[Marxism] Iran: U.S. Risks Political Backlash (WSJ)

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

June 7, 2006
        
U.S. Risks Political Backlash
In Iran Nuclear Offer
Proposed Civilian Atomic Aid
May Draw Lawmaker Fire;
Tehran's Measured Response
By NEIL KING JR. and JAY SOLOMON
June 7, 2006; Page A3
WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- A package of U.S-backed incentives presented to Iran
includes proposals for wide-ranging civilian nuclear cooperation as
well as new trade perks such as allowing Tehran to replace its aging
fleet of commercial aircraft.

If Iran is willing to abide by international nuclear rules, the deal
also calls for sweeping European involvement in Iran's oil and gas
industry and for Iran's "full integration into international
structures" such as the World Trade Organization, according to a
draft of the package whose contents were confirmed by a senior U.S.
official.

But if Iran refuses to go along, the document says, the international
community would adopt "proportionate" punishments ranging from travel
bans on high-ranking officials to a possible arms embargo and "a
general freeze of assets of Iranian financial institutions."

Some of the nuclear provisions could stir opposition both on Capitol
Hill and among conservatives in President Bush's own party.

In their bid to get Tehran to end its uranium-enrichment program and
return to multiparty negotiations, the U.S. and its international
partners are offering "state of the art" light-water reactor
technologies for electricity generation, including components under
U.S. patent but built by European companies, according to U.S.
officials. The deal put to Iran also promises to provide "a
substantive package" of nuclear research and development cooperation.

Under the deal, which the European Union's foreign policy chief,
Javier Solana, presented yesterday to Iranian authorities in Tehran,
U.S. officials say they would desist from sanctioning foreign
companies that transfer controlled nuclear technology to Iran. The
U.S. would also agree, possibly with certain restraints, to allow the
sale of certain components containing U.S. technologies. "It's a
licensing issue," said one senior Bush administration official.

General Electric Co., for one, could benefit from such an agreement.
The company manufactures nuclear reactors, most recently building
reactors in Japan and Taiwan. GE is eyeing the market for new
reactors in China and India, and is partnering with electric
utilities that are looking at building new plants in the U.S., where
the market has been dormant for more than two decades.

In a major shift in policy, the Bush administration last week offered
to join European-led talks with the Iranian government so long as
Iran suspends its uranium-enrichment work.

After meeting with Mr. Solana, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, gave a relatively upbeat assessment that omitted Tehran's
usual insistence on its right to enrichment. The international
proposals -- presented by the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China
and Germany -- contained "some positive steps in them and some
ambiguities which should be removed," he said, adding that Iran was
prepared to enter "another round of talks and negotiations to achieve
a balanced and logical conclusion."

President Bush yesterday said the reaction from Tehran "sounds like a
positive response to me."

Sales of U.S.-licensed nuclear technologies to Iran would almost
certainly require changes to U.S. law. Suggestions that the U.S.
might be prepared to go down that road drew a quick response from one
ardent nuclear opponent, Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of
Massachusetts, who said in a statement that "the U.S. is barred from
exporting nuclear reactors, nuclear materials or nuclear technology
to any country that is a state sponsor of terrorism."

Some conservatives also drew parallels to a similar Clinton
administration-led effort to stem North Korea's development of
nuclear weapons by agreeing to provide Pyongyang with nuclear fuel
and advanced reactor technology. That agreement later fell apart as
North Korea moved ahead on developing nuclear warheads. "Having
finally killed the reactor deal with Pyongyang, we can't seem to
control our urge to cut another similar deal with Iran," said Henry
Sokolski, an expert on the North Korean nuclear program.

Critics fear the Iran deal could replicate mistakes the Clinton
administration made in cutting its arrangement with North Korea.
Under that deal, the U.S. agreed to help North Korea build two
light-water reactors in return for Pyongyang giving up its pursuit of
plutonium-based nuclear fuel. But in 2002, the Bush administration
nixed the deal after U.S. intelligence said North Korea was pursuing
a separate clandestine nuclear weapons program using highly-enriched
uranium.

Others worry that the new U.S. approach toward Iran is still too
incremental and too focused on the nuclear issue to be of much
effect. Robert Einhorn, a proliferation expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, argues that the main issues for
Iran are prestige and security. And the only way the U.S. can address
those, he said, "is for the administration to hold out the
possibility of normalized relations with Iran."

-- Kathryn Kranhold in New York contributed to this article.


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism