Iran & The Nuclear Talks: The View from Tehran

Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh of the Tehran International Studies and Research Institute writes for Iran Review about the current state of discussions over Iran's uranium enrichment programme: "The issue is not too complicated and under normal circumstances, the chances of finding a solution are greater than before."

First of all, let me point out certain facts about Iran’s nuclear case:

1. Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. In 1974, the country signed a bilateral agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is known as the Nuclear Safeguards Act, to allow IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. The agreement has been registered under No. INFCIRC/214 as Information Circular 153 (INFCIRC/153). Accordingly, the Agency has conducted many inspections of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear facilities, all of which attested to the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities.

Iran: Why the US Sanctions Game on Tehran is All Wrong
The Latest from Iran (21 December): The Montazeri Funeral

2. The West’s treatment of Iran nuclear case before presidency of Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made not only the Iranian elite, but also the public conclude that the end result would be losses, giving concessions with no result, submission to West’s bullying, and foregoing an inalienable and natural right.

Thereafter, all forms of negotiations were considered negative, and anything that led to progress in nuclear research was construed an emblem of patriotism, which strengthened a sense of self-confidence and national self-reliance.

3. Interactions between Iran and the Agency have been based more on goodwill than confrontation. During all the time that the Agency has been in charge of Iran’s nuclear case, adoption of a cooperative policy by the Islamic Republic of Iran toward the Agency has prompted the IAEA director general to declare more than once that there has been no evidence to prove any deviation in Iran’s nuclear program toward non-peaceful applications, and the Agency has been able to verify reports submitted by Iran. All his reports attested to Iran having implemented the Safeguards Act. Iran has also provided access to declared nuclear material by the Agency and has presented necessary reports related to those materials and other nuclear activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Agency has admitted in its reports that all nuclear materials produced at Natanz facility, all installed cascades and the whole UF6 produced at Isfahan UCF are under full control of IAEA and have been accounted for. On the other hand, the Agency has announced in reports issued in September and November 2005 as well as February 2008 that all outstanding issues related to Iran’s nuclear activities have been resolved and the case has been closed.

4. As for allegations about Iran pursuing a military nuclear program, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency has frequently noted that there has been no evidence to uphold those allegations. In his report in May 26, 2008, Mohamed El Baradei noted that the Agency has found no information about practical design or production of nuclear weapon components in Iran. In the same report, the director general noted that there has been no practical use of nuclear materials for purposes mentioned in alleged studies. Also, one day after publication of a report by the American intelligence agencies on Iran’s nuclear program, the IAEA director general issued a statement noting that the intelligence estimate on Iran’s nuclear program totally conformed to what the Agency had asserted in the past few years about absence of any conclusive evidence to prove that there was a weapons program underway in Iran.

What is the main point which every fair mind would associate with the above paragraphs? The conclusions reached after reading the above paragraphs will be, at least, as follows:

1. At no time in the past few years have Iran’s nuclear activities been out of control;

2. Iran’s willingness to interact with the Agency is not just a propaganda drive and has been proven on many occasions; and

3. The political dimension of the nuclear program greatly outweighs its legal dimension.

Interestingly, despite all cooperation that Iran has shown with the International Atomic Energy Agency and its good interaction with P5+1 [US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China], and although Iran remains committed to NPT, the nuclear case has been reflected in Western media in such a way that as if this is the greatest threat to international peace and security.

Iif Iran was bent on opposing the demands of international community or not complying with its obligations, halting negotiations with P5+1 or quitting the NPT would have been the most available options for a country conducting a clandestine nuclear program. The claim that Iran is trying to buy time is not true: the time needed to increase uranium enrichment from below 5 percent to above 90 percent for a country which, despite extensive sanctions is trying to do it through indigenous know-how, is not comparable to prolonged periods of negotiations or asking for more time to review a proposed package more painstakingly.

At present, the nuclear case of Iran has hit a new deadline. Those who thought that Obama’s new approach and his emphasis on negotiations, combined with Iran’s acceptance of the proposal to swap its low enriched uranium with 20-percent enriched uranium, would work to solve the problem now feel that they have been duped. This is not a good sign. Marginalization of optimism and of those who hope to achieve a diplomatic solution will only bring those who have sought a military solution from the first to the fore. They will emphasize that if Iran’s nuclear facilities are bombed or more paralyzing sanctions are imposed, Iran and Iranians would be brought to their knees. After destruction of all Iranian facilities, the world would be back to normal and peace would be restored!

