US might allow low level uranium enrichment by Iran

Rick Moran
Legally, there really isn't anything we can do to stop Iran from enriching uranium to the 5% level that is useful for nuclear fuel and medical products. They are granted that right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The problem has been that since Iran has been less than forthcoming about its program - and less than transparent about its intentions - we and the rest of the western world have felt it necessary to try and force the Iranians to adhere to other part of the NPT, including opening their entire program to inspections and not enriching uranium past the 5% level.

Apparently, as an inducement to Iran, we are ready to drop our objections to low level uranium enrichment. LA Times:

In what would be a significant concession, Obama administration officials say they could support allowing Iran to maintain a crucial element of its disputed nuclear program if Tehran took other major steps to curb its ability to develop a nuclear bomb.

U.S. officials said they might agree to let Iran continue enriching uranium up to 5% purity, which is the upper end of the range for most civilian uses, if its government agrees to the unrestricted inspections, strict oversight and numerous safeguards that the
United Nations has long demanded.

Such a deal would face formidable obstacles. Iran has shown little willingness to meet international demands. And a shift in the U.S. position that Iran must halt all enrichment activities is likely to prompt strong objections from Israeli leaders; the probable Republican presidential nominee,
Mitt Romney; and many members of Congress.

But a consensus has gradually emerged among U.S. and other officials that Iran is unlikely to agree to a complete halt in enrichment. Maintaining an unconditional demand that it do so could make it impossible to reach a negotiated deal to stop the country's nuclear program, thereby avoiding a military attack.

Ed Morrissey grasps the significance - or lack of it - of this policy:

Is this really a "major concession"? Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, any country that offers unrestricted inspections and doesn't produce highly-enriched uranium has the right to enrich and use uranium at low levels.  The Bush administration repeatedly acknowledged that right while stressing the need to work within the parameters of the IAEA and the non-proliferation treaty. The fact that Iran started this process in secret and lied about it continuously made it pretty clear that their intent wasn't peaceful at all, but they have always had the right to enrich uranium within the parameters of the treaty.

The difference between then and now is that the US and the other P-5 nations that have struggled to get Iran to stop building nuclear weapons insisted that Iran stop all enrichment activities until the question of their intent was resolved.  That is still the position of the P-5 and Israel, although there have been some suggestions of making a concession to Iran to get their cooperation.  As this concession is described by the LA Times, nothing much has changed except for the sequencing.  Iran would still have to surrender any uranium enriched to the 20% mark, open all of its facilities to unrestricted inspections, and limit enrichment to 5%, far below any useful level for weapons.  That was going to be the end status for any kind of verifiable Iranian cooperation anyway, and without verification, nothing would change from the current status quo, except to get worse.  I doubt the Iranians will agree to this resequencing, mainly because I don't think they will ever allow unrestricted inspections.

Ed thinks Obama wants a major foreign policy success to buttress his re-election efforts. True, but beyond that, Obama clearly doesn't want to have to confront the Iranians. There are good reasons for that, including the danger of regional war, so it appears to me that this is one of those things that would benefit both the personal motivations of the president and the wider geopolitical interests of the United States.

As long as he doesn't give away the store to get an agreement, more power to the president to try.


Legally, there really isn't anything we can do to stop Iran from enriching uranium to the 5% level that is useful for nuclear fuel and medical products. They are granted that right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The problem has been that since Iran has been less than forthcoming about its program - and less than transparent about its intentions - we and the rest of the western world have felt it necessary to try and force the Iranians to adhere to other part of the NPT, including opening their entire program to inspections and not enriching uranium past the 5% level.

Apparently, as an inducement to Iran, we are ready to drop our objections to low level uranium enrichment. LA Times:

In what would be a significant concession, Obama administration officials say they could support allowing Iran to maintain a crucial element of its disputed nuclear program if Tehran took other major steps to curb its ability to develop a nuclear bomb.

U.S. officials said they might agree to let Iran continue enriching uranium up to 5% purity, which is the upper end of the range for most civilian uses, if its government agrees to the unrestricted inspections, strict oversight and numerous safeguards that the
United Nations has long demanded.

Such a deal would face formidable obstacles. Iran has shown little willingness to meet international demands. And a shift in the U.S. position that Iran must halt all enrichment activities is likely to prompt strong objections from Israeli leaders; the probable Republican presidential nominee,
Mitt Romney; and many members of Congress.

But a consensus has gradually emerged among U.S. and other officials that Iran is unlikely to agree to a complete halt in enrichment. Maintaining an unconditional demand that it do so could make it impossible to reach a negotiated deal to stop the country's nuclear program, thereby avoiding a military attack.

Ed Morrissey grasps the significance - or lack of it - of this policy:

Is this really a "major concession"? Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, any country that offers unrestricted inspections and doesn't produce highly-enriched uranium has the right to enrich and use uranium at low levels.  The Bush administration repeatedly acknowledged that right while stressing the need to work within the parameters of the IAEA and the non-proliferation treaty. The fact that Iran started this process in secret and lied about it continuously made it pretty clear that their intent wasn't peaceful at all, but they have always had the right to enrich uranium within the parameters of the treaty.

The difference between then and now is that the US and the other P-5 nations that have struggled to get Iran to stop building nuclear weapons insisted that Iran stop all enrichment activities until the question of their intent was resolved.  That is still the position of the P-5 and Israel, although there have been some suggestions of making a concession to Iran to get their cooperation.  As this concession is described by the LA Times, nothing much has changed except for the sequencing.  Iran would still have to surrender any uranium enriched to the 20% mark, open all of its facilities to unrestricted inspections, and limit enrichment to 5%, far below any useful level for weapons.  That was going to be the end status for any kind of verifiable Iranian cooperation anyway, and without verification, nothing would change from the current status quo, except to get worse.  I doubt the Iranians will agree to this resequencing, mainly because I don't think they will ever allow unrestricted inspections.

Ed thinks Obama wants a major foreign policy success to buttress his re-election efforts. True, but beyond that, Obama clearly doesn't want to have to confront the Iranians. There are good reasons for that, including the danger of regional war, so it appears to me that this is one of those things that would benefit both the personal motivations of the president and the wider geopolitical interests of the United States.

As long as he doesn't give away the store to get an agreement, more power to the president to try.