Confused reports are circulating this morning of an Iranian proposal in the marathon talks in Vienna on a comprehensive nuclear agreement.

The New York Times headlines, “Iran Outlines Nuclear Deal; Accepts Limit“:

The article cites the declaration by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (pictured) of an “innovative proposal”, but is vague and tangled over any details:

American officials said Mr. Zarif was now showing a flexibility they had not seen before, (but) his proposal does not address, in its current form, the most central American concern. Because the proposal would leave centrifuges spinning in place, Iran would retain what is known as a “breakout capability” to race for a bomb if it ever decided to produce one. Mr. Zarif contended that other elements of his plan would lengthen that period to over a year, which Secretary of State John Kerry has said is a minimum. American officials are doubtful.

The primary obstacle to an agreement between Iran and the 5+1 Powers (US, Britain, Germany, France, China, and Russia) is Tehran’s capacity for enriching uranium to 5%. Tehran insists it must be self-sufficient in production of fuel for nuclear reactors for civilian purposes. The US and European partners say the centrifuges must be restricted to prevent a “break-out” capability in which Iran can move to a militarized nuclear program within months.

That central dispute has several elements:

1. The number of Iranian centrifuges: Iran wants to expand its stock of 19,000 substantially; the US and European allies insist on a significant reduction

2. The centrifuge models in operation: Iran wants to put IR-2 models, already installed in two enrichment plants, into operation and to develop an IR-4 model; the US-Europe line is that Iran should be limited to its current operational stock of 40-year-old IR-1m centrifuges.

3. The output of the centrifuges: Iran wants a 20-fold increase of its present output capacity of 190,000 Separative Work Units, saying this is needed to support the Bushehr nuclear reactor; the US-Europe position is that the current level of about 10,000 SWUs should be held.

4. The timing of any expansion of the program: Iran is offering a 5-year phasing-in of the expansion; the US and European partners are unwilling so far to drop their objection to expansion in return for a phased escalation.

The Times’ depiction of Zarif’s proposal, made in a 45-minute interview before a bilateral session with US Secretary of State John Kerry, does not address any of these.

Instead, the article cites the “freeze” — without explaining what is being frozen — and continues:

Mr. Zarif combined his proposal of a freeze with an offer to take the nuclear fuel produced by its 9,000 or so working centrifuges and convert it to an oxide form, a way station to being made into nuclear fuel rods. He said that Iran would guarantee, during the agreement, not to build the facility needed to convert the oxide back into a gas, the step that would have to precede any effort to enrich it to 90 percent purity, which is what is generally considered bomb-grade.

In fact, Iran has already taken steps towards that “concession”. Under November’s interim agreement, it suspended enrichment of uranium to 20% and converted the stock to oxide powder or diluted it to 5%.

So was there anything new in Zarif’s statement?

The Wall Street Journal offers a possibility by explaining the “freeze”:

Iran’s suggestion is based on freezing the number of centrifuges it operates at its current level of 9,400. It will slightly reduce the fuel it produces from these old-generation machines by spinning them more slowly during the multi-year period of the agreement, according to an Iranian and a Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to one of the diplomats, Iran first aired the proposal to European diplomats several weeks ago.

While being much clearer than the Times, the Journal’s account still poses essential questions:

1. Is Iran restricted to the old IR-1 models when the Journal writes, “Only around 9,400 machines at Tehran’s Natanz nuclear facility are operating and producing nuclear fuel”?

Or is Iran saying that at least some of the 9,400 centrifuges must be the IR-2m?

Last week Ali Akbar Salehi indicated that Tehran was seeking that upgrade, when he said that the Supreme Leader’s line of 190,00 Separative Work Units could be met by less than 10,000 centrifuges — provided they were newer models replacing the IR-1m.

2. Is Iran saying that it will confine itself to 9,400 centrifuges throughout a “multi-year agreement”? Or is it saying that it will start with 9,400 but that there will be an increase during the duration of the agreement?