Opinion - News Analysis   

Iran in nuclear showdown

Simon Tisdall

THE DRUMBEAT of Western disapproval accompanying Iran's decision this week to resume uranium conversion at its nuclear plant in Isfahan looks likely to drown out more-considered approaches to the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation in general and Iran's aspirations in particular.

Largely unremarked by mainstream media, the Foreign Ministers of Australia, Chile, Indonesia, Norway, Romania, South Africa, and the United Kingdom put forward a series of proposals last month to avoid exactly the sort of confrontation that now looms over Teheran. The seven countries affirmed "the inalienable right of all state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."

But crucially, they suggested that states wishing to develop nuclear power for civil purposes should be able to do so without first having to develop a domestic fuel cycle capability. It is Iran's insistence on acquiring such a capability that, more than anything, has strengthened American, Israeli and European suspicions that it is trying to build the bomb.

In other words, the Ministers said, the international community "should establish mechanisms to ensure guaranteed access to the market for nuclear fuel and related services for states in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations under the NPT." Internationally approved and monitored supplies of nuclear fuel would reduce the risk of diversion of the enriched product for non-peaceful purposes. Thus some of the suspicions surrounding the current Iranian programme would, in theory at least, be dispelled.

The group of seven also bemoaned the failure of last May's NPT review conference in New York and proposed a series of steps to reinforce the treaty.

Last but not least the seven countries, one of which (Britain) is an acknowledged nuclear weapons state, said the international community "must continue practical, systematic and progressive efforts to advance nuclear disarmament globally ... towards a world free of nuclear weapons." The group said it would pursue its proposals at next month's U.N. summit. Unfortunately, the Bush administration was not party to the initiative, and neither were Russia or China for that matter. And in any case, the initiative by itself cannot stop a Security Council showdown over Iran if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decides to refer the Iran "dossier" to New York.

Internationally safeguarded and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies, for example, were part of the "final offer" put to Teheran last week by the EU3 — France, Germany and Britain. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of distrust and recrimination after two years of protracted negotiations — and following last month's election of a conservative Iranian President — seems to have led Teheran to reject the deal out of hand.

"The EU proposal was very insulting and humiliating," said Mohammad Saeedi of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation. Mr. Saeedi appeared to be referring to the widespread Iranian perception that the EU was trying to deny Iran its "inalienable right" to process fuel — a problem that might have been overcome if the group of seven's proposals had been in place. The growing air of crisis over Iran's nuclear programmes is also obscuring other new factors which could (and perhaps should) have a direct bearing on how Western countries, and particularly the U.S., act now. One such factor is the leaked assessment contained in a new Bush administration National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran.

According to American newspaper reports, the NIE concluded that Iran was bent on acquiring the atomic bomb. "It is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

But the study also expressed uncertainty that Iran's clerical leaders had actually decided to go ahead. And it threw cold water on repeated Israeli claims that Iran was within six months of gaining a nuclear weapons capability. It estimated that, given Iran's technical limitations, it would probably not deploy an atomic bomb, assuming it wanted to, until 2015.

The NIE's considerably less dramatic conclusions are reminiscent of international weapons survey reports since the Iraq invasion that showed pre-war claims about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and activities had been wildly inaccurate — and politically exaggerated. By leaking the findings, and taking a cautious line, the U.S. intelligence officers may be trying ensure they do not get caught on that hook again.

And this leads to another largely under-reported and unconsidered nugget of information concerning Iran's activities that emanated from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this week. It is that key evidence on which the charge of illicit bomb-making against Iran rested may have to be scrapped. Tests performed by the IAEA reportedly indicate that enriched uranium particles found on Iranian nuclear equipment came from Pakistan, from where the equipment was imported, and were not produced in Iran. Teheran has adamantly maintained all along that this was the most likely explanation for the existence of the particles. Now the IAEA appears to agree.

Far from being able to brandish a smoking gun, Iran's accusers hardly have a water pistol to share between them. That does not necessarily mean Teheran is innocent of all charges. It does not disguise the fact that Teheran suspiciously concealed its nuclear activities for many years. But when other factors are also taken into account, it does suggest that a more considered and consensual approach to Iran and other proliferation problems might be the wisest course. —

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Breaking the ice with Bangladesh
How much longer will the shuttle fly?
A new mood of nationalism in Britain
A mismatch of policy and practice?
Iran in nuclear showdown
Now history has us by the throat
Crime of treason in the U.K.
Commission's findings
A permanent blot
Stapling woes

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu