Officials in Tehran are rejoicing at what they call a success story: the 10 point declaration announced on Monday and signed by Turkey, Brazil and Iran under which the country would ship about half of its current low enriched uranium stockpile (about 1200 kilograms) to Turkey in return for delivery of 120 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium by the Vienna Group.

An editorial in what is widely viewed as the most influential conservative newspaper in Iran, Kayhan, whose chief editor is directly appointed by the leader of the Islamic state, sheds some light into how Tehran interprets the deal and the issue in general.

The editorial is written by no other than Hossein Shariatmadari, who is well connected to the security apparatus in Iran and whose writings in the past have foreshadowed many suppressive measures of the state.

He interprets the arrangement to be a “conditional agreement” through which Iran has agreed on the swap in Turkey, and insists that even by changing the location of the exchange the Islamic republic has not retreated from its original position of insisting that the nuclear material swap take place on Iranian territory. At the same time, he is not optimistic that the Vienna Group will accept the deal.

Unlike an agreement, this “declaration”, Shariatmadari writes, lacks any legal responsibility for Iran. The provisions of the arrangement become obligatory, and turn into “an agreement” only upon agreement of the declaration by the Vienna Group (consisting of the US, Russia, France and the IAEA). He believes that Iran’s obligations kick-in only after the Vienna Group announces its “positive response” to the provisions of the declaration. The editorial says that Iran reserves the right to respond in kind in presenting its “views and implementation” based on how the Vienna Group responds to the declaration.

Iran’s conditional obligation is to deposit 1200 kilograms of its LEU in Turkey where it will be held in trust (this is derived from the meaning of the term amanat that is used in the document), as Iran shall continue to maintain ownership of the material while it remains in Turkey. This mechanism and definition, he argues, is to address Iran’s concerns that the other parties would honor their obligations in the swap.

“Article 5 of the Tehran declaration states that the ‘Islamic republic of Iran accepts to deposit 1200 kilograms of its LEU in Turkey to be held there in trust.’ Should the Vienna Group accept the provisions of the declaration, this provision shall constitute the ‘objective guarantee’ that the Islamic republic has been asking for.”

“As is clearly stated in articles 5 and 8 of the declaration, the Islamic republic of Iran has not retreated from its earlier proposal of swapping the nuclear material on its territory. Instead, by changing the location of the transfer from a country in the 5+1 group to Turkey, Iran has attained its desired ‘objective guarantee’, [i.e. an assurance that its uranium will be in a third-party location and will be returned should the other parties to the deal not fulfill their obligations]. This is exactly what the 5+1 group did not accept in the past,” the editorial reads.

While giving credit to the US and its allies for accepting Iran’s right to pursue peaceful nuclear activities that include research, and power generation, the editorial stresses that the West’s excuse is that Iran is not trustworthy in its nuclear activities.

Should this arrangement be accepted, Shariatmadari argues that there would no longer be any grounds for aggressive and threatening actions against Iran, as article 4 specifically addresses this.

The editorial believes that if this declaration is accepted by the IAEA, this would mean that the agency was ending its earlier accusations regarding Iran. What the writer is referring to is the hardening position of IAEA in recent months that Iran has continued to withhold cooperation with the Agency in providing access and information to its nuclear program. Shariatmadari interprets acceptance by IAEA to be acceptance by the Governing Council of the Agency.

Mention is made of article 9 of the declaration and the point that Shariatmadari makes is that the door is left open for talks with members of the 5+1 group, which includes the US. He then clarifies that provision to argue that the subject of the talks would be limited to the “joint concerns based on collective commitments and based on the common elements of the two proposed packages.” He says this language is important because the package that the Islamic republic had proposed lacks any reference to nuclear issues, therefore what is common between the 5+1 proposal and the proposal presented by the Islamic republic is not nuclear issues, and thus concludes that future talks are thus channeled to be over security issues, and not nuclear matters.

Shariatmadari concludes his piece by repeating his pessimism in the acceptance of the deal by the Vienna Group, but says that in either case the Islamic republic is the winner in the field and says the main concern of the West is the advance of the rule of Mohammad and turning it into a model for others, which is no small victory by its own right.

In a related report, Iran newspaper, the government’s official outlet, quotes CNN, the BBC and other major news networks to show that Barack Obama’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Iran has failed. Its leading story reads: US Checkmated by the 3-party Accord in Tehran. “What differentiates this declaration from the proposal that was made last year by the Vienna Group is the destination for sending Iran’s 1200 kilogram LEU. The Group had proposed Russia as the location while the declaration settles on Turkey,” the editorial reads. The newspaper quotes the Turkish foreign minister’s reference of Iran’s LEU that will be deposited in Turkey as “the Iranian nation’s property deposited in trust” with it’s neighbor, and hails the arrangement as guaranteeing the safety of LEU. The editorial addresses the long-standing issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment, which three UN Security Council resolutions have specifically called to be suspended. It says, “The implementation of the fuel swap, signals the official acceptance of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities by the international community.” It concludes that since international resolutions cannot be easily revoked, subsequent arrangements that contradict such earlier resolutions are the way earlier policies are negated. The ball is now in the West’s field, the newspaper argues, and says that should the 5+1 Group not take up this opportunity to engage in talks with Iran “regarding the proposal raised by the Islamic republic of Iran”, the three “allied” countries (i.e. Iran, Brazil and Turkey) have the option of holding talks to attain the rights of the developing countries.

The newspaper also used the 3-day meeting of representatives of the G-15 group of developing countries in Tehran to demonstrate that Iran was in fact not isolated, as is claimed in the West, but enjoys wide international support. Speaking at the final session of the meeting, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the UN Security Council had lost its credibility among world’s nations and made proposals to the group for altering the international political structure and expanding economic and trade relations in the developing world.