Battle Rages at IAEA Meeting Over Iranian Nuclear Transparency

By Greg Webb
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — Iranian diplomats today sought to deflect a withering salvo of international criticism over their cooperation with efforts to clarify the scope and intent of Tehran’s nuclear activities. Senior officials exchanged rhetorical blasts at a quarterly meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors (see GSN, March 1).

The United States launched first, delivering a six-page statement accusing Iran of “being willing — and apparently able — to cynically manipulate the nuclear nonproliferation regime in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.” U.S. delegation head Jackie Sanders today read the statement that highlighted “a startling list of Iranian attempts to hide and mislead, and delay the work of IAEA inspectors. It is clear that Iran has continued to deny inspectors the transparency and cooperation they need to perform their duties.”

Transparency, in particular Iran’s willingness to voluntarily provide access to sites it says have no role in its nuclear program, has emerged as the key point of contention at the meeting. Yesterday, the agency revealed the Iran has refused a request for inspectors to revisit a military research site at Parchin, where the United States suspects Iran of developing the conventional high-explosive components of nuclear weapons.

Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei today pressed Iran to allow inspectors to visit sites of their choosing.

“This is a special case,” he told reporters. “This is a program that has been clandestine for almost two decades and it is difficult [for the agency to] come to a conclusion and provide assurance without full cooperation, full openness, full transparency on the part of Iran.” 

“And that’s what we are asking Iran to do: To go out of their way, not just to play by the book, but to be more transparent, to allow us to do everything we want to do, frankly,” he said. “If I say there are three important things Iran needs to do, I would say ‘transparency, transparency and more transparency.’”

Europe contributed to the fray as well. “While transparency visits have taken place, Iran seems to have been determined to limit their scope,” said a statement from France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The three nations are engaged in talks with Iran to find a long-term resolution to the nuclear crisis, with the next round is set to begin March 12 in Geneva.

Iran gave no ground. Delegation leader Sirus Naseri defended Tehran’s hesitance to allow more transparency visits, saying he had two major concerns.

First is the fear of setting a precedent. “It seems a process is being formed which can only be called an open-ended process,” he said. “Relying on entirely unreliable open-source information for continuing to insist on visiting military sites is not the norm that the agency would follow on any country amongst its members.”

“There have been visits in the past to military sites based on open-source information; in a sense all of them have hit the dirt. And we just cannot have a situation where things carry on and carry on forever,” Naseri said.

The precedent problem, however, takes a back stage to another concern, he said.

“We have a serious problem about confidentiality. Whatever information that is passed to the agency, discussed with agency officials, raised with inspectors, almost immediately appears in the media,” Naseri said. “That could be a matter that could jeopardize the smooth working relationship between Iran and the agency.”

“When sensitive areas are visited, the information that becomes available to the agency can be of high value to others, including those who may not have the best of intentions,” he continued. “Notions of threats of attacks against Iran’s safeguarded and other facilities by a major nuclear-weapon state are still there.”

Naseri suggested that spies have infiltrated the agency, and criticized the reported U.S. eavesdropping of ElBaradei’s telephone (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2004).

“We don’t know how many people, outsiders, are continuously monitoring the discussions that take place within the agency. We know about the eavesdropping and that could by itself be an indication that further and other activities are also being conducted,” he said.

Rigid differences also appear to be threatening progress in the Europe-Iran talks, where Iran has steadfastly insisted that it would never shut down its uranium enrichment program, a demand reportedly made by the European nations.

“It is not on the table, it will not be on the table and it should not be on the table,” Naseri told reporters yesterday. This afternoon, he reiterated Iran’s plans to build an extensive fuel production complex capable of producing volumes of material far in excess of Iranian needs.

“Nuclear fuel production is a part of a lucrative market in the near future. Within a decade or so, there will be a stronger demand for nuclear energy to all forecasts and therefore a much stronger demand for nuclear fuel. We have the technology, we have the facilities, and we will produce nuclear fuel for our own consumption first and hopefully one day for making it available in a competitive manner to others who would require it,” he said. “It would be entirely wrong and misguided to ask Iran to give this capability up.”

The United States, for its part, expressed concerns over Iran retaining any enrichment capability.

“Given Iran’s history of clandestine nuclear activities and its documented efforts to deceive the IAEA and the international community, only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran’s fissile material production can begin to give us any confidence that Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons,” Sanders said in her statement to the board today.

The United States also renewed its call for the agency board to refer the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council. 

“The board has a statutory obligation to do so — but thus far, has failed to do so. The board cannot ignore forever its statutory responsibility to report this matter to the UNSC,” Sanders said.

“The Security Council has the international legal and political authority that will be required to bring this issue to a successful and peaceful resolution,” including the ability to require and enforce a suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium processing activities, she said.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s top safeguards official yesterday disclosed that Iran has informed the agency that it plans to continue production of a heavy water research reactor, the type of facility that many proliferation experts assert to be excellent for producing plutonium.

As the Board of Governors has not referred Iran to the Security Council, the United States sought to build pressure on Tehran by proposing a special board committee to consider the issue, according to a Western diplomat familiar with board activities.

The initial U.S. proposal recommended filling the committee with a select group of board members and giving the group decision-making authority, the diplomat said. Opposition from a broad spectrum of board members, however, forced the U.S. delegation to reduce its stringent demands and to allow all board members to participate. In addition, the United States made a concession on the body’s authority, agreeing that the committee would only make recommendations to the board, which would in turn make formal decisions, the diplomat said.

As diplomats ended today’s meeting, they had reached no final decision on creating the special committee.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.