I don’t know about you, but I feel people who reach such a conclusion have closed their eyes on a major part of human history or know nothing about psychological reactions of nations who feel that they have been wronged.

To head off this process, finding a solution to Iran’s nuclear issue needs tact and discretion more than anything else. Both sides should be discreet enough to sit at the negotiating table and look at this issue from another angel. Otherwise, the headlines which we must expect to see in the coming weeks would be something like these: renewed threats from P5+1 on Iran’s nuclear program; Iran reiterates peaceful nature of its nuclear program; new Security Council resolution against Iran introduces tougher sanctions; Iran says resolution not fair, still insisting on nuclear rights; more sanctions contemplated by US and Europe; more pressure on Russia and China to reduce trade with Iran; Iran says capable of enriching uranium up to 20 percent; West intensifies sanctions against Iran….

However, if another side like the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose main intent is to calm down both sides and highlight positive signals which point to a possible agreement, takes up the case and goes beyond usual obstinate positions taken by the two sides to find a balanced model based on understanding of current problems, it is sure to reach a good conclusion. The issue is not too complicated and under normal circumstances, the chances of finding a solution are greater than before.

Comments

[hass]

There's no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran. Period.

VIENNA (Reuters) - The incoming head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Friday he did not see any hard evidence Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.

"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment on Iran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL312024420090703

[Dave]

They're building 'breeder' reactors. This is what worries the international community. You get more fissile waste material with this type of reactor than any other reactor. The international community can't keep tabs on this thing. That's why they are suspicious.

[hass]

Actually they're NOT building "breeder" reactors. The Bushehr reactor is a light water reactor which cannot be used to make nukes, and the reactor under construction at Arak is a heavy water reactor that is under IAEA safeguards and furthermore Iran has already offered to forgo plutonium extraction thus making it impossible to even theoretically use the reactor to make bombs.

[Dave]

What about the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz?

[hass]

The uranium enrichment plant in Natanz is not a "breeder reactor" and its product -- low enriched uranium -- cannot be used to make bombs, and furthermore it is subject to 24-hour monitoring by the IAEA, as are similar nuclear programs in other countries such as Argentina and Brazil. Iran's nuclear program started under the Shah, with the support and encouragement of the United States, because it makes economic sense for Iran and the world. After the revolution, the US started interfering with Iran's nuclear program (forcing the IAEA to terminate a perfectly legit and overt assistance program to Iran's enrichment facility in 1984 -- so Iran had to obtain some components that it was legally entitled to hae from Pakistan as a result.) Far from being a "secret" program, the Iranians announced their plans to enrich uranium on national radio in 1983, and IAEA monitors visited Iran's uranium mines in 1994, and Iran announced the construction of a uranium conversion facility to the IAEA in 2000. To date, there is still no actual evidence of any nuclear weapons program, and Iran has offered many compromise offers to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program BEYOND its legal obligations, such as to open its program to joint operation with the US to ensure that it can't be secretly used to make nukes -- but these offers have been totally ignored. The Developing Nations support Iran's right to have its own enrichment program. The US argues that Iran "could" one day use the program to build a bomb -- but so "could" 40 other countries and counting.

[hass]

Needless to say, the Developing Nations think the US concerns for nuclear weapons proliferation is really just a pretext (just as WMDs in Iraq were pretexts) and think that the US and some developing countries are really simply trying to monopolize the technology to make nuclear reactor fuel, the sole energy source of the near future.

[ilona@israel]

you know what is funny? i am sure that Iran is serious in his intention to create nuclear weapons but heres their official position:
PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN (through translator): I think that
some of the claims about the nuclear issue have turned into repetitive
and tasteless jokes.

SAWYER: Would you like to see this document, is a joke?

AHMADINEJAD: No, I don't want to see this kind of document. These
are some fabricated papers issued by the American government.
LMAO.

[hass]

Yea. Remember the "Yellowcake from Niger" documents "proving" that Saddam had WMDs? Yeah, that was really funny too. Especially when they turned out to be forgeries.