Iran Weathers Rhetorical Storm at IAEA Over Nuclear Program

By Greg Webb
Global Security Newswire

VIENNA — After agreeing not to pursue a formal resolution of condemnation, members of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board assailed Iran today for the nation’s purported reluctance to disclose more information about its nuclear activities (see GSN, March 4).

Particularly stinging was British Ambassador Simon Smith, who addressed the 35-nation board on behalf of France, Germany and the United Kingdom.  His comments came two days after the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution hiking economic sanctions against Iran for the nation’s refusal to accede to earlier demands to freeze key nuclear activities.

There is “no doubt that Iran’s record in complying with these requirements remains abysmal,” Smith said today, the final day of this week’s board session.  “As long as Iran’s choice remains one of noncooperation, we for our part will remain determined to demonstrate the costs and consequences of that choice.”

Monday’s council action strengthened bans on certain Iranian individuals and called for additional economic hardships on a set of Iranian companies.  The council demanded Iran freeze its uranium enrichment program, as well as other sensitive nuclear activities, within 90 days.  Tehran has ignored two earlier resolutions that made the same demands.

Here in Vienna, European powers opted not to introduce a resolution to the IAEA board, with Russia arguing that two declarations were unnecessary (see related GSN story, today).

The board resolution would, in any case, have far fewer teeth than the council’s, which imposed actual sanctions.  One draft version of a board document simply restated the issues that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said need further study and urged Iran to improve its cooperation with the agency.

ElBaradei recently reported to the board that a number of questions about Iran’s programs remain unanswered, particularly regarding allegations that Tehran has pursued nuclear weaponization activities.

“Although Iran has provided some additional detailed information about its current activities on an ad hoc basis, the IAEA will not be in a position to make progress towards providing credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran before reaching some clarity about the alleged studies,” said the draft resolution.

Smith took up that point today, criticizing Iranian officials for what he said was their limited and begrudging cooperation with the IAEA effort to understand Iran’s past nuclear accomplishments and future ambitions. 

“Where, in the director general’s report or elsewhere, is there evidence that Iran has made any unprompted and proactive effort to address the questions?  Where is the evidence that Iran has sought with any genuineness to add to the knowledge and understanding that the agency already has?” Smith asked.  “Information has been provided by Iran on an ad hoc, incomplete and inconsistent basis.”

“These dismissive responses are wholly unsatisfactory,” he added.

Piling on in his remarks to the board today was U.S. Ambassador Gregory Schulte, who said there is “international mistrust in the nature of Iran’s nuclear activities and the intentions of its leadership.”

Schulte focused on several specific allegations that Iran has conducted efforts to develop narrow, nuclear-weapon technologies.  ElBaradei’s most recent board report noted that the agency is looking into documents that describe Iranian interest in building an explosive testing shaft, designing a nuclear-capable missile re-entry vehicle, and using shock-wave software that could have nuclear trigger implications.

“I am not an engineer.  But I suspect that technicians don’t need to shelter themselves 10 kilometers away to test conventional weapons …  or automotive air bags,” he said regarding the alleged test site plans and one explanation Iran has offered.

Late last year, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iran does not have current plans to develop nuclear weapons, but Schulte warned that past efforts could give the nation a breakout capability.

“This is an effort that Iran’s leaders could choose to restart at any moment — or hold in abeyance until their uranium enrichment capabilities are sufficiently advanced,” he said.

Speaking after his Western adversaries, Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh replied with now-common and often curious comments.

Iran has successfully eliminated many earlier suspicions about its nuclear activities, most notably by proving to the agency that traces of highly enriched uranium found in Iranian centrifuges were not produced by activity within the country.  Rather, the agency concluded that the material had been on the equipment when it was delivered to Iran by the international smuggling network once led by former Pakistani nuclear chief Abdul Qadeer Khan (see related GSN story, today).

Soltanieh, today and in earlier presentations over the past three years, has noted these accomplishments, but he has also made patently erroneous statements that would appear to undermine Iran’s credibility in the nuclear standoff.

Speaking to the board today, for example, Soltanieh said, “the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency has officially declared that all outstanding issues regarding the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been resolved.”

This assertion, however, simply contradicted ElBaradei’s comments earlier this week.  The agency has “been able to clarify all but one of the remaining outstanding issues,” the IAEA chief said Monday in his remarks to open the board meeting.

Similarly, Soltanieh twice this week described the August 2007 “work plan” — designed to guide the agency’s review of Iran’s past nuclear activities — as scheduled to last for 18 months.  He then praised his nation for completing the plan’s requirements in only six months.

The text of the work plan, however, makes clear that the plan should be completed in about six months, not 18.  So the plan would appear to be on schedule if it were finished today, not 12 months ahead of schedule.

Currently the plan is hung up on resolving questions regarding the suspected weaponization studies, charges that Soltanieh today called “a bunch of worthless allegations.”

He criticized the United States, the supplier of the documents raising the key questions, for refusing to make more of the documents available for scrutiny.

“Said country wants to keep control of the fabricated documents and manipulate and prolong the process,” Soltanieh said.

He reminded the board of the now-infamous “Niger Documents” that U.S. officials once used to claim that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.  Those documents were later revealed to be poor-quality forgeries that were quickly exposed when examined by non-U.S. analysts (see GSN, Jan. 18, 2006).

Soltanieh this week said that the latest charges against Iran are based on similarly “forged” information.

One new tactic offered up by Soltanieh today was a threat that Iran would someday seek repayment for the troubles it has faced.

“Be sure that the day would come when we request the compensations for all these damages inflicted on Iran and its peoples through these unsubstantiated allegations and unlawful actions elsewhere,” he said.

Taking the middle ground, South African Ambassador to the IAEA Abdul Minty urged Iran to cooperate with the agency.  However, he criticized Western powers for pushing the Security Council resolution — even though South Africa backed it in New York.

Minty said ElBaradei had highlighted many positive points in his recent report, in particular noting that Iran has successfully clarified many former areas of concern.

“It was not clear to us why the Security Council should adopt a further punitive resolution against Iran at a time when it was cooperating with the IAEA and significant progress was being made in resolving the outstanding issues and completing the agreed work plan,” he told the board.

He also expressed disappointment that the council acted before this week’s board meeting could consider ElBaradei’s latest report.

“This creates the impression that the verification work of the agency and the important progress that has been made is virtually irrelevant to the co-sponsors of the resolution,” he said.

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.