Iran ends snap nuclear inspections
In letter to UN, Iran also tells IAEA to remove surveillance equipment.
In a move likely to increase tensions between the West and Iran, Iranian officials Monday sent a letter to the United Nations saying it wanted the organization to "remove by mid-month any seals and surveillance systems on their uranium enrichment plant, parts of which were still being monitored by international inspectors." The
Los Angeles Times reports the letter also said that Iran would
end all voluntary compliance with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran had been voluntarily complying with a set of rules that allowed for inspections on short notice on many facilities that are a part of Iran's nuclear energy program. Now that access to these facilities will end.
Diplomats close to the nuclear agency said inspectors would travel to Iran in the next several days to remove any remaining seals and surveillance measures such as security cameras, except for those that are required under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a signatory. That means there will be far more limited inspections by the nuclear agency, and those inspections will have to be scheduled well in advance.
Reuters reports that Tuesday China said the standoff over Iran's nuclear program
could still be defused through negotiations "without a showdown in the UN." China voted for an IAEA resolution to refer Iran to the Security Council in order to encourage further talks, according to Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. China, a permanent member of the Security Council, has not said if it would veto a resolution to sanction Iran, if the issue progressed that far.
But an editorial in
The Independent of London argues that "the gloom
may not be as impenetrable as it first appears." The Independent points out that, contrary to the way the issue is being presented in much of the American media, the resolution passed over the weekend by the board of the IAEA was not to "refer" Iran to the Security Council, but to report it. Formal referral will depend on what the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, says in four weeks, after the March 6 meeting of the IAEA.
The Independent adds that no sooner had Iran signaled it would end snap inspections, than it said it would also reconsider the recent proposal to enrich uranium for Iran nuclear program in Russia.
While a welcome development, this response is not unambiguous. It is possible that Iran's leaders are singing one song to their home audience and another to the outside world. Between the incautious new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the clerical leadership and the foreign ministry, it is not at all clear who ultimately speaks for Iran. Nor is it clear why Iran might be reconsidering its rejection of a uranium deal with Russia.
Even with all the caveats, Iran's limited change of heart suggests that it is as hesitant about breaking off all diplomacy as are the Europeans and even the Americans. In short, as ElBaradei sagely put it, we are in "a critical phase but not a crisis." There is time and space for the talking to continue. And it is in everyone's interests for that to happen.
The Bush administration kept up its push for the UN Security Council to apply sanctions to Iran.
CNN reports that Robert Joseph, the US State Department's top official on nuclear issues, said Iran has used negotiations with the European Union "
to play for time to further its nuclear ambitions and now has the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon and a delivery system." Undersecretary Joseph, however, declined to say how long it would be before Iran developed a nuclear weapon.
Most experts say such a development would take five to 10 years. The latest National Intelligence Estimate, written about by
the Washington Post in early August of 2005, concluded Iran will not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until "early to mid-next decade," with general consensus among intelligence analysts that 2015 would actually be the earliest. Last week, John Negroponte, US director of national intelligence, told Congress that while he believes Iran wants a bomb, it "
probably does not have one now." He also told Congress that the war on terror, and not Iran's nuclear program, still constitutes the gravest threat to America.
In an analysis of the situation,
The New York Times reports that
it is not a matter of if, but when, Iran will join the nuclear club.
"Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got there, and they didn't have Iran's money or the engineering expertise," said a senior official who is instrumental in putting together US strategy. "Sooner or later, it's going to happen. Our job is to make sure it's later," he added, in hopes that by that time, a changed or different government is in power in Tehran.
The Times also points out that this day, even under the best of circumstances, is still several years away. And there is evidence that Iran has started to run into some technical problems with its program.
But some commentators are saying it's the US that is playing for time, not Iran, and that the US has already decided to launch a military strike against Iran and is just
using diplomacy as a cover. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern takes this view in an opinion piece for 'progressive' commentary/news site
truthout.org. He argues that we are hearing many of the same kind of statements about Iran from the same people who had made them about Iraq in the days before the 2003 invasion.
In the Washington of today there is no need to bother with unwelcome intelligence that does not support the case you wish to make. Polls show that hyped-up public statements on the threat from Iran are having some effect, and indiscriminately hawkish pronouncements by usual suspects like senators Joseph Lieberman and John McCain are icing on the cake. Ahmed Chalabi-type Iranian "dissidents" have surfaced to tell us of secret tunnels for nuclear weapons research, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld keeps reminding the world that Iran is the "world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Administration spokespeople keep warning of Iranian interference on the Iraqi side of their long mutual border – themes readily replayed in FOX channel news and the Washington Times.
The Times of London reports that "hawks will have warplanes ready if the diplomacy fails." But The Times also reports on a scenario where a military attack on Iran could unleash forces that
would destabilize the entire globe.
Iran has threatened to defend itself if attacked. It could use medium-range missiles to hit Israel or US military targets in Iraq and the region. It could also use its missiles and submarines to attack shipping in the Gulf, the main export route for much of the world's energy needs. "Once you have dealt with the nuclear sites you would have to expand the targets," said [retired Air Force Col. Sam] Gardiner. "There are another 125 to deal with including chemical plants, missile launchers, airfields and submarines."
While this huge US offensive is underway Iran would almost certainly deploy its most powerful weapon. It would unleash a counter-attack through proxies in the region. Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militia, would attack Israel. [Moqtada] al-Sadr, the militant Iraqi Shia religious leader, could order his Mahdi Army to rise up against American and British forces in Iraq. Iranian-backed groups could wreak havoc against Western targets across the world.
A new
Zogby Interactive survey shows that
64 percent of Americans would back military action against Iran only if it was carried out as part of a joint operation between the US and Europe, or the US and the UN. When asked if the US should act unilaterally, 47 percent of Americans would support such an action.
Also...
•
Top counterterrorism officer removed amid turmoil at CIA (Washington Post)
•
Iran could nuke the market (New York Sun)
•
The Iran crisis: 'Diplomacy' as a launch pad for missiles (truthout.org)
•
From Tehran to Moscow (Los Angeles Times)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed