Iran – nuclear menace?
Tuesday, 10 Jun 2008 00:00
Iranian nuclear facility outside Isfahan, Iran
Iran In Focus
If the US public is aware of the extent to which the White House was interfering in the internal affairs of Tehran in an attempt to topple the Iranian government, they would demand an immediate change in policy. Full Story
As another round of sanctions are imposed, Iran's row with the rest of the world shows no signs of going away.
The problem
In 2005 the election of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prompted the resumption of the country's nuclear enrichment programme - to the alarm of the rest of the world.
Despite the warning shots of diplomats, on April 11th 2006 Mr Ahmadinejad triumphantly announced that the programme had been successful; he asserted that purely civilian energy production was his goal.
Western powers responded with fears that Iran could instead be using energy ambitions to cloak a more sinister goal: the development of a nuclear arsenal and a new threat to global security.
Scorned deadline
By mid-July 2006 the UN was losing patience, as it became clear an earlier diplomatic offensive in Vienna had failed.
It passed a resolution demanding that Iran immediately cease its nuclear enrichment programme on July 31st, vowing to "undertake appropriate measures" should its claims be ignored.
Iran's official response, issued on August 22nd, was scornful. All parties knew the broad makeup of the papers hand-delivered to diplomats in Iran: a rejection of the carrots as well as the stick.
When it came to the UN's August 31st deadline, Tehran refused to back down. The US' ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, said that the only conclusion to be drawn was that "they're pursuing a weapons capability".
Sanctions imposed
A second wave of negotiating took place in the aftermath of the August 31st deadline, spurred on by UN secretary general Kofi Annan.
US officials initially said talks were going well, but in the end they came to nothing. By mid-October talks of punitive sanctions were on the table as Iranian intransigence continued unabated.
Embargoes on heavy and industrial equipment were finally imposed in mid-December. The sanctions outlawed Iran's trade of materials related to nuclear activities and froze the assets of those involved in the Middle Eastern country's uranium enrichment programme.
Iran responded by resuming the temporarily-halted uranium enrichment process "at full speed".
Second deadline rejected
A second 60-day deadline expired on February 21st 2007.
A month later, the UN security council voted unanimously in favour of imposing fresh sanctions on Tehran. Restrictions were placed on weapon exports, as well as the Tehran-owned Bank Sepah and the Revolutionary Guards.
But Iran remained defiant. "The Iranian nation will stand up for its legal right and will not retreat even one iota to preserve its nuclear right," Mr Ahmadinejad said in April.
An IAEA report warned that Iranian authorities had again stepped up their uranium enrichment activities and were increasingly disrupting the agency's monitoring efforts.
Not just nuclear
The spring of 2007 saw Iranian relations with UN nations deteriorate still further, thanks to the country's alleged involvement in the struggle for Iraq.
The capture of 15 soldiers over a territorial dispute in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, their subsequent treatment and eventual return gripped Britain in late March. The incident became inextricably linked to American accusations that the Iranian government was doing its best to disrupt coalition forces' attempts to provide security for Iraq.
British prime minister Tony Blair even said that "the general picture … is that there are elements of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing and supporting terrorism in Iraq", while the Americans released evidence they claimed proved Iranian involvement.
Tehran responded by making its own allegations about the torture of its personnel, souring relations still further.
Tehran still defiant
Iran accused the US of taking part in an alleged plot to overthrow the Islamist regime on July 22nd, but released one of the two implicated in the US-backed coup – Iranian-American academic Haleh Esfandiari – on August 21st.
Tensions over Iraq continued, focussing on the arrest of seven Iranians detained in Baghdad on August 28th. That followed Mr Bush authorising forces to stop "Tehran's murderous activities" in the country. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded by saying the US' attitude meant it was doomed to remain in the "quagmire".
The biggest argument of all, however, continued to be over Iran's nuclear energy ambitions, although the international community remained divided over how it would go about dealing with the problem.
A nuclear pest
France's foreign minister refused to rule out military action if Tehran acquires an atomic bomb but Russian president Vladimir Putin said such an attack was unthinkable.
Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded to the rhetoric in the usual way – unbridled defiance – and riled students of Columbia University in New York by calling into question the Holocaust as historical fact. He insisted Iran did not want war with the US and said the nuclear bomb was "of no use". But his efforts were to little effect.
On October 25th the US announced a raft of economic sanctions based on the allegation that the Revolutionary Guards were supporters of terrorism. More than 20 Iranian organisations and individuals, including banks, had their assets frozen, while American citizens were banned from trading with them.
Mr Ahmadinejad may be complaining of "psychological warfare", but he found himself once again encountering real effects of the US' hostility to his government.
Ahmadinejad's "victory"
On November 4th the US' national intelligence estimate reversed previous assumptions that Tehran was seeking an atomic bomb, saying it had abandoned such an aim as early as 2003.
Mr Ahmadinejad declared the report a "victory" but state department deputy spokesperson Tom Casey said it should be viewed as a "continual warning".
Analysts believe the development will make the position of those backing military action in the White House more difficult, as Tehran's defiant stance continues.
It agreed a timetable for the completion of the Bushehr nuclear power plant with Russia on December 13th, ending financing difficulties which had delayed the beginning of construction.
An incident in the Gulf on January 6th provided a direct example of the US-Iranian antagonism when Revolutionary Guard speedboats buzzed a US warship. The US and Iran provided videos suggesting conflicting versions of the event, leading Mr Bush to warn of Iran's "danger" the following week.
Attention appeared to have been distracted from the ongoing nuclear issue following the NIE report.
But on March 3rd the UN security council voted to approve a third set of sanctions, increasing the list of prohibited materials to include goods affecting civil as well as military sectors.
Fourteen of the 15 members of the UN security council backed the proposal, tabled by the UK, France and Germany. Indonesia was the only abstention.
Update – the impasse continues
Mr Ahmadinejad used his country's national nuclear day to announce the installation of 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.
The move was characteristic of the leader, whose uncompromising stance on the issue appears to have gone down well with voters. Conservative supporters won 163 of 190 seats in Iran's parliament in elections in mid-March.
In May the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported Iran was refusing to abide by UN resolutions on its nuclear programme. It complained Tehran was not cooperating and warned it may be concealing high explosives testing and missile-related activities.
The US responded by demanding further information from Iran. On the same day Tehran threatened to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, criticising its cover-up allegations.
Alex Stevenson