and they must renounce
the right to even close the fuel cycle."
But renouncing the right to "close the fuel cycle' is not the same thing as
renouncing uranium-enrichment. Thanks to President Carter, we have never
"closed the fuel cycle." We have never allowed U.S. reactor owners to have
their "spent fuel" – which is not "spent" at all, but contains 2/3 of its
original "burnable" fuel – reprocessed.
The Iranians have suspended their efforts to develop a "spent fuel"
reprocessing capability, and they have never said they would not suspend
that permanently. In fact, in the case of the Bushehr nuclear power plant
nearing completion, the Iranians have just signed an agreement with the
Russians that obviates the need for Iran to "close the fuel cycle."
That ought to satisfy the E3/EU.
Listen to a recent interview with Dr. Prather
http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com
* Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing
official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal
Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the
Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for
national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy
Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a
nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather