Opinion - Editorials   

Maintaining strategic ambiguity

While nuclear experts appear to agree that Iran has achieved an important technological breakthrough by enriching uranium to the 3.5 per cent level, strategic thinkers have not reached a consensus on the significance of this development. The United States administration and other opponents of the regime in Teheran are convinced that this is conclusive proof of intent to build nuclear weapons. However, even those who concur with this view on Iran's intentions do not necessarily believe that there will soon be an addition to the list of countries known to possess nuclear weapons. The 164-centrifuge cascade used to produce the claimed levels of enrichment would not be sufficient for a weapons programme. Iranian officials claim that they will be able to operate a 3000-centrifuge cascade by the end of 2006. They also claim with some ambiguity that a 54,000-centrifuge cascade will be set up at the Natanz facility, without specifying a timeframe. Although such a configuration would enable enrichment up to the weapon-grade level of 80-90 per cent, many specialists in the field believe that Iran will need between six and 10 years to put it together. Teheran also seems to have kept its pronouncements on the subject deliberately vague to some extent. In announcing the breakthrough, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did strongly suggest that the enriched uranium would be used in power plants to be operated under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. His declaration to this effect has not been entirely overwhelmed by the manner in which the government-controlled media hyped the breakthrough, much as the Indian and Pakistani establishments did after the 1998 tests. But, an attempt does appear to have been made to retain a measure of strategic ambiguity.

Such an approach is understandable, given the situation Iran finds itself in. Teheran has always insisted that it has the right to master the fuel cycle under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has also consistently maintained that it does not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. For its part, Washington has taken the position that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon or the capacity or knowledge to build one. In this context, the timing of the announcement about the breakthrough suggests that the intention was to show that threats would not work. Significantly, the claim was made just a few days after the U.S. media reported that the administration was planning military strikes on the Natanz and other facilities. The announcement also came on the eve of a visit by the IAEA Director General, Mohammed ElBaradei, whose task was to convey the United Nations Security Council's demand that Iran suspend its enrichment programme. The confrontation between Washington and Teheran might once again come to a head on April 28 when Dr. ElBaradei is scheduled to report back to the Security Council on the outcome of his mission. Iran appears to be getting into position for that fight.

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

Stories in this Section

The quintessential Kannada icon
Maintaining strategic ambiguity
Office of profit and disqualification
Creating dispensable citizens
Corrections and clarifications
An icon
Unfortunate violence
Narmada issue
Dance bars

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu