Iran agrees to return to talks on a nuclear fuel swap - Macleans.ca
 

Iran agrees to return to talks on a nuclear fuel swap

Announcement follows increased Canada and EU sanctions


 

In response to announcements of broadening economic sanctions against Iran by Canada and the European Union, Iran has said that it was prepared to return to talks on a nuclear fuel swap “without conditions.” Speaking of a letter that Iran handed to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran’s envoy to the UN agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said: “The clear message of this letter was Iran’s complete readiness to hold negotiations over the fuel for the Tehran reactor without any conditions.” The move seems to illustrate Iran’s desire to appear willing to negotiate. It was not clear whether this offer of fuel swap talks would be enough to satisfy world powers. The question remains whether Iran will agree to negotiate an end to its enrichment programme, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes only, but Western powers believe it is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

Reuters


 
Filed under:

Iran agrees to return to talks on a nuclear fuel swap

  1. Um what do you mean by "return to talks".. They already agreed to a swap in Turkey, and Europe responded with more sanctions, ignoring Brazil and Turkey's hard work in negotiating and accomplishing the deal.
    It's so difficult to find real news…

    • They then backed out of those talks with Brazil and Turkey and went back to there shell-game old ways. Even this looks like more whack-a-mole.

      • @DerekPearce…
        Where did you pull this from?

        Oh wait, I don't want to know!

        • Actually, I'll man up and admit I was wrong. I thought Iran had pulled out of the talks with Turkey and Brazil and that is incorrect. However, I still don't trust that Iran would have negotiated in good faith with them, and I doubt they'll negotiate in good faith with the original Euro group they seem to be going back to.

  2. Well, I guess we are to assume that Canada and the EU settled all that pretty damn quick.
    Next stop the Congo ?

  3. This whole thing seems like a cl*sterf*k waiting to happen. I fear an Iranian bomb but fear for Israel's myopic self-destructive future. Looking further ahead– because c'mon folks, whether you think Iran should or shouldn't have nukes– where does this lead? Will Israel go rogue and accomplish (not totally, but mostly successful) air strikes? Because no Western country can do that without causing major economic instability. So, it comes to: the West lets Israel do it's dirty work (hey, great, I'm down with that) and not-destroy-but-severely-disable Iran's capacity, which will also fuel terrorism because Israel (AND I SUPPORT ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH IT'S PSYCHOTIC NEIGHBOURS) will have appeared to have jumped the gun/shark/been too Zionist etc.
    Additionally, this is complicated by Israel's a**hole behavior to the Palestinians– IN SPITE OF THE PSYCHO BEVAHIOUR OF HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH! All I know is, to muddle through, I'll be happy if Israel cripples Iran's nuke program. But I also think this whole insisting-on-expanding-the-settlements is still a long-term recipe for Israel's self destruction. Make a freakin' disatisfactory two-state peace Israel! I want to see you thrive for millennia as a democratic Jewish capitalist state! What do you think will be better in the long run? Forcing your enemies to actually get down to the business of governing themselves will internally divide them and take their focus off of you– and they'll eventually be forced to become more secular and market oriented. Oooh, I can't wait to be called an Islamist terrorist-lover AND a suck up to Zionism at the same time!

    • It's amazing how it's been only 20 years since the Cold War ended and already people have forgotten the concept of MAD – "Mutually Assured Destruction". Those three letters kept the world from blowing itself up for 44 years. What makes you think that has changed? There's a reason they call it a nuclear deterrent. If you seriously believe the mullahs are willing to sacrifice themselves to destroy Israel, you are buying into their propaganda more than their target audience.

      • Okay, I'm 1 week late to this reply if you're still interested. But–tell me I'm a tinfoil hatter please— I actually don't trust the Mullah's of Iran to step back from MAD. I want them to prove to us that they believe in that doctrine. Because (this is the case when you're using theology to suppress millions of your own people, AND using that theology to rally them to your side if you can keep them in the dark about the real world long enough) I see them being stupid/machiavellian enough to use "only" some "tactical" nukes on Israel thinking they'll come out ahead. I hope I'm wrong about their recklessness. And no I don't think the the disgusting behaviour of Israel towards the Palestinians would remotlely be justified, but I could still both sides acting like teenagers.That's why in an unfair world– where shitty-but-on-our-side-Israel should be allowed to have nukes while- scary-scary-woman-haitng-Iran-shouldn't be allowed to, should be the way it is. MAD is less of a problem in the hands of the prisoner-of-racist-Zionists-Israeli-PM than it is in the hands of the prisoner-of-fanatical-Islamists-Mullahs. Which is shi*tty for the world at large either way, regardless.

  4. Iran's latest move should go a long way toward showing that they are acting in good faith.

    Shouldn't it?

  5. Iran is trying to use stalling tactics again. They have been at this for a long time. The West at this point should carry out the sanctions and not relent.