|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Iran Proclaims Breakthrough in Nuclear Program
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday said his nation had reached a major milestone in its efforts to develop uranium enrichment technology, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, April 11). Iranian Atomic Energy Organization chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh said the breakthrough came Monday at the Natanz pilot enrichment plant. He said the facility had successfully produced material containing 3.5 percent of the isotope uranium 235 — sufficient for use in nuclear power plants but far below the 80 percent needed for weapons. Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, the Post reported. “This achievement has paved the way for Iran to start its industrial-scale production and, to enter this stage, we are trying to put in operation a complex of 3,000 centrifuges” by mid-March 2007, Aghazadeh said. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the announcement meant that Iran continued to defy international mandates to suspend enrichment-related activities that Washington believes is connected to a nuclear weapons program. “This is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community,” McClellan said. “Instead, it’s moving in the wrong direction.” The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran was operating a 164-centrifuge cascade. Agency inspectors, expected in Tehran today, are to verify the latest production of nuclear fuel. “This means they can operate a larger cascade, but can they do it for a long time? We don’t know,” said a Western official involved in monitoring Iran’s work. Experts and diplomats, however, said the technical development was significant. “It is an acceleration of the pace of their technology, which certainly worries us,” said a European diplomat in Tehran. “The bottom line is they completely ignored what the rest of the world tells them to do. So they’ll have to take the consequences, I guess.” A U.S. diplomat expressed skepticism. “We don’t yet know if it’s true or not, and getting one little drop doesn’t mean much anyhow,” the diplomat said (Vick/Linzer, Washington Post, April 12). Iranian Deputy Nuclear Chief Mohammad Saidi told state television today that Iran intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges, the Associated Press reported. “We will expand uranium enrichment to industrial scale at Natanz,” he said. He said Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz by late 2006, then expand to 54,000 centrifuges by an undisclosed date (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 12). The United States yesterday warned that Iran’s reported nuclear advance could increase international pressures on the country, Reuters reported. “If the regime continues to move in the direction that it is currently, then we will be talking about the way forward with the other members of the Security Council and Germany about how to address this going forward,” McClellan said. The State Department said it could not confirm Iran’s claim. Robert Einhorn, a former senior U.S. nonproliferation official, told Reuters that Iran’s announcement is “probably a premature declaration of success, perhaps done for political reasons.” The announcement might be followed by a move from Iran to once again freeze enrichment and restart negotiations, he said. “On the other hand, it might be designed to convey the message that at this point it will do the world no good to conduct military strikes because Iran already has this technology ... and can replicate it,” Einhorn said (Giacomo/Zakaria, Reuters I, April 11). Russia today joined criticism of Iran’s announcement, Agence France-Presse reported. “We believe this is a step in the wrong direction,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin. “It runs counter to the resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors and the declarations from representatives of the United Nations Security Council.” “We hope that Iran correctly understands the concern of the international community and takes practical steps to implement IAEA decisions. These include a call for suspension of all uranium enrichment work, including scientific research,” Kamynin said. “We are in a very bad situation,” said Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy head of the USA-Canada Institute think tank, referring to Russia’s Iran policy. “Is this the result of our carelessness or was it intentional? We have made too many mistakes on this issue. Is it not we who have created this problem by supporting a peaceful nuclear program for Iran? If we were so worried, why have we not worked more closely with the West to end Iran’s nuclear program?" he said (Christopher Boian, Agence France-Presse I/Mail & Guardian, April 12). A European Union spokeswoman today expressed concern over Iran’s announcement, Reuters reported. “This is regrettable,” said Emma Udwin, a spokeswomen for Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU commissioner for external relations. “We will continue to seek a diplomatic solution, but such announcements are not helpful” (Reuters II, April 12). An Iranian opposition figure said Tehran would be able to make nuclear bombs within two or three years, AFP reported yesterday. “Once they master the technique, then they will only be a screwdriver’s turn away from making fissile material for a bomb,” said Alireza Jafarzadeh. “Iran has about 5,000 centrifuges ready to be installed in (the) Natanz uranium enrichment facility,” he said. “The nuclear clock is rapidly ticking and we don’t have much time. Unless the international community acts now, Iran will eventually get a bomb,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, April 11). Israel today issued a cautious response to Iran’s announcement. “The United States has placed this issue at the top of its agenda. I do not recommend that we should be involved,” former Prime Minister Shimon Peres told Israel Radio. “I am sure the United States is aware of the expected danger and the matter is in its hands.” Israeli chief of staff Dan Halutz told Army Radio that Iran was far from being able to manufacture a nuclear weapon. “The Iranians are still not there,” he said. “It will take time until they have a nuclear ability and time is there for dialogue to stop the program” (Luke Baker, Reuters III, April 12). Meanwhile U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed published reports of U.S. planning for military strikes on Iran as “fantasyland.” “We have I do not know how many various contingency plans in this department,” he said yesterday, according to AFP. “And the last thing I am going to do is to start telling you or anyone else in the press or the world at what point we refresh a plan or do not refresh a plan and why,” he said. “It just is not useful.” “And I have responded with respect to Iran,” he added. “We are on a diplomatic track. The president has said exactly what he wants said. And we support the president” (Agence France-Presse III/Yahoo!News, April 11). Gen. Michael Moseley, head of the U.S. Air Force, said he has not been involved in any internal Defense Department discussions over the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran, AFP reported yesterday. “I’ve not been in any meeting that is portrayed in the way the articles are written over the weekend,” he said. “There are always operational planning endeavors ongoing,” he said. “It’s not appropriate to comment on particular military options.” He added, however, that the Air Force can destroy buried, hardened targets using conventional weapons, depending on how deep they are. “There are a variety of weapons that can penetrate concrete and steel structures, and there are variety of weapons that can penetrate a mix of concrete and steel and sand and rubble structures,” Moseley said. “There are potentials I would suppose of things so deep and so hardened that it would be hard to get through with anything,” he said (Agence France-Presse IV/Yahoo!News, April 11). Analysts warned of the potential cost and unpredictable nature of a conflict that could follow air strikes, AFP reported yesterday. “You cannot go into it assuming it will stay limited, so very quickly, a limited military operation becomes a relatively unlimited military operation,” said Richard Haas, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. A “furious” Iranian response to such assaults was “highly likely,” according to Kenneth Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution. “We can talk about a surgical strike where all we do is go in with a bunch of airplanes and flatten a few buildings. That’s effectively what Osama bin Laden did on Sept. 11. And look at how we reacted,” Pollack said. An escalated bombing campaign targeting hundreds of sites would be necessary, said Reuel Gerecht, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. “I think those who argue that you have to do 100 sites, 200 sites, I actually think they’re being a little intellectually dishonest,” he said. “You’re going to have to be prepared to absorb the Iranian response to that.” Joseph Cirincione, nonproliferation director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warned that an attack could also strengthen support for Ahmadinejad. “I believe a military strike would consolidate the hold of the Islamic government, not loosen it. If you want to keep President Ahmadinejad in power for the next five years, launch a strike on an Iranian facility,” he said (Agence France-Presse V/Yahoo!News, April 11).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
