Note that there's no mention whatsoever that the US had until now
Read this so-called "primer" on Iran's nuclear talk over at Jim Lobe's website
demanded that Iran first give up enrichment, and had used that demand to prevent any talks from moving forward?
Yes, that's a bit of fact that they would rather you forget. Just like how they'd rather you forget precisely why the Iranians restarted enrichment -- notice no references to the "empty box in pretty wrapping" that killed the EU3 negotiations with Iran under the Paris Agreement. Remember, that deal died, according to Peter Osborne, because the US demanded that the EU3 never acknowledge Iran's right to enrchment, again.
In fact this
particular author over at Lobe's website totally erases Khatami from history books and claims that negotiations began in 2003 under president Ahmadinejad...who was elected in 2005. In 2003, the negotiations were undertaken by Khatami.
The "timeline" he links to by the Arms Control Association is similarly selective: the entire EU "empty box in pretty wrapping" affair which is the subject of Peter Oborne's book is left out as is the fact that the Iranian negotiations were always stymied by the US "zero enrichment demand" but instead the author promotes the false narrative that it was Iran's election Rouhani that allowed the current negotiations to happen, rather that the US giving up the zero enrichment demand. And also left out is the fact that Iran approached AQ Khan only after the US interfered with numerous legal Iranian nuclear contracts, in violation of Iran's rights as recognized by the NPT. And also left out is the fact that the
allegatiosn against Iran turned out to be largely from Israel. The author pretends that the IAEA somehow endorsed the NIE's conclusion that Iran had a nuclear program prior to 2003 -- whereas ElBaradei was explicitly clear that the IAEA had no evidence that Iran EVER had a nuclear weapons program. And finally this piece misrepresents the Additiona Protocol issue -- the IAEA does not verify the exclusively peaceful nature of ANY country's nuclear program unless the Additiona Protocol is in force, and in that Iran is no different than Argentina Brazil Egypt and many other nations -- except that Iran not only voluntarily implemented the AP but exceeded it for more than 3 years with no evidenceo of any nukes found. The author is missing the entire point as he has not read Gareth Porter's book: the nuclear issue was always just a pretext for regime change. It was never about trying to "prevent breakout" -- 40 nations already have breakout capability,
meaning that Iran has joined 1 out of 4 nations on the planet.
Jim Lobe should know better.