By Peter Duveen

Analysis

PETER'S NEW YORK, Friday, October 23, 2009--In its most reccent talks with Iran over nuclear fuel issues, the West obviously included a requirement it knew Iran would reject--that the country's nuclear fuel, refined by Russia, would then be shipped to France to be shaped into fuel rods. Iran had shown its disfavor for any involvement by France.

This, of course, highlights a typical technique of the West--to include a provision it knows Iran will reject, so it can say that it has rejected the draft document, etc. This is the same technique the West used to invade Afghanistan--by demanding, without proof of wrongdoing, that the Taliban turn over Osama Bin Laden. The same mode was employed in its justification for the bombing of Belgrade, Yugoslavia, when it made demands of Slobodan Milosevic that would have basically made his country a vassal state of NATO. The two examples are among many that could be cited as a well-honed but now transparently insincere approach by Western nations, led by the United States, in their negotiations.

Even if it is true that it would cost more for Iran to refine its own nuclear fuel than to purchase it from the outside, as some analysts state, it is natural for the country to want to have its own production capacity for national security reasons. In other words, it would want to be able to guarantee its own supply in the event the international community decided not to honor its agreements to supply nuclear fuel.

The fact that an Associated Press story highlighted Iran's faillure to approve the current state of the most recent negotiating package, but did not mention the requirement that France manufacture the fuel rods until the fourteenth paragraph of an eighteenth paragraph story, is a clear testament to the fact that AP is firmly in the hands of the U.S. State Department and has become a mere organ of the federal government and its intelligence agencies. It has, in practice, long ceased to act as an independent source of vigorous journalism. That the large majority of news organizations throughout the U.S. continue to rely on AP as a source for its international news demonstrates how the U.S. government has succeeded in keeping a short leash on the American press.

The latest AP story on the negotiations, as of this morning, entitled "Iran fails to accept UN uranium enrichment plan," attempted to lay the blame for Iran's failure to approve the plan on another issue.

"Iran on Friday failed to accept a U.N.-drafted plan that would ship most of the country's uranium abroad for enrichment, saying instead it would prefer to buy the nuclear fuel it needs for a reactor that makes medical isotopes," read the lead. Of course the lead makes little sense, as it is totally unclear how Iran's interest in purchasing nuclear fuel rather than producing it would have undermined negotiations.

AP indicates that, on this particular point, Iran would rather use an existing reactor for its production of medical sources for radioactivity and buy fuel for it, rather than make an expensive purchase of a new reactor for the purpose. In other words, Iran must pay a price, that of a new reactor, for a new agreement to be approved. However, a visit to the original story by AP found it to be considerably shortened, and left out this element in its second version.

AP then editorializes:

"The response will come as a disappointment to the U.S., Russia and France..", lumping Russia together with the other two players, as if they somehow form a united front, which, of course, they do not. Russia and China has always resisted the imposition of sanctions on Iran.

It then admits, in contradistinction to its misleading headline, that "Iran did not reject the plan outright," but then tells us that "Iran has often used counterproposals as a way to draw out nuclear negotiations with the West," as if the country is simply supposed to accept any plan laid before it, doing otherwise being evidence of stonewalling. One has to ask AP what its "journalists" or "editors," as the case may be, think negotiations are for.

The Reuters story was much the same as the AP story, and one would have to go to another source, such as Russia Today, to find out the obvious facts.

The Russia Today article posted today on its website is entitled "Iran wants Russian enriched uranium," and contains the obviously missing information.

"Tehran says France and the US will not be able to participate in the project directly, Interfax reports, quoting Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a representative of the Iranian delegation."

The last paragraph of the same article complements this information:

"Meanwhile, the French Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying France's participation is a vital part of the enrichment process."

Now might this have something to do with Iran's reluctance to approve the agreement?

The fact that the large majority of news organizations throughout the U.S. continue to rely on AP as a source for its international news demonstrates how the U.S. government has been successful in keeping the American press on a short leash.