Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Zone 1- Microscopic Analysis: Iran’s Nuclear Controversy

Week # 98, Dated 12th - 18th Dec. 09’

In a latest development in Iran’s Nuclear Controversy it was reported last week that documents that appeared in the Times of London on Dec. 14, which perhaps contributed to the US. Intelligence reports were a forgery. The paper cited an “Asian intelligence source” that newspaper with “confidential intelligence documents” on how Iran was preparing to run tests on a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion.

Iran has pursued nuclear energy technology since the 1950s, spurred by the launch of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. The program however was abandoned after the 1979 revolution, which brought to power the current Islamic regime. Iran was known to be reviving its civilian nuclear programs during the 1990s, but revelations in 2002 and 2003 of secret research into fuel enrichment and conversion raised international debate that Iran's ambitions had metastasized beyond civilian use, an allegation Iran has consistently denied.
In August 2005 in Iran, Mohammad Khatami, seen as a moderate in the west, was succeeded as president by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is perceived as a hard-line conservative. In the following Jan. 2006 Iran announced that it would resume enrichment work. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium, but the atomic energy association called for the program to be halted until questions about the earlier secret program were resolved.

Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends only to enrich to the level needed for nuclear power station fuel with a goal to generate electricity without dipping into its oil. The United Nations Security Council voted in December 2006 to impose sanctions on Iran for failing to heed calls for a suspension of the program.

The Security Council Resolution 1737 (December 2006) mandates all UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems". In March 2007, the Council passed resolution 1747 seeks to tighten the squeeze on Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. Imports of arms from Iran are banned and member states were told to exercise restraint in selling major arms systems to Iran. Resolution 1803 of March 2008 extended the asset restrictions and travel bans on more Iranian individuals and companies said to be involved in nuclear work. It also called for inspection of cargo going into and out of the country, and monitoring the activities of two Iranian banks.

The extent of Iran's nuclear development remains unclear. In December 2007, a US intelligence assessment contradicted the earlier 2005 assessment, claiming that the weapons portion of the Iranian nuclear program remained on hold. The report stated that the Iranian government did not appear determined to obtain nuclear weapons, although it said Iran's intentions were unclear. Yet many in the international community, including the American leadership, remain skeptical. Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize.

The September 2009 revelation of a second uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom deepened international suspicions surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions. On Oct. 1, 2009, talks were held between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - as well as Germany, and led by the European Union's then foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. In this a tentative agreement was reached in principle for Iran to export most of its enriched uranium for processing. The news however raised a tumult in Iran and eventually the deal was rejected on Oct. 29.

Stratfor an online publisher of 'geopolitical intelligence’ reports that an Inter Press Service (IPS) Report emerged last week providing discrediting intelligence that the widely circulated document describing Iran’s nuclear weapons plans was fabricated. According to Stratfor analysis this counter-leak plays into the interests of the Obama administration in seeking to buy time to deal with the issue. In Oct. 2009 in a radical revision of policy President Barack Obama announced aborting missile defenses in Eastern Europe, originally being developed under the pretext of protection against the alleged missile threat from Iran. However at present the diplomatic standoff continues. §

Discussion Questions:
· In your opinion is the Iranian nuclear threat real or imagined?

· Do you see possible engagement with Iran and an ultimate resolution of the nuclear controversy under the Obama Regime?

· To what extant could international Actors like Russia, Israel and Latin American nations influence possible engagement with Iran?

_______________________________________________________
Business and Politics in the Muslim World (BPM)refers to the project entitled, "Globalized Business and Politics: A View from the Muslim World.' The blog development project has been undertaken and developed jointly by the Gilani Research Foundation and BPM as a free resource and social discussion tool.
Please Preview your comments before posting.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 22, 2010 at 10:13 AM

    Iran nuclear technology should not be seen as a threa. let them prove if it is for peaceful purpose as they claim. and every one has the right to use i peacefully. this is not a threat but a reaction to threatening poliy of US and west.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)