World Watch
October 20, 2009 8:39 AM

Iran Delays Chance to Prove Nuclear Good Will

This story was filed by CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer in Vienna.
(AP Photo/Hans Punz)
Senior diplomats from the U.S., Iran, France and Russia missed a noon deadline Tuesday to start talks aimed at hammering out a historic deal on Iran's uranium stockpile.

At first, the negotiations at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria seemed to hold real promise. After the introductory round of talks late Monday, a senior U.S. official said the Iranians had "engaged constructively".

But on Tuesday, Iran reportedly precipitated a delay by suddenly announcing that France should be excluded from any deal — apparently the latest twist in a long-running business dispute between the French and the Iranians that dates back to the 1970s.

Above: Frederic Mondoloni, head of the French delegation, left, walks with Iran's Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, right, during a meeting of delegates from Iran, the U.S. Russia and France, Oct. 20, 2009, at Vienna's International Center.

The actual content of the Vienna negotiations was meant to be technical. In principle, Iran had agreed to send most of its 3,000 pound stockpile of uranium to Russia to be re-enriched. It would then go to France to be made into metal fuel plates for a medical research reactor at Tehran University. The Vienna talks were supposed to have hammered out details on cost, transport, insurance and delivery of the radioactive material.

However, the context of these discussions is highly political. Iran is already in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions that order it to stop enriching uranium.

Diplomats are now wondering whether Iran's last-minute objections to France's presence at the table in Vienna are in fact a thinly disguised attempt to derail the whole process.

If so, it would send a powerful signal, said a U.S. official, who added that the Vienna meeting is Iran's chance to show it can deal in good faith. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said U.S. diplomats have made it clear that Washington is running out of patience.

If these talks, and another broader session scheduled for the beginning of November, fail, the U.S. will go back to the UN to push for new and more crippling sanctions against Iran.

BACKGROUND:

Iran first asked the International Atomic energy Agency for help in finding replacement fuel for its research reactor last summer. The reactor takes uranium enriched to about 20 percent — much higher than the 5 percent Iran already makes as fuel for power generating reactors.

The IAEA and U.S. officials quickly saw an opportunity to kill several birds with one diplomatic stone. If Iran could be convinced to use its own uranium stockpile (already enough theoretically to make a bomb), it would not then be available for a weapons program. Successful talks could also be used to build much-needed confidence between Iran and Western countries for further, wide-ranging talks on Iran's nuclear program. And Iran would get the medical isotopes it needs.

Tags:
iran ,
nuclear ,
enrichment ,
uranium ,
talks ,
iaea ,
sanctions
Topics:
Iran
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx

CBSNews.com On Digg

Add a Comment See all 37 Comments
by armyoftwelve October 24, 2009 7:49 PM EDT
What the heck is "nuclear good will?" Is that when you attack someone with a nuclear device but you have really good intentions????????
Reply to this comment
by bigermay October 22, 2009 6:49 AM EDT
FIND OUT WHY THE WORLD WAR THREE IS, IN ITS EARLY STAGES, EXTREMIST ISLAM VS. JUDEOCHRISTIANITY. NO DEAL OR COMPROMISE WILL WORK:

GOOGLE "MENDEL EDWARDSON" OR GO DIRECTLY TO BOOK SITES BELOW-


>> AMAZON BOOKS REFERENCED:
>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_6_6?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mendel+edwardson&sprefix=mendel
>>
>> BARNES AND NOBLE BOOKS REFERENCED
>> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=mendel+edwardson&box=mendel%20edwardson&pos=-1
>
Reply to this comment
by cinoti October 20, 2009 5:21 PM EDT
"Speak softly and carry a really big stick" we have the stick!
Nothing will happen collectively, without China's and Russia on board
"Hey China, Hey Russia" get off your behinds and help us out here!
A little help please! It not just a U.S. problem, (even though Israel
wants it to be a U.S. problem, understandable!)Russia,I dare you
put a 100,000 troops in the zone next to Iran and guarantee Iran's
security, but also guarantee that they behave themselves.
China, put a 100,000 troops next to your good friend Pakistan and
root out evil terrorist. (Terrorist will come for China also).
India can help, just not next to Pakistan, maybe in the center.
And cheapskate Europe, do something besides criticize those that
are at least trying to do some good in the world. Step-up, Step-up
and shoulder some responsibility. The need is obvious. The time is now!
Mankind surprise us all and act intelligently for a change.
America, stop spending money we don't have.
Reply to this comment
by Questionews October 20, 2009 3:48 PM EDT
Hungry's right!!

Iran isn't completely evil. If fact, they're not quite evil enough for an attack. They're only semi-evil. they're quasi-evil. they're the margarine of evil. they're the Diet Coke of evil, just one calorie, not evil enough!!
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 4:11 PM EDT
I never said that they were or were not evil.

