The NY Times claims that Netanyahu’s speech was short on concrete proposals, but I couldn’t help but note that former Senator Sam Nunn (D) made a concrete proposal on the Iran nuclear problem, just 8 months ago, on the pages of the NY Times.
Nunn’s proposal was to set up an international nuclear fuel bank.
Enrichment technology is primarily used to create enriched nuclear fuel, but it can also be used to create weapons-grade nuclear material. The main goal of a fuel bank is therefore to minimize the risk of further nuclear weapons proliferation by removing the need for countries to possess enrichment technology.
The proposed fuel bank would assure a back-up supply for power reactors throughout the world on a non-discriminatory, non-political basis, reducing the need for countries to develop their own uranium enrichment technologies at a time when concerns about nuclear proliferation are growing. The IAEA’s former chairman Dr. ElBaradei confirmed this, saying that the importance of nuclear fuel banks is “by providing reliable access to fuel at competitive market prices, we remove the need for countries to develop indigenous fuel cycle capabilities. In so doing, we could go a long way towards addressing current concerns about the dissemination of sensitive fuel cycle technologies.”
The concept is simple. Countries don’t need enrichment technologies if they have access to all the fuel they need. Without enrichment technologies, it is very difficult for them to make nuclear weapons – but they have as much fuel as they need for peaceful energy purposes.
“The fuel bank may be directly relevant to an Iran agreement”
And Sam Nunn is right.
Prime Minister said the alternative to a bad deal is not war, but a better deal. This would be a better deal.
If President Obama isn’t going to listen to Netanyahu, at least he should listen to the concrete proposals by members of his own Democratic party.