Date:23/01/2009, The Hindu Business Line
Managing
Iran’s nuke mission
Bhaskar Balakrishnan
A view of the Arak nuclear project
Iran’s nuclear capability, combined with its hardline posture on
Israel and the use of allies such as Hamas and Hezbollah in
Palestine and Lebanon, are challenges to Israel and its ally, the
US. The Obama administration’s policy towards Iran could have
far-reaching consequences for India as well, says BHASKAR
BALAKRISHNAN.
One of the priority foreign policy challenges that the new Obama
administration will have to tackle is the problem of Iran’s
determined pursuit of nuclear capability that will give it a viable
nuclear weapons option.
Indeed, Iran’s efforts in this direction have already altered the
political and security balance in the entire region, challenging the
dominance of the US and its allies. Iran has land borders with
Afghanistan as well as Iraq, two crucial areas where the US is
embroiled in difficult military operations, and is a vital gateway
to Central Asia.
Enriching capacity
To start with, what exactly has Iran accomplished by way of
nuclear capability? It has managed to build up significant uranium
enrichment capacity at its Natanz plant using centrifuge technology
with around 3,000 centrifuges of older P-1 type (similar to those
purveyed by A. Q. Khan’s network).
This plant has produced, according to IAEA reports, around 425 kg
of low enriched uranium (LEU) as on November 2008. Iran has also
declared that it is doubling its centrifuge capacity, by end-2008
and raising it further to 9,000 centrifuges in 2009, as well as
developing improved centrifuges of greater separation efficiency.
LEU can be used for nuclear power reactors, but needs further
enrichment to be converted to highly enriched uranium (HEU) suitable
for nuclear weapons. Experts estimate that 700-800 kg of LEU
(enriched to 4 per cent U-235) is needed to produce a single nuclear
weapon. Iran could, therefore, theoretically produce enough HEU for
one nuclear weapon in around three months. Enrichment to HEU would
need additional centrifuge capacity or stopping the existing LEU
production and large-scale diversion of LEU stocks, which will be
tell-tale signs of a breakout from the NPT regime. So far, there is
no evidence of Iran diverting LEU for further enrichment.
The other dimension of Iran’s nuclear capability is the 40 MW
Arak heavy water research reactor (IR-40), under construction
(completion scheduled in 2014), which can use natural uranium or LEU
for production of plutonium. So far, Iran has completed the heavy
water plant (capacity 16 tonnes per year, requirement for start up
of IR-40 is around 80 tonnes), but there are no signs of a
reprocessing facility coming up.
The IR-40 research reactor and the heavy water plant have
recently not been made accessible to IAEA inspectors. Plutonium,
which can be produced by heavy water reactors by reprocessing the
used fuel, is usable for nuclear weapons. The construction of a
reprocessing facility will be a sign of a possible plutonium-based
weapons programme.
Missile capability
Along with this, Iran has also developed its missile capability.
In November 2008, it tested a two-staged solid fuel missile named
Sajji-1 with a range of about 2,000 km. It is developing
multiple-stage missiles with greater range. Iran had earlier
developed a liquid fuelled Shahab-3 missile with a range of 2,000
km. It has also supplied missiles to Hezbollah and Hamas, along with
training assistance.
It is clear from the above that Iran is building up its nuclear
capability as far as possible within the NPT framework, and its
missile capability, keeping its nuclear options open for various
reasons. The Bush administration’s “axis of evil” and “pre-emptive
strike” concepts and its attitude to Iran, including no-talks, and
sanctions, was perceived as a threat by Iran. The need to deter
Israel from a military strike could also be a factor.
Iran’s open nuclear option could also be driven by domestic
political compulsions. Nuclear policy is under the control of the
“supreme leader”, Ayatollah Khamenei, 69, who, with the backing of
key elements within Iran’s religious hierarchy, exerts decisive
control over all matters concerning national security. Ayatollah
Khamenei’s fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of
nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam can be seen as an
indication that while nuclear technology will be pursued, resort to
weapons would require a serious contingency.
Military conflict
Iran’s nuclear capability combined with its hardline posture on
Israel and use of allies such as Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine
and Lebanon, and its close links with Syria, has already become a
direct challenge to Israel and its ally, the US.
To add to this, the region is the source of a large part of world
oil and gas resources and there are transit areas such as the
Straits of Hormuz which could easily be threatened, cutting off oil
and gas shipments, creating havoc on an already depressed global
economy.
The timing of the recent conflict between Hamas in Gaza and
Israel is also significant, in that it is designed to draw Israel
into a long-drawn-out urban guerrilla war that it could find
difficult to sustain. This situation would greatly complicate any
possible attempt by Israel todeliver a knock out blow to Iran’s
nuclear facilities. The forthcoming February 10, 2009, legislative
elections in Israel will be critical to its future posture.
Some analysts have speculated the possible military options being
used by Israel or the US to cut off Iran’s nuclear capability. To
counter this, Iran has reportedly acquired S-300 long range SAM
system from Russia, in addition to shorter range TOR-M1 SAMs.
Iranian sources have also indicated that Iran could retaliate in a
variety of ways in case of a military strike against it.
The strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities seems to be an
increasingly unreliable and dangerous option. A military conflict
involving Iran could have serious consequences for the entire
region, including for India, and every effort must be made to avoid
this.
Engaging with Iran
So far, diplomatic efforts to reach an agreement have proved
elusive. Recently, the Bush administration softened its strategy to
include some contacts with Iran. US engagement with North Korea, for
example, had produced positive results. Obama has indicated a
willingness to engage with Iran.
Meanwhile, China, France, Germany Russia, the UK, the US and the
EU (EU+6) made a formal written proposal on June 16, 2008, embodying
important assurances regarding Iran’s legitimate security concerns
as well as promises of economic and technological cooperation. This
proposal could become the core of a modus vivendi
with Iran, especially under the Obama administration.
However, hardliners in Iran and Israel are on a collision course
as far as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s role in the
region are concerned. Shia-dominated Iran has built up strong
organisations in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), using its oil
wealth. It challenges the Sunni Arab-led monarchies in the region,
such as Saudi Arabia the custodian of Mecca and Medina, and the
pro-US administration that is taking shape in Iraq. The tendency of
Iran’s religious leadership, especially the supreme leader Ayatollah
Khamenei, to cast issues and regional conflicts in terms of
religious antagonisms also poses difficult problems.
It is rather striking that in the absence of direct US-Iran
official dialogue, there has been hardly any attempt at a track II
dialogue process between these countries. Such a process could have
thrown up some useful ideas and mechanisms of bridging differences
and distrust, and should be encouraged.
The Obama administration faces an important challenge in its
policy towards Iran, which could have far-reaching consequences for
India as well. One hopes that the June 12, 2009, presidential
elections in Iran will encourage moderates and provide some
flexibility and scope for accommodation. The sharp drop in oil
prices could also affect Iran’s economy and make the nuclear option
more difficult to achieve.
Meanwhile, all possible efforts must be made to find a diplomatic
solution that leads to Iran becoming a constructive player in the
region. The proposal of the EU+6 offers a good basis for a
negotiated settlement, respecting Iran’s legitimate rights and proud
culture and people and its potential contribution to cooperation,
prosperity and peace in the region.
(The author is former Ambassador to Cuba and
Greece.
blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)
|