A high-level adviser to Iran’s supreme leader today said that a six-nation proposal for breaking an international deadlock over Tehran’s controversial nuclear activities is acceptable “in principle,” the Financial Times reported (see GSN, July 1). The five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany last month put forward an offer of political and economic incentives that Iran would receive for halting its uranium enrichment program, a process that has concerned Western powers because it can produce a key nuclear weapon ingredient. Iran has long defended its enrichment program as an exclusively civilian effort while dismissing any international offers requiring its suspension. In an interview with Jomhouri-Eslami, former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Velayati said that rejecting the six-nation proposal would play into an U.S. and Israeli strategy of isolation by sending the message “that Iran is not for international work and negotiations. “(If) those who act against our interests want us not to accept (the proposal), then our expedience is in accepting it,” the newspaper quoted him as saying. “They say Iran should not make an atomic bomb and we say Iran needs nuclear energy. These two principles are your and our red lines which should be the basis for negotiations and (can be) agreed on,” he said. Velayati suggested that Iran could temporarily stop expanding its enrichment capability if the Security Council halted moves to impose new sanctions in a “freeze-for-freeze” period, during which the sides would negotiate an agenda for future talks. However, the Iranian adviser said that Tehran could not accept a six-week limit on the freeze period proposed by the world powers because it is uncertain how long preliminary negotiations would take. Iran would be required to halt all enrichment before actual negotiations could begin. Iran experts often consider Velayati’s statements to reflect the opinions of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and diplomats called his statements a sign that Tehran is carefully considering the six-nation proposal (Bozorgmehr/Blitz, Financial Times I, July 2). Velayati also made an apparent jab at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he cautioned that “(Iranian) officials … should avoid illogical and provocative sloganeering. A certain declaration could cause us problems; we need to be careful not to make these declarations,” Time reported yesterday. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told U.S. journalists yesterday that he expects his government to respond formally to the six-nation proposal in a “couple of weeks” (Adam Zagorin, Time, July 1). Mottaki’s remarks echoed Velayati’s hints that compromise is possible in the nuclear deadlock, the Wall Street Journal reported. "We see the potential for a new round of talks," he said at Iran's U.N. mission in New York. "The two sides are trying to see if they can arrive at a new modality." Mottaki dismissed a recent Israeli military exercise as “psychological warfare” rather than preparations for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. He contended that Israel lacks the capability to conduct such an attack and “it doesn’t seem like American public opinion would be able to accept another attack” following the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Mottaki said there is potential for the six-nation package and a parallel Iranian proposal for talks, saying that a combination of "the two packages can put together a good agenda" for possible negotiations. However, U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said yesterday that “no one is placing any bets” on actual negotiations taking place (Jay Solomon Wall Street Journal, July 2). “If they were serious about wanting to take us up on that offer, then that would be welcome. But I think we have every reason to be skeptical since we get mixed messages from them quite often,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said today. “The best way for us to respond to it is to say that we'll see,” she added (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, July 2). Some experts suggested that Iran continues to hint at possible compromise to delay new penalties for continuing its uranium enrichment, the New York Times reported. “As usual, they’re trying to keep all of their options open,” said Abbas Milani, Stanford University’s Iranian studies director. “They’re talking tough on one hand, hinting that they’re preparing for war, but also sending several signals that they’re willing to negotiate.” Analysts continue to debate whether Tehran is showing more flexibility over its nuclear work amid rising concerns of a possible Israeli strike. “Khamenei has always said you don’t compromise in the face of pressure, and this is the height of pressure,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “This is the worst time to project a compromise.” However, he added, “Stranger things have happened, I guess” (Helene Cooper, New York Times, July 2). “The military option is the last thing that we need to do and it will not be used easily," a Western diplomat in Israel told Reuters. "I don't think there will be an attack in the next six months." When asked about the anonymous U.S. official’s claim that the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran is increasing, State Department spokesman Casey said: "I have no information that would substantiate that. … The official State Department reaction to that is one, laughter, and saying 'Coward, get out there and talk about [it] on the record if you've actually got something to say'" (David Alexander, Reuters, July 1). “If force is used it will be catastrophic for the whole Middle East,” a Russian Foreign Ministry official said today (Agence France-Presse/Google News, July 2). Meanwhile, the Iranian parliament stated yesterday that Tehran could end all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency if new nuclear penalties are placed on Iran, RIA Novosti reported. A statement signed by 201 of the body’s 209 members called on EU nations to focus on diplomacy rather than sanctions, and warned that new penalties could trigger an expansion of Iranian nuclear activities. To date, the U.N. Security Council has imposed three sets of fairly light penalties on Iran for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment (RIA Novosti, July 1). Elsewhere, a high-level foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has said the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to international security, the Financial Times reported yesterday. “The most dangerous crisis we are going to face potentially in the next three to 10 years is if the Iranians get on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon,” said Obama has vowed that, if elected president, he would speak in person with Iran’s top officials without first demanding concessions,” said Anthony Lake, a former U.S. national security adviser working with Obama’s campaign. “If I were the Europeans I would much rather put on the table more sanctions, together with bigger carrots, and have that negotiation than I would face that crisis down the road.” Obama has said that, if elected president, he would conduct direct talks with Iranian leaders without first demanding conditions. “Unless you assume that (Iranian negotiators) have IQs less than those of eggplants, they are not likely to make major concessions for the privilege of speaking with us. So the question is: what is your strategy for the talks?” “Do you believe that simply sanctioning them can drive them into concessions before you talk, or do you believe that you need to have the sanctions there as a stick at the heart of negotiations?” (Dombey/Luce, Financial Times II, July 1).
A South Asia specialist in the U.S. House of Representatives said yesterday there is no time left this year for lawmakers here to approve a pending nuclear cooperation agreement with India, even if New Delhi resolves its political deadlock over the deal, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, July 1). "The clock has run out on our side of the border, because the clock has run out on their side," said Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee. "They're not going to be able to do it in time for us to act in this calendar year and certainly not during President Bush's administration." U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Monday that Washington understands the obstacles facing the deal in India. Key supporters of the ruling government argue the agreement, which would provide New Delhi with access to U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment in exchange for opening its civilian nuclear sites to international inspections, would give the United States undue influence over Indian affairs. "We have our own political calendar too, and our own legislative calendar, and it's very difficult, at this point, to assume that we could be able to get an agreement through (Congress) but certainly we'll make every effort," Casey said. President George W. Bush leaves office in January, nearly three years after he and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed the agreement. Stephen Cohen, an India analyst at the Brookings Institution, said it is still too early to rule out progress on the deal this year. "We never thought that the Bush people would produce something like this, or that the Indians would agree to it … and I never say never," Cohen said (Paul Eckert, Reuters/Yahoo!News, July 1). The ruling Congress party in India is reportedly considering whether to move ahead with the deal despite the threat from allied communist parties to force early elections this year in response. The party is seeking support from India’s Socialist Party to counter the potential loss of backing from the communists and stave off elections this year, the Associated Press reported. Socialist leaders are expected to make a decision tomorrow (Ashok Sharma, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 2). U.S. Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said he would work to win approval for the pact if India’s administration takes the necessary steps to implement it, Agence France-Presse reported. "If these reports are in fact true, and I hope they are, I am committed to work hard in order to get Congress to approve such a deal — as long as the required steps are taken and if the agreement with the United States meets the requirements of U.S. law," said Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden restated his February warning to India’s leadership that “time is running out very quickly.” “Every day without an agreement leaves us fewer legislative days before this congressional term ends," he said (Agence France-Presse/Google News, July 1).
North Korea quietly noted U.S. suspicions regarding uranium enrichment and nuclear proliferation activities in a message delivered to Washington several days before the Stalinist state submitted the overdue declaration of its nuclear activities, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 1). Acknowledgement of U.S. concerns on those issues was the apparent result of an April compromise between Pyongyang and Washington. The Bush administration had previously demanded that the regime provide significantly more detail in the declaration required under a 2007 denuclearization deal. The State Department said in October that North Korea had “agreed to provide a complete and correct declaration of all its nuclear programs — including clarification regarding the uranium issue — by the end of the year.” Instead, the 60-page document arrived nearly six months late and only referenced the uranium matter in relation to the agreed-upon acknowledgement, sources told the Post. North Korea reportedly said in the declaration that it holds 37 kilograms of weapon-usable plutonium. It listed its nuclear sites without making clear which are involved in weapons operations. A number of observers have criticized the Bush administration for accepting a declaration that provides significantly less information than it had sought. “What we really have is sort of a Potemkin village of U.S. policy in which there’s a great deal of difference between these initial bold pledges and then subsequent reality often behind the scenes,” said Korea expert Bruce Klingner of the Heritage Foundation. The North Korean denuclearization agreement is “a partially finished product,” argued Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, lead U.S. envoy to the six-nation negotiations on Pyongyang’s nuclear program. “We have to keep working on issues that have still not been fully disclosed, although not denied by the North Koreans,” he said during an event at the Center for International and Strategic Studies in Washington. Hill noted that the multilateral effort has succeeded in shuttering North Korea’s sole plutonium-producing reactor. “It was less than a year ago that they were still producing plutonium, and plutonium is what they tested as a nuclear weapon” in October 2006, Hill said. “Plutonium is really, first of all, what we needed to stop their production of, and secondly, what we need eventually to have them abandon” (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, July 2). North Korea to date has halted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear complex, moved to disable the reactor and two other key plants, issued the declaration and demolished its reactor cooling tower. In turn, the five other nations — China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States — have begun to provide the regime with energy assistance. The Bush administration has also lifted some trade sanctions from Pyongyang and moved to take it off the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. The next steps would involve additional talks, verification of North Korea’s nuclear claims and ultimately full dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure. Questions remain regarding the nation’s willingness to give up its atomic weapons. “Obviously, we would like to deal with things in one fell swoop, but, you know, sometimes … you have to kind of do things on an incremental basis,” Hill said (Reuters/Washington Post, July 1). “We’re not going to accept North Korea as a nuclear state. … We have to get that part done,” he added at the CSIS event. Washington is preparing verification strategies, he said. “We’re obviously going to look at the declaration very systematically this week. We’re going to work on our verification, how we would approach verification,” Hill said. “People often say, ‘How can you trust them?’ This had nothing to do with trust. This has everything to do with verification” (P. Parameswaran, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 1). Disablement of the Yongbyon facilities is roughly two-thirds complete. While that does not exclude resumption of plutonium production, such an effort might now require too much time, cost and work to undertake, the Christian Science Monitor reported today. “None of the steps North Korea has taken thus far are irreversible, but the destruction of this [cooling] tower makes it harder to reconstitute their plutonium program,” according to CSIS senior fellow Jon Wolfsthal. Any uranium enrichment efforts should be considered a “footnote” to Pyongyang’s plutonium program, David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security, said earlier this year (Peter Grier, Christian Science Monitor, July 2).
The Netherlands yesterday rebuffed a U.S. Air Force study’s finding that U.S. nuclear weapons at a Dutch air base are being stored in conditions below Defense Department security standards, the Federation of American Scientists said (see GSN, June 19). The February report faults “most” nuclear storage sites in Europe and states that upgrading security at the facilities would require “significant additional resources.” Responding to a question about the Blue Ribbon Review at a meeting of the Dutch parliament’s defense committee, Dutch Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop said: “Safety and security at Volkel [Air Base] are in good order, but the government of the Netherlands does not make any announcements concerning the presence or absence of nuclear weapons embodying that single Dutch nuclear mission.” The Dutch air base is believed to hold between 10 and 20 U.S. B-61 gravity bombs that Dutch F-16 fighter jets would deploy during wartime. The weapons are part of a nuclear arsenal of about 200 U.S. bombs at six bases in five countries across Europe (Hans Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists release, July 1).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission yesterday considered a California group’s case that a proposed system of storage casks for holding spent nuclear fuel would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the New York Times reported (see GSN, April 17). In the first oral arguments presented to acting commission members since 1989, the activist group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace contended that incendiary missiles could be used to pierce storage casks proposed for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California, releasing radioactive cesium gas into the environment. Scores of nuclear power stations across the United States appear set to install similar storage systems due to delays in building a proposed federal underground waste facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (see GSN, June 4). Lisa Clark, an attorney representing NRC staff, said the staff had already considered the possible means of attack although national security concerns precluded discussion of what threats are deemed plausible. “It does not alter the staff’s conclusion that there would not be any significant environmental consequences of a terrorist attack,” Clark said. The commission has contended that terrorist threats do not have to be considered when deciding whether to approve the cask storage or other facilities. That is because, staff argues, it is impossible to estimate the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Gregory Jaczko, one of the four commissioners attending the three-hour hearing, asked how staffers could decide that a specific vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited if they cannot estimate the numerical probability of an attack. “Well, you have to use your judgment,” Clark said. Physicist Gordon Thompson had informed the activist group that the chimney-shaped casks could fuel a fire. Clark argued that Thompson was unaware whether terrorists could carry out such an attack, but attorney Diane Curran, representing the activist organization, said “subnational groups” had that capability. “It is clear that weapons are available that can penetrate a cask and start a fire,” Curran said. “U.S. Army-shaped charges are more than capable of penetrating concrete and armor plating” (Matthew Wald, New York Times, July 2)
Kazakhstan this week began using U.S.-supplied radiation detectors at seven border sites and a training facility, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced (see GSN, May 9, 2006). “This milestone in Kazakhstan builds on NNSA’s successful cooperation to stop the smuggling of nuclear and radiological materials and WMD-related technology and components. This partnership plays a critical role in the global fight against illicit trafficking and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” agency Deputy Administrator William Tobey said in a press release. Kazakhstan received the technology through the agency’s Second Line of Defense program, which provides technology and training to other nations in an effort to prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The Customs Control Committee of the former Soviet republic has been involved in the program since 2006. Deployment of the detection systems at the eight locations “is the first major milestone to be achieved under the joint project” to identify deployment locations and install equipment, according to the NNSA release (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, July 2).
| 
Back to top
