|
US’s nuclear chargesheet against Iran |
 |
The Bush Administration is piling on the pressure over Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme. It maintains that Teheran’s decision to resume building uranium centrifuges wrecked a long-running European Union-led dialogue and is proof of bad faith. The United States will ask a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on September 13 to declare Iran in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a prelude to seeking punitive United Nations sanctions.
Condoleeza Rice, the US National Security Adviser, said at the weekend (August 7 and 8) there was a new international willingness to confront Teheran, but declined to rule out unilateral action if others did not go along. She said the world is finally worried and suspicious about the Iranian Government’s intentions and is determined not to let Teheran produce a nuclear weapon.
That will fuel speculation in Teheran and elsewhere that the Bush Administration may resort to force, with or without Israel, ahead of November’s elections. Options include “surgical strikes” or covert action by Special Forces. Such a move would be a high-risk gamble for George W. Bush. After the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) fiasco, there would inevitably be questions about the accuracy of U.S. intelligence. In the past Iran has vowed to retaliate. Although it is unclear how it might do so, the mood in Teheran has hardened since the conservatives won fiddled elections last winter.
Criticizing Ms. Rice’s remarks, Iran said Washington has no grounds to send its case to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Iran, which denies any intention of building atomic weapons, says its nuclear programme is needed to generate electricity to meet the rising demand. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Karazzi told reporters that on August 9, Iran has not committed any violations and whatever it has done is in accordance with its international obligations.
Teheran last month said it had resumed making parts for uranium enrichment centrifuges which can be used to make bomb material. Iran also test-fired last week a missile with a range of 1,300 kilometres, capable of hitting Israel.
Iran’s insistence that it seeks nuclear power, not weapons, is scoffed at in Washington. John Bolton, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control, says there is no doubt what Teheran is up to. He has hinted at using military force should the U.N. fail to act. “The U.S. and its allies must be willing to deploy more robust technique” to halt nuclear proliferation, including “the disruption of procurement networks, sanctions and other means.” No option was ruled out, he said last year. Last month (July) in Tokyo, Bolton upped the ante again, accusing Iran of collaborating with North Korea on ballistic missiles.
Israel, Washington’s ally, has also been stoking the fire. It is suggested there that if the West fails to act against Iran in timely fashion, Israel could strike as it did against Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981, although whether it has the capability to launch effective strikes is uncertain. The U.S. has been pushing other countries to impose de facto punishment on Iran. Japan has been asked to cancel its $2 billion investment in the Azadegan oilfield and Washington has urged Russia to halt the construction of a civilian reactor.
Tips from Iranian opposition groups and investigators by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the last one year or so indicate that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In the words of the agency, Iran has a practically complete front end of a nuclear fuel cycle, which leads most experts to believe that it is two to three years away from having a nuclear bomb. European countries were as worried at this development as Washington. Since the United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran, Europe stepped in last fall and negotiated a deal with Teheran. It was an excellent agreement in which Iran pledged to stop developing fissile material (the core ingredient of a nuclear bomb) and to keep its nuclear programme transparent. The only problem is, Iran has recently announced that it isn’t going to abide by the deal. As the IAEA’s investigation got more serious, Teheran got more secretive. One month ago the agency condemned Iran for its failure to cooperate. Teheran responded by announcing that it would resume work in prohibited areas.
That is where things stand now, with the clock ticking fast. If Iran were to go nuclear, it would have dramatic effects. It would place nuclear materials in the hands of a radical regime that has ties to unsavoury groups. It would signal to other countries that it is possible to break the nuclear taboo. And it would revolutionize the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would feel threatened by Iran’s bomb and would start their own search for nuclear technology. Saudi Arabia probably could not make a bomb but it could certainly buy necessary technology from a country like Pakistan. In fact, we don’t really know all of the buyers who patronized Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear supermarket. It is quite possible Saudi Arabia already has a few elements of such a programme.
|
