A top Russian official today urged Iran to resume a moratorium on its uranium enrichment program if Tehran hopes to take part in a proposed joint venture to enrich its uranium in Russia, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 3).
“Our proposal on creating a joint enterprise remains in force,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak told Interfax. “Its fulfillment is possible if Iran returns to the moratorium as is set out in the resolution adopted by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency.” The agency’s governing board on Saturday voted to send the matter Iran’s controversial nuclear activities to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions or other penalties if Iran fails to comply with agency guidelines. Tehran quickly said it would resume uranium enrichment and put an end to short-notice international inspections of its nuclear facilities, AP reported. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine daily that he was “still hoping for a sensible compromise that Iran would engage in for the sake of its own interests.” “We have made a good proposal. The Iranian leadership must decide shortly,” Ivanov said (Associated Press I/MosNews.com, Feb. 6). On Saturday, Javad Vaidi, deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, said there was “no adequate reason to pursue the Russian plan” after the IAEA decision to report Iran to the Security Council. Iran yesterday backtracked, saying it would hold talks with Moscow on the proposal, AP reported. “The situation has changed. Still, we will attend talks with Russia on Feb. 16,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press II/RedNova.com, Feb. 5). Only Cuba, Syria and Venezuela voted against the European-drafted resolution reporting Iran to the Security Council, while Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained from the 27-3 decision, the New York Times reported yesterday. Following the vote, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the country’s nuclear commission to resume uranium enrichment activities. In his letter, he wrote that “the nuclear agency has voted under pressure by few countries and has ignored our extensive cooperation and negated our legal right,” the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, Feb. 5). “The era of coercion and domination has ended,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by IRNA. “Issue as many resolutions like this as you want and make yourself happy. You can’t prevent the progress of the Iranian nation.” “In the name of the IAEA they want to visit all our nuclear facilities and learn our defense capabilities, but we won’t allow them to do this,” he said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press III/Yahoo!News, Feb. 6). While Ahmadinejad said Tehran would no longer observe the terms of the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, according to the Times, “all the country’s peaceful activities will remain within the framework of the” Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, he said. Iran said yesterday that industrial-scale uranium enrichment work would resume in “due course,” Agence France-Presse reported. “The order from the president lifts the voluntary restrictions and Iran will resume its work,” said government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 6). The Security Council is not expected to take any action against Iran until March, when IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei is expected to release a comprehensive report on Tehran’s activities, the Times reported. The White House on Saturday described the agency’s vote as “a clear message” to Iran. “Iran’s true interests lie in working with the international community to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy, not in isolating Iran by continuing to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons,” President George W. Bush said in the statement. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran must suspend its nuclear activities, cooperate on inspections and resume negotiations in order to avoid Security Council penalties, the Times reported. The resolution passed after Washington finally agreed late Friday to accept a clause expressing support for a WMD-free Middle East. The clause, which indirectly criticized Israel for its undeclared nuclear arsenal, was demanded by Egypt and also had support from China, the European powers and Russia. “A solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery,” the clause says. China and Russia, meanwhile, released separate statements indicating that they did not support the two U.S. arguments for the referral: Iran’s noncompliance with its treaty obligations and the interest of peace and security. “This problem will be solved within the framework of the IAEA without additional interference,” said Russian Ambassador Grigory Berdennikov (Sciolino, New York Times, Feb. 5). While several European Union officials praised the IAEA vote, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he was “very concerned and upset” by Iran's decision to retaliate by threatening to resume enrichment, AP reported. Russia urged Iran to “respond constructively” to the decision, “including the restoration of a voluntary moratorium on all uranium enrichment works.” A senior European diplomat said the five permanent Security Council members would increase pressure if Iran remains defiant beyond March 6, AP reported (George Jahn, Associated Press IV/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 5). A top U.S. intelligence official said yesterday that Iran seems intent on pursuing its nuclear program, regardless of threats of sanctions, AP reported. “There may be the potential there to dissuade them, but right now they appear to be very, very determined,” Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy national intelligence director, told “Fox News Sunday.” “Our overall intelligence community estimate is that Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons,” he said. “That fact shapes our policy, and it appears to be shaping the policy of other nations as well” (Associated Press V/Yahoo!News, Feb. 5). U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Saturday accused Iran of being the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, Reuters reported. “The Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Rumsfeld said. “The world does not want, and must work together to prevent, a nuclear Iran.” Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar told Iranian state television that Rumsfeld’s comments were “outrageous remarks and a ridiculous projection by the White House leaders” (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, Feb. 4). U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said on Saturday that the United States must be prepared to take military action against Iran, AP reported. Asked if Congress is willing to authorize use of force against Iran, First said, “The answer is yes, absolutely.” “We cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear nation,” he said. “We need to use diplomatic sanctions. If that doesn’t work, economic sanctions, and if that doesn’t work, the potential for military use has to be on the table” (Associated Press VI/KCTV5.com, Feb. 5).
Working-level officials from North Korea and the United States are reportedly scheduled to meet later this month to discuss stalled nuclear disarmament talks and U.S. financial regulatory actions against Pyongyang, the Yonhap News Agency reported today (see GSN, Feb. 2). The Japanese daily Sankei Shimbun cited diplomatic sources in Washington as saying that the two sides plan to meet in Washington (Yonhap News Agency/Korea Times, Feb. 6). Even if multilateral nuclear talks were to resume, chances are slim for a negotiated settlement, current and former U.S. officials told the Washington Post. There is a “good chance that [Pyongyang] will give the appearance of agreement to the six-party process in the hopes of keeping the pressure off them, slowing down the process and avoiding [making] a choice they don’t want to make — which is give up their nuclear weapons,” said Michael Green, the recently departed White House senior director for Asia policy. The September agreement, in which North Korea agreed in principle to give up its nuclear programs, “was not a strategic decision by North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons,” said Green, now a professor at Georgetown University and a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It was a tactical decision to sign on to the process. The key now is to use the process to force them to make the decision to give up their weapons.” Immediately following that agreement, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill hoped to visit North Korea, the Post reported yesterday. However, because North Korea refused to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor as a show of good faith, the visit never materialized, the officials said. That was a “missed opportunity,” South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said last month. “We really hoped that if Assistant Secretary Hill’s visit was realized, that might have helped in creating a better atmosphere for resolution of this nuclear issue.” If negotiations resume, the United States is prepared to compensate North Korea for freezing and dismantling its programs, U.S. officials said. However, one top U.S. official admitted that the issue was “sidelined now as all eyes are on Iran.” The criminal activities that the United States has accused North Korea of conducting account for 35 to 40 percent of the country’s exports and an even higher percentage of its total earnings, said David Asher, a former State Department official who until July helped manage the U.S. “illicit activities initiative” against North Korea (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Feb. 5). Meanwhile, a group of U.S. senators has requested that Bush declassify an intelligence report on North Korea’s nuclear weapons, Agence France-Presse reported Friday. A comprehensive national intelligence estimate of North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities was recently completed at the request of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). Reid and three other senior Democratic senators requested “a declassified version of that [estimate] so that Congress can have at hand accurate information about the current threat and engage in a full and free debate about the best policy on North Korea going forward.” “We urge you to clearly describe to America and the Congress your policies on North Korea so that we can begin, in a bipartisan effort, to put U.S. policy on a more productive path that reduces the threat to U.S. national security,” the senators told Bush in writing on Friday (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 3).
A pending civilian nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the United Stares remains tenuous even as New Delhi prepares for a state visit by U.S. President George W. Bush in March, Electricity Daily reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31). The United States has said that if India does not designate a “great majority” of its nuclear reactors as civilian in nature, the U.S. Congress would be more inclined to oppose the deal. Indian officials, however, told Electricity Daily that New Delhi has rejected the possibility of placing all or most of its reactors in the civilian category. India has 22 reactors, all but six of which are designated for energy production under international safeguards. Washington wants the remaining six to also be placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, according to Electricity Daily (Electricity Daily, Feb. 6). Meanwhile, a state visit by French President Jacques Chirac from Feb. 19-21 is expected to result in a civilian nuclear cooperation deal between New Delhi and Paris, the Press Trust of India reported yesterday. The agreement is similar to that signed last year by Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington, diplomatic sources told PTI. “The groundwork for the deal has been done and if all goes well, it will be signed during Chirac's visit here,” a diplomat said. They said French public opinion in favor of the agreement would make it more likely to be implemented than the U.S.-Indian deal (Press Trust of India/DefenseIndia.com, Feb. 5).
Pakistan is unlikely to receive U.S. civilian nuclear technology cooperation along the lines of Washington’s pending deal with India, experts said last week (see GSN, Jan. 24). U.S. experts said Friday at a Woodrow Wilson Center conference in Washington that Pakistan’s history of proliferation activities have made it an unlikely candidate for such a deal, the Hindustan Times reported. Experts also said that Pakistan would oppose the nuclear agreement between the United States and India if Washington stands in the way of other powers that would offer Islamabad a similar deal (Hindustan Times/webindia123.com, Feb. 4).
The Bush administration’s fiscal 2007 budget is expected to include funding for a proposed international nuclear fuel bank partnership with Russia, the New York Times reported Saturday (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2005). Russia and the United States would provide reactor fuel to other countries and repatriate the spent fuel after use to ensure it is not used in weapons. The budget, scheduled to be released today, also includes about $250 million for continuing research on two technologies that could reduce nuclear waste, the Times reported (Wald/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 4).
The National Nuclear Security Administration should make several improvements to its program for verifying the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Friday (see GSN, Jan. 17). The “quantification of margins and uncertainties” (QMU) system designates factors crucial to a nuclear weapon’s ongoing viability. The methodology is used to assess how close each factor is to failure and the amount of certainty in each margin of error. Those calculations are used in determining how to use resources related to the nuclear stockpile and for certification of redesigned weapons planned under the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, the GAO report states. Auditors reported several weaknesses in the management of the QMU system. They said the National Nuclear Security Administration has failed to integrate research being conducted at the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories on the methodology; has yet to produce a specific set of guidelines for the system’s development; has not formally required annual reviews of the program at the laboratories for certifying that milestones had been reached; and has not produced performance measures for assessing the laboratories’ QMU implementation efforts. The report contains five recommendations for the NNSA administrator: require the three laboratories to formally agree upon a technical description of the QMU system that addresses any methodological differences between the facilities; require occasional collaboration on the system between the laboratories; develop an integrated plan for QMU implementation; require annual reviews of scientific research at the laboratories that is designed to support the system; and revise performance evaluation plans for the laboratories to tie them more closely to the QMU effort (U.S. Government Accountability Office report, Feb. 3).
| 
Back to top
