Posted By Amina Anderson 

As the IAEA confirms that Iran is pressing ahead with its uranium enrichment program, the concept of allowing Tehran to engage in limited enrichment under IAEA supervision is being more widely discussed. 

According to a BBC article, this idea represents a “third way” solution between imposing further sanctions against Iran; something that has so far failed to curb Tehran’s nuclear plans, and a military attack; a disastrous move that could plunge the region into another deadly conflict and that's not even backed by some of the closest U.S. allies. 

Iran insists that it doesn’t need nuclear weapons and is simply exercising its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop fuel to a limited level for use in power stations. But the United States and its Western allies say that Tehran does not need to make the fuel itself and that it’s nuclear program is aimed at enriching fuel to the higher level needed for an atomic bomb. 

The nuclear standoff is entering a critical phase that some U.S. intelligence officials say Iran’s purchases of nuclear and missile equipment on the black market (something Tehran had to because of sanctions) would be sabotaged by the deliberate planting of defective material. This could only slow Iran down, but the U.S. CBS network says such operations are already underway.

Moreover, ABC News reported that President Bush allowed the CIA to carry out "non-lethal covert action against Iran involving propaganda, disinformation and the manipulation of Iran's international banking transactions". 

These reports clearly indicate that the Bush administration isn’t going to adopt the “third way”. 

The idea of a negotiated agreement to allow Iran to have a limited enrichment program is advocated by IAEA chief Mohammad El-Baradei, who recently told the New York Times: "We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich... From now, it's simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that's a fact." 

"The fact of the matter is that one of the purposes of suspension, keeping them from getting the knowledge, has been overtaken by events," he added. 

In another speech, Dr ElBaradei tried to explain his comments. He said that he wanted to hamper Tehran from reaching industrial-scale production of enriched uranium, stressing that Iran was three to eight years from making a bomb, if that is what it chooses to do. Tehran insists that it will not do so. 

The IAEA cheif also said it is too late to try and force Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment program and instead called for steps to contain it and prevent further expansion. Several members of the agency's decision-making 35-nation board also endorse ElBaradei's view.

But their proposal about accepting a limited enrichment program was immediately rejected by the U.S. and its allies; Britain, France and Germany, who say that this suggestion would undermine the current carrot-and-stick approach; applying pressure through sanctions (designed to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear and missile technology) and offering help with the development of civilian nuclear energy, as long as enrichment is not involved. 

What they do is they hold talks with Iran on one hand, and threaten sanctions on the other. The UK’s ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, recently told reporters in London that if Tehran didn’t meet UN demands, it would face more sanctions. "There will be more of the same - more people and more companies in Iran under sanctions," he said. 

Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear watcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said the idea of an enrichment agreement was a "fallback position." 

"If Iran gets enrichment technology, then the present strategy will have failed," he said. "However, if this strategy is seriously challenged, there will be tension between those whose impulse is to hold out for suspension and those who think there is a new reality. 

"An agreement with Iran would have to limit its enrichment, perhaps to the number of centrifuges it has already installed, and there would have to be a strict system of inspections, with surprise visits. Such a system would have to go beyond the extra measures Iran agreed to some time ago but never ratified. The closest precedent would be what happened in Iraq where inspectors had the power to go where they wanted."

©  EsinIslam.Com

Add Comments