I'm simply saying that whether they are evil or not, they DO NOT pose a threat to the US, nor have they ever stated that they want to attack us.

That being said, it IS NOT our responsibility to determine whether or not Iran has nukes, gets nukes, or is allowed to have nukes.

Let the UN deal with it, NATO, the European Union, the G-20, the G-8.... I don't really care.

Regardless, it's not our problem, nor can we financially afford to play the role of "world cop" anymore.
by excop1949 October 20, 2009 3:23 PM EDT
"Iran Delays Chance to Prove Nuclear Good Will"

IMAGINE THAT!
I BET THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION...
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
by Marc_1986 October 20, 2009 3:03 PM EDT
@hungry

So would you be in favor of giving US nukes to Hamas? Or the Taliban? Or North Korea? Or Al-Qaeda?







How and why did you attempt to turn this from "I don't care if Iran gets nukes or not", to "let's give nukes to rogue nation's / groups around the world"?

Who said ANYTHING about giving nukes to anyone?
Reply to this comment
by Marc_1986 October 20, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
@hungry

The point is the same, you're advocating that it's not the US's problem who has nukes. Everyone is allowed to have nukes correct?
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 3:34 PM EDT
I never once said that "everyone is allowed to have nukes". Why do you keep lying and putting words in my mouth?

For the FIFTH TIME, I don't give a DAMMNN if Iran gets nukes or not. It's not OUR problem. They don't pose a threat to us, they don't want to attack us, and they've never threatened us, so Iran getting nukes is NONE of our business.

If Iran having nukes is a problem, then let the UN, NATO, or another nation deal with it. We are NOT the world police, nor can we afford to play that role anymore.

It's someone else's turn to step up to the plate.



This is the FIFTH TIME that I've said EXACTLY the same thing, so try to limit the confusion, and make your next post on what I've posted - not what you read into my comments, or thought I said.
by myopinionpal October 20, 2009 2:58 PM EDT
America need to show some nuclear good will of its own by sending some of our nuclear missles to Iran and show real good will in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
by earth5661 October 20, 2009 10:20 AM EDT
So, when are the posters coming that are going to blame Israel someway somehow for all this ?

Iran needs a nuclear facility for energy is like needing a snow making machine in Antartica.






Who are you to decide whether or not Iran can have a nuclear reactor OR nuclear weapons?
Reply to this comment
by Marc_1986 October 20, 2009 2:51 PM EDT
@hungry

Fact is Obama is trying to help them with that. If they were serious about a nuclear reactor for energy they'd let the IAEA inspect and offer to enrich the uranium elsewhere.

Iran is rejecting our offer which could potentially get their enriched uranium for nuclear power FASTER. I wonder why this would be? Something doesn't add up.
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 2:59 PM EDT
You're apparently missing my point:

WHO GIVES A F*** if Iran has nukes or not? Why is it AMERICA'S PROBLEM, and ONLY AMERICA'S PROBLEM, while the UN sits idly by?
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 2:31 PM EDT
by Mortarman29 October 20, 2009 10:53 AM EDT
This is why, even if we dont get allies, we have to sometimes act unilaterally. Sometimes, it is up to us to do the right thing when others wont.







We ARE NOT the world police dummy.

Where do you think that were going to get the money to fight a war on a third front?
Reply to this comment
by Marc_1986 October 20, 2009 2:57 PM EDT
@hungry

Someone has to take charge; someone has to be the leader. Pure Republics don't work as we've seen throughout history, much like the modern day business cannot run without executives and managers.

Obama has no problem spending us more into debt with his useless bailout programs, you think spending a couple million on a few bunker busters is a big deal?

We're offering to help, and they're refusing to cooperate: the time is coming for action!
by hungry1968-16 October 20, 2009 3:01 PM EDT
No one "has to take charge", and if someone "has to" then let it be the UN, NATO, or some other nation.

We can't afford it anymore, and we've got enough of our own problems.



Time for action? Good - let someone else do it. I nominate Israel to go it alone. Their "god" will protect them.
by bubbadubba October 20, 2009 1:49 PM EDT
<<<I didn't see that Israel was involved anywhere in this negotiation.
Your comment is mute.>>>

So Irael's constat threats to Iran and the latest threat to attack Iran if something is not settled by December has nothing to do with anything?
You are wrong, the person's comment is not moot.
Note the word is moot not "mute".
Why do you people always attack anyone who brings up the illegal theft of Palestinian land by Israel? Even 50% of Israelis know it is wrong and are against it.
Reply to this comment
by Marc_1986 October 20, 2009 2:58 PM EDT
@bubbadubba

Not saying I disagree with you, I'd love to see a source for that 50% Israeli statistic though.
See all 37 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Gen. Ray Odierno, head of multinational forces in Iraq, on progress there and plans for Afghanistan. Watch Now

About World Watch

Extra reporting, analysis and more from CBS foreign desks across the globe.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR