IR-40
facility in |
The final
week of February 2013 was marked by events that may have changed the perception
of Iran ’s nuclear program and the
chances of finding a non-belligerent solution to this problem. First, the
periodic IAEA report on the inspections in Iran was published, with some new details on
Iran ’s nuclear activities. A careful
reading of the latest IAEA report reveals that Iran continues
relentlessly to further the potential to break out and achieve a nuclear weapons
capability quickly. Second, the 2-day talks between the P5+1 and
Iran in Almaty , Kazakhstan apparently included new concessions to
and fewer demands of Iran . Third, an article by former
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw published in the Telegraph
recommended that the world recognize the situation and adopt a policy of
“containment,” thereby accepting the inevitability of Iran becoming a de facto
nuclear weapons state.[1]
Were Iran to
use all of its 3.5 percent inventory, and were it to use all available
centrifuges to further enrich this inventory to the 19.75 percent and then up to
the military level of 90 percent, it could probably obtain the
25
kilograms of uranium metal for its first nuclear explosive
core in less than six months, and subsequent cores in shorter time intervals,
obtaining a total of 5-6 cores from the present 3.5 percent inventory. This time
estimate will probably be accelerated, since Iran began installing a newer and more efficient
type of centrifuge, and if Iran uses any of the 19.75 percent
inventory it holds.
Working in
parallel to the uranium enrichment route, Iran has
advanced considerably in the development of the other route to nuclear weapons –
the plutonium route. The construction of the 40 megawatt heavy water natural
uranium reactor has progressed, and the Iranians reported to the IAEA that they
expected to complete the construction of the reactor in the first quarter of
2014. Were the reactor to “go critical” at that point, this would in effect
constitute the point of no return in the plutonium route, since a military
attack on an operational reactor is considered to be out of bounds in
international norms. Although it would still take some two years to have the
nuclear fuel from this reactor ready for reprocessing, and some additional time
until a plutonium core could be produced, it would still signal an alarming
state of affairs. What piqued the world’s attention was the satellite photograph
of steam coming out of the cooling system at the heavy water production plant at
Arak . In fact,
however, this plant has been operating for some years, and this was no
extraordinary observation.
This was the
setting for the Almaty talks between the P5+1 and Iran that were
held on February 26-27, 2013. Although not all details of the P5+1 offer that
was placed on the table are known, it is the first time that certain Security
Council demands, e.g., the suspension of uranium enrichment activities, were
ignored, and the parallel demand for the suspension of plutonium-related
activities was apparently not even mentioned. This is a significant breakthrough
for the Iranians, as the other side could gain but little time from the demand
that the enrichment activities to the level of 19.75 percent be stopped and the
inventory dispersed. From what remains unsaid it seems that Iran could continue to enrich uranium (to 3.5
percent) and continue with the construction of the Arak reactor. In return
for an agreement, some sanctions would be eased.
It is
difficult to imagine what the P5+1 expect to achieve with such an agreement,
except for an optimistic proclamation that apparently “engagement” can work, and
that this approach will be pursued further. The Iranian Foreign Minister even
said that relationships between Iran and the US could improve
considerably as a result of the “melting ice.” This would constitute a major
victory for Iran while it proceeds with its
nuclear program, since it has already proved that it can withstand the current
sanctions. Iran would retain
all its technical capabilities and the ability to further develop them, and any
agreement would halt the imposition of new and advanced sanctions that could
pressure Iran to heed the Security Council
demands.
Against this
backdrop and precisely at this time, the article by a former British Foreign
Minister recommended the approach of “containment.” When reviewing the positions
of the members of the P5+1, especially the views of the US , Russia , and China , one cannot but assess that no belligerent
action against Iran will likely take place. The
world (represented by these countries) does not view the proliferation of
nuclear weapons as a casus belli. This is perfectly demonstrated by the advances
made by North
Korea in the development of nuclear weapons in
both routes, with sanctions being the strongest action the world has been
willing to take to ameliorate the situation. If one projects the present North
Korean situation onto that concerning Iran , one cannot but reach the conclusion that
containment is in the air, and that unless drastic action is taken,
Iran will become a nuclear-capable
state in the not too distant future.
Font: המכון למחקרי ביטחון לאומ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Jack Straw, "Even if Iran gets the Bomb, it won't be Worth
Going to War," The Telegraph, February 25, 2013: "Containment is a
better response than conflict in dealing with a country we have long
mishandled." See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9892742/Even-if-Iran-gets-the-Bomb-it-wont-be-worth-going-to-war.html
No comments:
Post a Comment