Whatever one thinks about the Iran nuclear situation, “this WSJ piece”:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958201328712205.html from Michael Rubin is pure hackery.
There are too many errors to bother with, but here are a few fun facts:
First, Tehran did fulfill many, though certainly not all, of its pledges in its 2003 and 2004 agreements with the E3. For example, Iran did cooperate with many aspects of the IAEA’s investigation and signed and implemented an additional protocol to its CSA.
Second, Iran did make several proposals to the E3 in 2005. I know it might be hassle to ferret them out, so “here they are.”:http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals Oh, and there’s “this one”:http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/2003_Spring_Iran_Proposal.pdf from 2003 that I think 1 or 2 people may have mentioned before.
Farideh Farhi has “more.”:http://icga.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-irans-sincerity-in-nuclear-talks.html I’ve read an English translation of the Aftab News interview with Rowhani that Rubin quotes from (I am not at liberty to post it, unfortunately). Dr. Farhi is correct that it doesn’t come close to supporting Rubin’s claim that “Rowhani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator at the time, acknowledged his government’s insincerity.”
Rubin is also the primary drafter of “this,”:http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/8448 in case anyone needs a reminder.
I realized that I was not clear about one issue: Iran’s well-known lack of enthusiasm for suspending its enrichment program does not equate to insincerity or an unwillingness to compromise. Whether talks are worth pursuing is a different issue.