 |
 |
 |
|
|
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaks on a mobile phone as he visits Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Wednesday. (AP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| By Associated Press February 2, 2006 |
|
| |
At a decisive moment in the struggle over Iran's nuclear program, Tehran's true intentions - and the West's real options - remain murky. Even such basic questions as "Who calls the shots?" are open to debate. One thing is known: Iran has vast amounts of oil and plenty of ways to retaliate, whatever the world decides to do.
A look at some questions surrounding the crisis:
Q: How close is Iran to making a nuclear bomb?
A: Iran says its nuclear program is purely for generating electricity and that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons.
The United States disputes that, saying it believes Iran aims for atomic weapons. And Iran's Jan. 10 decision to restart small-scale uranium enrichment - and its president's call for Israel to be wiped off the map - have clearly jolted the world.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says a three-year investigation produced no evidence Iran is trying to build atomic arms, but didn't rule that out either. And, U.S. intelligence made public last year suggested Tehran's scientists do have engineering drafts of a nuclear warhead.
If Iran kicked into high gear on uranium enrichment - something it threatens to do if it is taken before the U.N. Security Council - it could produce nuclear weapons from three to 10 years later, experts estimate.
Q: What will happen Thursday and Friday?
A: The board of the IAEA is expected to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, essentially asking it to take on international oversight of Tehran's nuclear program. Russia and China agreed last week on the need for that - a victory for the United States.
Q: What happens after that?
A: Reporting Iran to the Security Council would be just the start of a long process that could end in sanctions against Tehran. But nothing is likely to happen fast.
For starters, the most powerful members of the U.N. have agreed that the Security Council should wait until March to take up Iran's case. The delay could give Iran time to moderate its position, or agree to let Russia perform nuclear enrichment work on its behalf. Or, it could just mean continued stalemate.
Q: If Iran doesn't back down, will Security Council sanctions be the end result?
A: It seems unlikely. China and Russia generally oppose using the council to impose sanctions, and both are trading partners with Iran. They would probably try to block such a move.
U.S. officials have also said they want to take a gradual approach - possibly starting with a council statement of concern or reprimand, and only seeking a legally binding resolution that could include sanctions as a last resort.
If sanctions are imposed, they could be tough to enforce, could cripple Iran's economy and damage its standard of living - and almost certainly would force up world oil prices.
Q: If the West is so worried, why not just use airstrikes to disable Iran's program?
A: That could be much harder, militarily, than it seems. Any strikes - to be effective - would have to take out several sites, some underground. Other sites may be unknown. And with the United States occupied with Iraq, any larger effort, such as an invasion, seems unlikely. The Bush administration says such a military operation is not an option now.
In addition, even a limited strike would be highly unpopular with U.S. allies, and could rally Iranians - known for their strong nationalism.
Iran has plenty of ways to retaliate, from stirring up trouble in southern Iraq to using an oil boycott as an economic weapon against Europe, China or India. Oil supplies are tight worldwide and prices are already high.
Q: This crisis seems to have blown up so fast: Weren't Iran and Europe negotiating just a few months ago?
A: Yes. And the Bush administration had tacitly agreed that negotiations were the way to proceed.
But after the election of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran became more insistent on its right to pursue a nuclear program, and European negotiators say it became less cooperative.
Its decision to restart small-scale uranium enrichment - and its swipes at Israel - apparently rattled China and Russia enough that they agreed to push its case to the Security Council.
Q: Why is Iran's president taking such a confrontational stance? What does he really want, and is he really in control?
A: The United States and much of the West have struggled for years - decades even - to discern whether Iran's hard-line clerics or the president are really calling the shots.
It's clear that many hard-liner aims are unpopular among young Iranians, who previously had voted for reformers until those reformers failed. But the goal of Iran being a world nuclear technology leader is widely popular - almost a national point of pride.
It may be that Ahmadinejad, trying to solidify his political support, has found an issue that plays well among the public. Or, perhaps the clerics are trying to rally people, thus finding a way to revive support for their Islamic Republic.
Criticism of the United States also still plays well in a country that has always blamed America for first overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government in the 1950s, and then supporting a hated shah.
