Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia, Iran Reportedly to Sign Nuclear Deal Soon
Reuters ^ | 5/25/04 | Maria Golovnina

Posted on 05/25/2004 1:10:03 PM PDT by Rams82

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Iran will sign a deal soon with Russia obliging it to return spent fuel from a new nuclear reactor to Moscow, a Russian official said, in a move intended to ease U.S. fears the material could be used to make bombs.

Russia has faced down U.S. opposition to its construction of Iran's $800-million reactor at Bushehr, but it has insisted on the spent fuel deal to alleviate U.S. concerns that Iranian scientists could extract plutonium from spent fuel and potentially use it in warheads.

Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Russia's Atomic Energy Agency, said Tuesday Moscow and Tehran would sign the document during a visit to Iran this summer, ending years of talks.

"During this trip we plan to sign an additional protocol on the return of spent nuclear fuel to Russia for storage and processing," Itar-Tass news agency quoted Rumyantsev as saying.

The document must be signed before the end of the summer for Bushehr's first 1,000-megawatt reactor to go on-stream in 2005. The plant was originally supposed to start up in 2003.

Washington has branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" of states seeking illegal arms and fears Iran would use Bushehr as a cover for the transfer of other sensitive nuclear technology.

Russia says Iran could not produce a nuclear bomb, even using Moscow's nuclear technology.

Iran, which sits on the world's second largest gas reserves after Russia, also denies the U.S. allegations. It says it needs nuclear energy to meet booming demand for electricity and keep oil and gas reserves for export.

SPENT FUEL TO SIBERIA

Iran's former representative to the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, was quoted Tuesday as saying Iran was still some way from mastering the full nuclear fuel cycle.

"Iran has achieved some 60 to 70 percent of the technology needed for a full fuel cycle," Salehi told the hard-line Kayhan evening newspaper.

He said Iran was many years away from producing enough nuclear fuel to feed even one atomic reactor. "We need at least ten years to feed the Bushehr nuclear plant with the fuel," Salehi said.

Once the protocol on returning spent fuel is signed, Russia will ship fuel to Iran to start up the Bushehr reactor. Spent fuel will be sent back to a storage facility in Siberia after roughly a decade of use.

Western diplomats in Moscow say that decade would enable Iran to acquire the necessary technology to make bombs. Russia says much longer would be required.

An official from a nuclear fuel plant in Siberia was quoted as saying that up to 168 nuclear fuel units would be dispatched to Bushehr after the signing to start up the reactor. A further 43 would be shipped each year thereafter.

Signing of the document has been delayed repeatedly. Industry insiders say disagreement over technical matters and the row with the United States nearly prompted both sides to abandon the project this year.

Rumyantsev told Tass delays were linked to "failure to fulfil certain contract obligations by some Russian and Iranian firms." He did not elaborate.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Russia
KEYWORDS: iaea; iran; nuclear; prolifertion; russia

1 posted on 05/25/2004 1:10:05 PM PDT by Rams82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rams82

Oh yeah sure. This (Russia) is the country that had illegal flights going in and out of Iraq. Sure, I feel safe!

Press Release:

House International Relations Committee
Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman

October 27, 2000

GILMAN, HELMS DEMAND ANSWERS ON SANCTIONS-VIOLATING FLIGHTS INTO IRAQ

WASHINGTON (October 27) – U.S. Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (20th-NY), Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, sent the following letter today to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright concerning sanctions against

Iraq:

October 27, 2000

Dear Madam Secretary:

We suspect that you are extremely concerned, as we certainly are, about the increasing number of sanctions-violating flights into Iraq. Needless to say, it is not surprising that these flights have been initiated by Russia and France, both of which are permanent members of the Security Council.

Following the lead of Russia and France, other countries have likewise flown into Iraq. Among these countries are recipients of significant amounts of U.S. foreign aid.
This, Madam Secretary, is outrageous.

Since August, Russia has permitted three direct commercial flights to Baghdad, requesting permission for only two of those flights from the U.N. Sanctions Committee. We understand that Russia does not view these flights as sanctions violations.

In your testimony last month before the Foreign Relations Committee, you emphasized that this is not the U.S. position; specifically, you made clear that the United States believes "that these flights need approval, and . . . I think that absent any new kind of consensus, the [Sanctions Committee] will continue . . . to operate under practices of the last 10 years, that these flights require approval, not just notification."

Sanctions are a vital tool in denying Saddam Hussein the funding and supplies necessary for him to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Vigilance is all the more urgent, given the absence of weapons inspectors in Iraq for nearly two years.

Being fully committed, as we are, to ensuring that this despot does not develop the weapons to threaten the United States, our allies, or our interests, we acknowledge that this will be increasingly difficult if Saddam’s neighbors (and our allies and aid recipients) continue to violate the sanctions intended to protect them.

Madam Secretary, two points: 1) In your view, absent permission from the sanctions committee, do these flights constitute sanctions violations? And (2) Under the terms of Section 534 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2000, do you agree that no assistance should be provided to nations in violation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq?
Please let us hear from you as to how Section 534 applies to the countries in violation of UN sanctions, and in particular to Russia and Egypt, two flagrant violators who receive billions in U.S. foreign aid.
We urgently need your response, Madam Secretary.
Sincerely, (signed) (signed)
JESSE HELMS BENJAMIN A. GILMAN


2 posted on 05/25/2004 1:49:38 PM PDT by Calpernia (http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rams82
So, mad mullahs who vow to destroy Israel with nukes and call the US "the great satan", unpopular with their own people and perhaps facing historical and personal "exit" in the next decade or less, can have all the plutonium they want, as long as the Russians have a piece of paper.

OK, here is the deal. The US will give the Chechens 50 tactical nuclear weapons with full codes and independent use authority. But in return we will demand they give us a sheet of paper promising they will only use them to investigate seismic recording equipment in controlled mock earthquakes in underground shafts. So that will all be fine, then, right?

Or how about - if an Iranian nuke goes off anywhere, anytime, for any reason, Moscow goes skyward in a glowing ball of dust. Want to bet your life on that sheet of paper?

3 posted on 05/25/2004 2:33:54 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rams82
.......intended to ease U.S. fears the material could be used to make bombs.

lol....yeah, that'll do the trick. </ sarcasm>

If our intel reveals that the Iranians are close to manufacturing a bomb, we'll take action. .....or the Israelis will. Either way, the job will get done.

4 posted on 05/25/2004 2:48:30 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Well, I hope somebody does, ASAP.

At this point, though, I'm not sure Bush could be a Truman.


5 posted on 05/25/2004 2:50:37 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: livius

Bush doesn't need to be a Truman; we could take care of Iran's nuclear facilities with conventional arms.


6 posted on 05/25/2004 2:52:24 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Conventional arms would be fine.

But I don't think he's going to do it.


7 posted on 05/25/2004 3:01:53 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson