SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Rumor Control: Contra NYT, Iran Didn't Renege on Shipping Uranium
Mar 30, 2015
US, European, and Iranian negotiators are working against a self-imposed Tuesday deadline to secure a "framework agreement" which will outline the parameters of a comprehensive agreement to be achieved by June on international limitation and supervision of Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of international sanctions on Iran.
On Sunday night at 9:15 pm ET, the New York Times sent me a scary email:
Breaking News: Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal
Here's what the NYT reported:
With a negotiating deadline just two days away, Iranian officials on Sunday backed away from a critical element of a proposed nuclear agreement, saying they are no longer willing to ship their atomic fuel out of the country.
For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran's deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass.
This news might have seemed to validate Republican-Netanyahu talking points against the negotiations. There's no point in trying to make a deal with these people, because they're people who agree to something but then renege. That's what's "backed away," "no longer willing," and "tentatively agreed," imply, right? They agreed, and then they reneged.
But what if the Iranians had never agreed to this demand? What if this demand is not, in fact, "key" or "critical" to an agreement? Then the scary headline that the New York Times emailed me was wrong.
Monday morning, the NYT reported that US officials were pushing back against the previous NYT article:
1. Iran had never agreed to this demand.
2. Shipping uranium out of Iran had not been ruled out in the talks.
3. There are other perfectly good ways to limit the military potential of Iran's nuclear program.
American officials said on Monday that they were still negotiating with their Iranian counterparts on one of the main issues remaining in their efforts to reach a deal on Iran's nuclear program -- how to dispose of Iran's big nuclear stockpile -- and that shipping the atomic fuel out of the country was still a possibility.
[...]
"Contrary to the report in The New York Times, the issue of how Iran's stockpile would be disposed of had not yet been decided in the negotiating room, even tentatively," a senior State Department official said in a statement that was emailed to reporters.
"There is no question that disposition of their stockpile is essential to ensuring the program is exclusively peaceful," added the official, who declined to be identified under the department's protocol for briefing reporters. "There are viable options that have been under discussion for months, including shipping out the stockpile, but resolution is still being discussed. The metric is ensuring the amount of material remaining as enriched material will only be what is necessary for a working stock and no more."
So, the New York Times has corrected the record. Mazl tov! Is the world the same now as it would be if the NYT had never run the scary headline in the first place?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
US, European, and Iranian negotiators are working against a self-imposed Tuesday deadline to secure a "framework agreement" which will outline the parameters of a comprehensive agreement to be achieved by June on international limitation and supervision of Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of international sanctions on Iran.
On Sunday night at 9:15 pm ET, the New York Times sent me a scary email:
Breaking News: Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal
Here's what the NYT reported:
With a negotiating deadline just two days away, Iranian officials on Sunday backed away from a critical element of a proposed nuclear agreement, saying they are no longer willing to ship their atomic fuel out of the country.
For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran's deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass.
This news might have seemed to validate Republican-Netanyahu talking points against the negotiations. There's no point in trying to make a deal with these people, because they're people who agree to something but then renege. That's what's "backed away," "no longer willing," and "tentatively agreed," imply, right? They agreed, and then they reneged.
But what if the Iranians had never agreed to this demand? What if this demand is not, in fact, "key" or "critical" to an agreement? Then the scary headline that the New York Times emailed me was wrong.
Monday morning, the NYT reported that US officials were pushing back against the previous NYT article:
1. Iran had never agreed to this demand.
2. Shipping uranium out of Iran had not been ruled out in the talks.
3. There are other perfectly good ways to limit the military potential of Iran's nuclear program.
American officials said on Monday that they were still negotiating with their Iranian counterparts on one of the main issues remaining in their efforts to reach a deal on Iran's nuclear program -- how to dispose of Iran's big nuclear stockpile -- and that shipping the atomic fuel out of the country was still a possibility.
[...]
"Contrary to the report in The New York Times, the issue of how Iran's stockpile would be disposed of had not yet been decided in the negotiating room, even tentatively," a senior State Department official said in a statement that was emailed to reporters.
"There is no question that disposition of their stockpile is essential to ensuring the program is exclusively peaceful," added the official, who declined to be identified under the department's protocol for briefing reporters. "There are viable options that have been under discussion for months, including shipping out the stockpile, but resolution is still being discussed. The metric is ensuring the amount of material remaining as enriched material will only be what is necessary for a working stock and no more."
So, the New York Times has corrected the record. Mazl tov! Is the world the same now as it would be if the NYT had never run the scary headline in the first place?
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
US, European, and Iranian negotiators are working against a self-imposed Tuesday deadline to secure a "framework agreement" which will outline the parameters of a comprehensive agreement to be achieved by June on international limitation and supervision of Iran's nuclear program and the lifting of international sanctions on Iran.
On Sunday night at 9:15 pm ET, the New York Times sent me a scary email:
Breaking News: Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal
Here's what the NYT reported:
With a negotiating deadline just two days away, Iranian officials on Sunday backed away from a critical element of a proposed nuclear agreement, saying they are no longer willing to ship their atomic fuel out of the country.
For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran's deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass.
This news might have seemed to validate Republican-Netanyahu talking points against the negotiations. There's no point in trying to make a deal with these people, because they're people who agree to something but then renege. That's what's "backed away," "no longer willing," and "tentatively agreed," imply, right? They agreed, and then they reneged.
But what if the Iranians had never agreed to this demand? What if this demand is not, in fact, "key" or "critical" to an agreement? Then the scary headline that the New York Times emailed me was wrong.
Monday morning, the NYT reported that US officials were pushing back against the previous NYT article:
1. Iran had never agreed to this demand.
2. Shipping uranium out of Iran had not been ruled out in the talks.
3. There are other perfectly good ways to limit the military potential of Iran's nuclear program.
American officials said on Monday that they were still negotiating with their Iranian counterparts on one of the main issues remaining in their efforts to reach a deal on Iran's nuclear program -- how to dispose of Iran's big nuclear stockpile -- and that shipping the atomic fuel out of the country was still a possibility.
[...]
"Contrary to the report in The New York Times, the issue of how Iran's stockpile would be disposed of had not yet been decided in the negotiating room, even tentatively," a senior State Department official said in a statement that was emailed to reporters.
"There is no question that disposition of their stockpile is essential to ensuring the program is exclusively peaceful," added the official, who declined to be identified under the department's protocol for briefing reporters. "There are viable options that have been under discussion for months, including shipping out the stockpile, but resolution is still being discussed. The metric is ensuring the amount of material remaining as enriched material will only be what is necessary for a working stock and no more."
So, the New York Times has corrected the record. Mazl tov! Is the world the same now as it would be if the NYT had never run the scary headline in the first place?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy