Genesis of EdenMonday, 13 February 2006, 22:14 GMT
Iran 'resumes' nuclear enrichment
Iran has restarted uranium enrichment work, UN diplomats
have said.
They said it had begun feeding uranium gas into centrifuges -
a first step in a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors
or bomb material.
Tehran had warned it would resume enrichment after the UN nuclear
watchdog decided to report it to the UN Security Council nine
days ago.
Iran has also postponed talks with Russia, due this week, on a
proposal to enrich uranium on Russian soil.
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are due to visit
Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, where Iran's enrichment work is
reportedly being carried out, on Tuesday.
Crunch meeting
According to diplomats in Vienna, home of the IAEA's headquarters,
workers at Natanz have begun putting uranium hexafluoride (UF6)
gas into a small number of centrifuges used to distil enriched
uranium.
NEXT STEPS
· Moscow: Russia-Iran talks on Russia's proposed compromise
delayed
· March, Vienna: IAEA to report on Iranian compliance;
possible Security Council action to follow
Iran stand-off on new level
Key nations' stance on Iran
Send us your views
Uranium enriched to a high level can be used to make an atomic
bomb.
Iran says its research is solely aimed at energy production, but
Western powers are concerned that Iran's uranium enrichment programme
is part of a plan to acquire nuclear weaponry.
Iranian officials had warned they would restart small-scale uranium
enrichment by early March, but they did not specify a date.
The IAEA voted on 4 February to report Tehran to the Security
Council over its decision, announced in January, to restart nuclear
research.
The nuclear watchdog's board is expected to meet at the beginning
of March to consider whether to recommend action on Iran by the
council.
Withdrawal threat
On Monday UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he hoped there
would be "no steps taken to escalate the situation".
Speaking after talks with US President George W Bush in the
White House, he urged Iran to "indicate that negotiations
are not dead".
As a means to alleviate the standoff, Russia had proposed that
it enrich the uranium on its reactors and then ship the fuel to
Iran.
But talks with Russia have been pushed back indefinitely, Iranian
presidential spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said.
Russia - which supported the IAEA's decision to refer Iran to
the Security Council - said talks could still take place this
week.
After the decision, Iran announced it would end its voluntary
freeze on full-scale uranium enrichment and would stop allowing
snap UN inspections of its nuclear sites.
The move, which could lead to sanctions, has been roundly condemned
in Tehran, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now threatening
to quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The NPT, which has 187 signatories, was created to prevent new
nuclear states emerging, to promote co-operation in the peaceful
use of nuclear energy and to work towards nuclear disarmament.
Non-nuclear signatories agree not to seek to develop or acquire
such weapons. In return, they are given an undertaking that they
will be helped to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
It is believed to be the first time Iran has threatened to pull
out of the treaty.
Saturday, 4 February 2006, 13:43 GMT
Iran stand-off moves to new level
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The crisis over Iran's nuclear programme has reached a new level with the reporting of Iran to the Security Council.
Iran has reacted immediately. It said it would withdraw cooperation
over snap inspections, threatened to resume all its enrichment
activities and declared that a potential deal with Russia was
off. That adds to the sense of confrontation.
(Update 5 February: Iran now says that it might talk again with
the Russians after all, though whether it is really willing to
negotiate remains to be seen.)
The significance of the Security Council move is twofold.
First, the council has the power to impose sanctions. There is
therefore the potential for escalation.
Second, the Western powers have managed to get Russia and China
alongside.
This enables the West to say that this is an international issue
- not another Western confrontation with an Islamic country.
However, neither of these two key players is yet on board in terms
of agreeing to any measures against Iran and it is not even clear
what the Security Council itself might do.
It will certainly do nothing until next month when the director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed
ElBaradei makes another report on Iran. That was the compromise
agreed by the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and
the EU High Representative at a meeting in London on 30 January.
A great deal depends on that report.
Warhead document
If Mr ElBaradei gives Iran good marks, then Russia and China,
who have only reluctantly agreed to the issue being taken to the
council at all, will block any suggestion of sanctions.
NEXT STEPS
· 16 Feb, Moscow: Russia and Iran resume talks on
Russia's proposed compromise
· March, Vienna: IAEA to report on Iranian compliance;
possible Security Council action to follow
Key nations' stance on Iran
If Iran is found wanting, the council might initially issue
some kind of warning that Iran must implement all the IAEA's demands
on inspections. Iran has been dragging its heels on some of these,
especially access to people, places and papers though it has recently
made some further moves to comply.
The latest accusation against Iran from IAEA sources is that it
possesses a document that shows how to mould highly enriched uranium
into a nuclear warhead. Iran has shown this to the IAEA.
The US and its allies say the document indicates Iran's interest
in nuclear weapons but Iran counters that it was simply given
the document, unasked for, by the renegade Pakistani nuclear scientist
A Q Khan, from whom Iraq once secretly acquired enrichment technology.
The essential point of difference with Iran - whether it should
develop its own nuclear fuel cycle - remains.
Nobody knows how to solve this. Iran stands by its right to make
its own fuel under the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). All the treaty requires is that the procedure is
placed under IAEA inspection. Iran further says that it will not
build a bomb and that its supreme religious leader has issued
a fatwa to that end.
'Five years away'
But the West does not accept that Iran should be allowed that
right, given that it hid an enrichment programme for 18 years
and cannot therefore be trusted.
"At some stage of course, the question will arise as
to whether this will move from diplomacy to military action -
nobody knows what the tipping-point might be"
Russia and China appear to be in the middle somewhere, uneasy
about Iran but unwilling to press the point too far. Both have
commercial interests in Iran. Russia is completing the nuclear
reactor that the Germans started under the Shah. China signed
a long-term agreement to buy oil and gas from Iran not long ago.
But those interests do not mean that they want Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons technology. Russia has offered to enrich fuel
for Iran and talks continue on that with some people hoping for
a solution along those lines. However Iran has now, for the moment
at least, closed the door to that.
The best perhaps that diplomacy can do is delay. Indeed a senior
British official with close knowledge of the process is now talking
of all this going on for several years.
"Five years ago," he said, "we said that Iran was
five years away from being able to make a nuclear weapon. Now
we still say that. That is progress."
Tentative actions
Mr ElBaradei himself has suggested that Iran freezes its work
for 10 years.
Up till now, Iran has been reluctant to go ahead too fast. Its
tactics have been characterised by strong rhetoric but tentative
actions.
It has held back from abandoning all restraint. It knows that
if it did, rougher waters would be ahead. Action by the Security
Council could follow.
At some stage of course, the question will arise as to whether
this will move from diplomacy to military action. Nobody knows
what the tipping-point might be.
British officials say this is "not on the agenda and is not
even being discussed".
But with the US and Israel both saying that Iran should not be
allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, at some stage it might get
onto someone's agenda.
Tuesday, 31 January 2006, 10:06 GMT
Key nations' stances on Iran
The UN's nuclear regulator, the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), is holding an emergency meeting on 2 February to
discuss Iran's nuclear programme.
At a meeting in London on 30 January, the five permanent members
of the Security Council - the US, Russia, China, Britain and France
- agreed that the IAEA should report to the council its decisions
on steps required of Iran under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).
But they agreed that the Security Council itself should wait until
March and a further IAEA report on Iran before deciding whether
to "reinforce the authority of the IAEA process" - that
is, whether to become actively involved. The IAEA agreed in principle
last September that the issues fell within the council's authority.
Iran argues that it is now in compliance and should be allowed
to make its own fuel under IAEA inspection as permitted under
the NPT. It says it has no intention of making nuclear weapons.
Click on the links below to read about the positions taken by key countries on the 35-member IAEA board.
UNITED STATES
When the IAEA found in a report in November 2003 that Iran
had concealed a programme to enrich uranium for 18 years, the
US argued that it should be reported to the Security Council at
once and that sanctions should be imposed on it.
The US fears that Iran is at least trying to acquire the technology
to build nuclear weapons and at worst was caught actually trying
to do so. It has said that it is unacceptable for Iran to develop
nuclear weapons and has not ruled out any measures, including
force.
It held off from pressing its case for sanctions while three European
Union countries - the UK, France and Germany - tried to negotiate
a voluntary and permanent cessation of all Iranian enrichment
activities, and said that if Iran agreed, it would relax some
of its own bilateral sanctions and help Iran join the World Trade
Organization.