Ahmadinejad's weak spot is Iran's dire economy. Like any leader anywhere, he may just be trying to distract attention from what he can't fix.
Reporting Iran to U.N. Security Council: a virtual certainty now
After months of fruitless negotiations, European nations have set the stage for reporting Iran to the powerful U.N. Security Council by the end of the week because of concerns the Islamic country's nuclear program is not "exclusively for peaceful purposes."
Iran remained defiant, warning Wednesday that such action will provoke it into doing exactly what the world wants it to renounce - starting full-scale uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear weapons.
Positions appeared to be hardening on the eve of an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting after European nations formally submitted a U.S.-backed motion for the IAEA's 35-nation board to refer Iran to the Security Council. The two-day board meeting was to start Thursday.
"Nuclear energy is our right, and we will resist until this right is fully realized," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands in the southern Iran city of Bushehr, site of a Russian-built power plant. "Our nation can't give in to the coercion of some bully countries who imagine they are the whole world."
Speaking a day after U.S. President George W. Bush declared in his State of the Union address that "the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons," Ahmadinejad derided the United States as a "hollow superpower" and vowed to pursue the nuclear program.
The IAEA board was expected to approve the motion easily because Russia and China - which both have veto power on the Security Council - now support reporting Iran following months of opposition.
"Iran will find itself before the Security Council," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington. "Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapon."
The developments were a boost to the United States, the main proponent of referral. Washington has waited years for international suspicions of Iran's nuclear ambitions to translate into support among board nations.
Iran's decision Jan. 10 to restart small-scale uranium enrichment - and Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel to be wiped off the map - apparently rattled Beijing and Moscow. Iran became more insistent on its right to pursue a nuclear program and less cooperative in talks with European negotiators after the election of the hard-line Ahmadinejad last June.
The call for referral was contained in a confidential resolution obtained by The Associated Press. It "requests the director general to report to the Security Council" on steps Iran needs to take to dispel international suspicion it could be seeking to make nuclear arms.
If the board approves referral as expected, it will launch a protracted process that could end in Security Council sanctions for Tehran.
Still, any such moves are weeks or months away. Moscow and Beijing support referral only on condition that the council take no action until at least March, when the board next meets to review the status of an IAEA probe into Iran's nuclear program and recommends further action.
Ali Larijani, Tehran's top nuclear negotiator, warned that Iran would start large-scale uranium enrichment at its Natanz plant and stop intrusive U.N. inspections of its facilities if reported to the Security Council.
"Natanz is ready for work. We only need to notify the IAEA that we are resuming (large-scale) enrichment. When we do that is our call. If they (report Iran to the Security Council), we will do it quickly," Larijani said.
Iran insists its nuclear program is civilian only and has no other purpose than to generate power. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material needed to build a warhead.
Iran's threat to resume large-scale enrichment immediately, however, appeared overblown.
Tehran is far from its ultimate goal of running 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium in the central city of Natanz for what it says will be the fuel requirements of its nearly finished Russian-built Bushehr reactor. It has fewer than 1,000 centrifuges.
But experts say Iran has enough black-market components in storage to build the 1,500 operating centrifuges it would need to make the 45 pounds of highly enriched uranium needed for one crude weapon.
A brief report prepared for the IAEA board session expressed concern about a possible linkage between "The Green Salt Project" - small-scale experiments linked to uranium enrichment - and suspected tests of "high explosives and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military nuclear dimension."
The draft to be voted on calls for Iran to:
-Reestablish a freeze on uranium enrichment and related activities.
-Consider stopping construction of a heavy water reactor that could be the source of plutonium for weapons.
-Formally ratify an agreement allowing the IAEA greater inspecting authority.
-Give the IAEA additional power in its investigation of Iran's nuclear program, including "access to individuals" for interviews, as well as to documentation on its black market nuclear purchases, equipment that could be used for nuclear and non-nuclear purposes and "certain military-owned workshops" where nuclear activities might be going on.
In arguing for involvement of the top U.N. body, the text expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program." And it mentions "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."
---
On the Net: www.iaea.org
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
