West wary of Iran’s deal to ship uranium to Turkey

By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL SLACKMAN

The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The United States, Europe and Russia responded with skepticism to Iran’s announcement Monday that it had reached an agreement to ship roughly half of its nuclear fuel to Turkey, saying they would continue to press for new sanctions against Iran to curb its nuclear development, which the United States says is aimed at developing weapons.

Nonetheless, officials from several countries said the deal, negotiated with Turkey and Brazil, was a deftly timed attempt to throw the sanctions effort off track.

The terms were similar to those of an accord made with the West last October that fell apart when Iran backtracked. Since then, Iran has added considerably to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, meaning that it would keep on Iranian territory about half of its present supply — or about enough fuel for one nuclear weapon if it chose to make one. The earlier deal was attractive to the United States because it would have deprived Iran of enough known fuel to make a weapon, leaving breathing space for negotiations.

Rejecting the new deal, however, could make President Obama appear to be blocking a potential compromise. And the deal shows how Brazil and Turkey, which for their own economic interests oppose sanctions, may derail a fragile international consensus to increase pressure on Iran.

The White House noted that even while striking the deal, Iran insisted Monday that it would continue its new effort to enrich fuel at a higher level, taking it closer to bomb-grade material.

“While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20 percent enrichment, which is a direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.

Sergei Ivanov, the deputy prime minister of Russia, was similarly wary at a lunchtime speech in Washington. He said he expected the sanctions resolution to “be voted in the near future,” and said the new Iranian accord should not be “closely linked” to the sanctions.

“Iran should absolutely open up” to inspectors, he said. That statement was significant because Russia had been reluctant to join sanctions several months ago. China, which also has been hesitant, issued no statement.

White House officials were clearly angered at the leaders of Turkey and Brazil, whom Obama had met personally in Washington during last month’s Nuclear Security Summit to urge them to be careful not to give the Iranians a pretext to avoid complying with U.N. demands. Obama followed up those meetings with detailed letters in the last week of April outlining specific concerns, a senior administration official said. But those letters appeared to have limited influence on the outcome.

Turkey’s U.S. ambassador, Namik Tan, said he was disappointed in the Obama administration’s reaction. “I would have expected a more encouraging statement,” he said.

“We don’t believe in sanctions, and I don’t believe anybody can challenge us, and certainly not the United States,” Tan said. “They don’t work.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the agreement would be “to the benefit of all nations who want to live freely and independently.”

Diplomats in Vienna said the atomic agency had not been formally notified about the deal but added Iran’s agreement to a swap outside its own territory was potentially significant.

Yet many analysts suggested the deal was meant to transfer blame for the conflict to the West, while derailing sanctions that had appeared possible within weeks.

“Iran has a history of forging a deal and then going back on it,” said Emad Gad, an expert in international relations at the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “It lets the situation get really tense and then reaches an agreement.”

Source: The New York Times