Iran's nuclear program enters new phase
By Kamal Nazer Yasin for ISN
The external pagelatest report on Iran by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), released on 15 September, was by far the most negative one the agency had published on Iran since its nuclear program first came to light in 2002.
The IAEA report claimed, among other things, that Iran was sabotaging efforts to inspect its sites and to examine various documents; it alleged that Iran had made considerable progress in working with centrifuges; it disclosed, for the first time, the exact amount of uranium the IAEA believed had been enriched; and mentioned, also for the first time, the involvement of a foreign agent in the program.
The documents and the secret citations were mostly related to the findings of the "Alleged Studies," evidence allegedly obtained from a laptop computer that was spirited out of Iran and handed over to US intelligence agencies in 2004. It was in January that the Alleged Studies were made available to the Iranians and international media.
The Iranians revealed that they had built 4,000 centrifuges during the Bush administration – an increase compared with the last IAEA finding, implying that Iran was putting to work several hundred new centrifuges a month. According to a external pagereport by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, ISIS, Iran had overcome many of the technical hurdles associated with running centrifuge cascades, such as constant breakages and instabilities. The result was the production of 480 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU) of which between 200 to 250 kilograms were produced in this reporting period; a significant advance over previous rates.
This was also the first time the IAEA had suggested that Iran had obtained help with its program from a foreign weapons scientist. Citing European and American sources, the New York Times on 9 October reported that the "foreign agent" was believed to be a Russian scientist who was apparently operating independently of the Russian government and had shared his expertise and knowledge on weapons detonation.
If accurate, this means that if Iran so desires, it can achieve a breakout in a relatively short time, meaning that it could quickly turn LEU into weapons-grade uranium.
Iran insists that it has no intention of doing so, and that it is fully in compliance with the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which stipulates among other things that the signatories to the treaty could enrich LEU practically as much as they wish.
Few experts question the legality of Iran's claim. The only problem here is that in Iran's case, the UN Security Council has denied this aspect of the treaty because for 17 years Iran was conducting a completely secret program. Iran, of course, considers it unfair and an impingement on its national sovereignty.
Among those who agree with the legal side of the argument is ISIS president David Albright. While refusing to speculate on Iran's real motivations, he is quite canny about the risks involved. Albright - a physicist and a former inspector - told ISN Security Watch that based on the IAEA findings, Iran could move toward a "break out" as early a few months from now.
"There is a minimum of 1,500 pounds of LEU needed to produce the 45-60 weapons-grade uranium for a simple nuclear bomb under optimal conditions," he told ISN Security Watch. "If you look at the metrics, they can move to that capability in six months to two years," since mastering enrichment by centrifuges "is not difficult; it is simple trial and error."
International quietude
At any other time, such a bleak assessment would have been grit to a US administration obsessed with "rogue states" and proliferation concerns. But as it comes on the waning days of a less-than popular presidency, there has not been much in the way of a US-directed propaganda blitz against Iran.
Experts believe part of President George W Bush's surprising inaction was fear of an Israeli aerial attack on Iran - a move that would have certainly sucked Bush into an unwanted regional war with Iran and its proxies in Iraq and Lebanon with dire consequences for US interests.
A 25 September report in the Guardian newspaper revealed that Bush had denied requests by Israel for special equipment needed for attacking Iran, thus sending a signal of US opposition to such a move.
The Washington Post reported that in June, on a visit to Israel, US National Intelligence chief Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen underplayed concerns about Iran, telling senior Israeli defense officials that Iran was far from obtaining nuclear weapons.
There were also other causes for not seizing on the latest IAEA report. Chief among them were the conflict in the Caucasus and the impending financial crisis. The war between Georgia and Russia over breakaway South Ossetia completely overshadowed all other developments for many weeks. In addition, the rising East-West tension precluded a unified stance toward Iran at the Security Council. In fact, Russia initially threatened to miss the Security Council meeting aimed at censuring Iran. When it did finally show up, both China and Russia insisted on a verbal rebuke.
The way ahead
Iran has been biding its time and refusing to accept 5+1 offers so far. According to Patrick Clawson of the conservative Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy, this may be part of a two-pronged strategy.
Other than building more centrifuges and mastering uranium enrichment techniques, the Iranians would like to wait it out until "they could get the best possible deal" with one of the three most important men in America, i.e. Bush, McCain and Obama.
"Between McCain and Obama, Obama is likely to offer a better deal to them," he told ISN Security Watch. "Therefore if McCain wins, we may find Iranians wanting to make a deal with Bush." This is so presumably because Bush is known to have end-of-term legacy-consciousness.
With most people expecting an Obama win on 4 November, the Iranians must be focusing on the Democratic candidate's political profile more than ever. But if there had been any lingering hope for the Iranians to strike a (more) favorable deal with a future president Obama, it was probably dashed long ago by the increasingly hard-line positions that Obama has taken toward them during the campaign season.
Calling a nuclear Iran "unacceptable," he said he would do anything in his power, including use of military force, to stop such an eventuality.
The change in Obama's rhetoric took place some time in middle of the summer, as the race with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination tightened. He also brought veteran Democratic hard-liners like Dennis Ross onboard his foreign policy advising team.
The last nail in the coffin of Iranian illusions was probably Joe Biden's startling comment on 19 October to the effect that he guaranteed a major international crisis for Obama in the first six months of his presidency. He may well have been referring to Iran.