The deal echoes a failed UN-backed deal, which called for Iran's low-enriched uranium to be transported to Russia and France for processing. It has been paralyzed for months--primarily due to Iran's lack of trust that reactor-grade fuel will be returned. The Islamic Republic demanded that the transaction occur on Iranian soil, at the same time. Western powers did not find this a valid request.
Despite the apparent de-escalation of Iran's nuclear aspirations, the United States and other Security Council members are not backing down from sanctions. The Iranian government does not plan to cease it's uranium enrichment, though it has vowed to both the international community and its own citizens that intentions are peaceful and civilian.
As we saw in last summer's botched election and ruthless crackdown on peaceful protestors, however, this theocratic regime is not a particularly honest or reliable authority. That is not to say an escalation of diplomatic conflict is warranted. Especially if the outcome could be full-fledged war. Indeed, the position of President Barack Obama is highly questionable.
On April 20, the White House sent a letter to President Lula da Silva encouraging the deal, saying: "For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile." The President did not say it would mean the end of proposed sanctions, but stressed that this deal would send a powerful message to the international community, saying "I would urge Brazil to impress upon Iran the opportunity presented by this offer to 'escrow' its uranium in Turkey while the nuclear fuel is being produced."
Shortly after President Obama's wishes were granted, the sanctions were approved by a unanimous Security Council vote. What does this mean and what are the implications?
The sanctions are intended to target the military leadership of Iran as well as the institutions responsible for uranium enrichment--isolating state-controlled banks from the global financial system and blacklisting petroleum companies. Whether or not the strategy will succeed is unknown. The Bill Clinton sanctions on Iraq brought about the crippling of the Iraqi economy, and is oft-cited as an underlying cause of the mass looting and poverty-induced crime that so destabilized the country post-invasion. The Iran sanctions appear to be more focused on leadership, but there is no telling what effect they might have, or if they will be expanded.
Though the mainstream media will not attempt to analyze the contradictory behavior of the reformer President, it is vital that we ask why he voiced such support for the Turkey-Brazil deal in the first place? Why would this success not be praised? It is a clear improvement from the recent past, but is met with further escalation.
Perhaps it is an issue of American hegemony--that the USA was not a part of the negotiations delegitimizes the agreement for many in the Washington establishment. If other states are able to accomplish diplomatic goals that Americans are not, does this undermine USA's position as the sole super-power? Is peace truly the priority of this escalation?