However, these talks have now been suspended because Iran has
resumed some enrichment work and the US now believes that the
time has come to go to the Security Council.
UNITED KINGDOM
The UK joined France and Germany in an effort to negotiate
with Iran that it should not develop a fuel enrichment cycle,
in order to give the rest of the world complete confidence that
it was sincere in its declaration that it did not intend to make
a nuclear bomb.
The EU3, as they are called, offered economic incentives and promised
to guarantee fuel for the nuclear reactor Russia is building for
Iran. Iran agreed to stop all enrichment work while the talks
continued but when the work resumed last August, the talks were
suspended.
The UK therefore supports reporting Iran to the Security Council.
In the first instance this would probably be for a warning but
in the final analysis the UK would probably support economic sanctions.
The UK is against the use of force, saying that Iran is not like
Iraq.
FRANCE
France has adopted a similar position to that of the UK and
Germany. At first it looked as if the EU3 offered a negotiated
"European" solution in contrast to the policies of the
US.
However, these efforts have not led anywhere and France also concludes
that Iran must be referred to the Security Council. Like the UK,
it holds a veto on the council, and while it is probably even
more reluctant to impose sanctions than the UK, it might do so
in the end.
A recent speech by President Jacques Chirac, defending French
nuclear weapons and saying they could be used to counter terrorist
threats, indicates that France is adopting a hard line in defence
of its own nuclear posture and does not want Iran to develop its
own nuclear technology.
GERMANY
Germany is the third member of the EU3 and its industrial power
added weight to the talks with Iran. It is the largest exporters
of goods to Iran and in a good position to offer incentives and
threaten sanctions. In 2004, German companies exported goods worth
3.6 billion euros ($4.43 billion) and an estimated 4 billion euros
in 2005 to Iran.
Like Britain and France, Germany (which with France opposed the
Iraq war) would much prefer a negotiated outcome but, like the
others, it too has been disappointed by the outcome of the talks
with Iran on enrichment.
It therefore supports the referral of this issue to the Security
Council. It voted in September (with Britain and France) that
the issue was within the council's competence.
RUSSIA
Russia is a vital player. It abstained in the September vote
which declared Iran in violation of its NPT commitments for having
hidden its enrichment work.
It then offered a deal to Iran under which the fuel for Iran's
nuclear power programme would be made in Russia with some kind
of Iranian involvement. Russia has also guaranteed to provide
fuel itself anyway for the reactor it is building for Iran at
Bushehr.
Iran rejected the Russian offer at first but has since said it
might negotiate, so talks are likely to continue. While they do,
Russia might not want a confrontation with Iran. Its veto on the
Security Council also puts it in a powerful position.
CHINA
China abstained in the IAEA vote in September. No country has
a veto on the IAEA but China does have one in the Security Council
and therefore its position is a vital one. So far it has indicated
concern over the issue but opposes sanctions.
China would be reluctant to see any UN measures that prevented
access to Iran's oil and gas. It signed an agreement with Iran
in 2004 to buy oil and gas over a number of years and it also
agreed to help develop an Iranian oil field. China could be a
major stumbling block in any attempt by the US to get sanctions
imposed.
INDIA
To general surprise and the anger of its own left wing, the
Indian government voted against Iran in the September IAEA meeting.
The Indians are now coming under pressure from the US to throw
its substantial weight behind a Security Council move.
The US is saying that a nuclear co-operation agreement reached
between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
last year might fail in the US Congress if India does not support
the US in the IAEA. Washington agreed last year to share advanced
civilian nuclear technology with Delhi, lifting sanctions triggered
by India's nuclear tests in 1998.
On the other hand, India is also aware of its energy interests
in Iran and might not want to jeopardise those. The two countries
are discussing the construction of a natural gas pipeline from
Iran to India.
OTHERS
This is how countries voted in September 2005, when the IAEA
agreed that Iran was in violation of the NPT and that it was a
matter within the competence of the Security Council.
Voting for: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ecuador, France,
Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea,
Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden,
UK, US.
Against: Venezuela.
Abstaining: Algeria, Brazil, China, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Vietnam.