Iran faces mounting international pressure but is unlikely to stop its nuclear programme, writes ROULA KHALAF
FOR A regime that trumpets every nuclear achievement, big and small, the delayed announcement of Iran’s new nuclear site on its state television yesterday was conspicuous.
There was no mention of the plant on the 2pm newscast, and it was not until long after the US, Britain and France had issued a stern warning to Tehran that the regime reacted.
In the evening, state television declared that the second site was something for Iranians to be “proud of”. Ali-Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation, said the Islamic republic had taken a “new successful step” and set up another “semi-industrial plant to enrich nuclear fuel”.
This particular Iranian “achievement”, however, had provoked an international uproar, raising nuclear tensions at a time when a divided regime is still wrestling with the tumultuous aftermath of the disputed June presidential election that returned the radical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second term.
It was the first revelation of a nuclear facility since dissidents exposed the existence of the Natanz plant in 2002, the event that forced Iran to admit it had been hiding an elaborate nuclear programme for years.
Iran had, it emerged yesterday, disclosed the existence of the new plant on Monday to the UN nuclear watchdog. But US officials say the letter sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency might have been prompted by Iranian fears that the existence of the site was about to be revealed.
Tehran’s take on the controversy was that there was nothing “secret” about the site, built near the holy city of Qom.
The Islamic regime has insisted since 2007 that it would abide by old rules of the IAEA, which stipulate that new facilities should be declared only six months before the introduction of nuclear material into installations, even if other countries were abiding by new, more stringent requirements.
Western governments have not accepted the argument, and the immediate and alarmed reaction of some of the world’s leaders puts Tehran on the defensive.
“This will add to pressure on Iran, and [international] sanctions could come sooner rather than later,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-proliferation expert at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank.
But he added that while the international response could make the regime more forthcoming with the IAEA – Salehi said yesterday the new site would operate under IAEA rules – it would not cause Iran to give in to western demands and stop its nuclear programme.
The new enrichment plant indeed demonstrates Iran’s dogged determination to master the nuclear fuel cycle. Now that its existence is known of, Tehran will say that it shows even more strongly that its nuclear progress cannot be reversed.
“They’ll say we’ve established facts on the ground and you have to recognise them,” says Baqer Moin, an Iranian author and analyst. “The question is, what are the options of the others [world powers]?”
For Iran, it is the impact on those states which are more sympathetic to its cause that will matter most – namely Russia and China.
Even its most bitter rivals admit that Tehran has played its nuclear cards cleverly, defiantly pushing ahead with its nuclear activities but providing some, but not full, co-operation with the IAEA.
This has kept Moscow and Beijing, two members of the UN Security Council, on its side, thus avoiding the international unity that could lead to hard-hitting sanctions.
Iran’s programme has advanced so rapidly – there are more than 8,000 centrifuges installed in Natanz and the new plant is said to be designed for another 3,000 centrifuges – that an increasing number of nuclear experts now agree that the only international agreement that is possible is one that would allow Tehran to continue enriching uranium on its soil, as it has always sought.
In the short-term, though, the revelation of a new site complicates Iran’s negotiating strategy at a time when it is preparing for the first meeting in a year with the six-nation group that has been seeking to curb its nuclear programme – the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany.
Tehran had been entering the October 1st talks from a position of strength.
The meeting was set up after it sent a five-page proposal of co-operation that said nothing about its nuclear programme.
Assuming that meeting still goes ahead next week, Saeed Jalili, Iran’s leading nuclear negotiator, will not be able to avoid a discussion over uranium enrichment.
Whether the new facility was designed for higher levels of uranium enrichment needed for nuclear weapons will have to be determined by UN inspectors. But Barack Obama, the US president, said yesterday the size and configuration of the plant were inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear programme.
“Iran on one hand is giving more information, but on the other hand there is more suspicion about what else it is concealing,” said a western diplomat in Tehran, adding that the new site showed that “the fundamental issue of lack of confidence” with Iran would remain.
Hopes of building trust between Iran and western governments had already been badly damaged by the June election crisis.
The alleged rigging of the vote in favour of Ahmadinejad, and a crackdown on the reformist opposition, have forced western governments to tone down their enthusiasm for engagement with Tehran beyond the nuclear programme. – (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009)