The UN’s nuclear watchdog reported on Saturday that Iran was continuing its uranium enrichment programme in defiance of UN security council resolutions, setting the stage for possible oil and gas sanctions by the West.
In a report, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also repeated its regular complaint that Iran was not cooperating with its inspectors over unanswered questions about evidence of efforts to militarise the programme and produce a warhead.
In his last report on Iran before leaving his post, the IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said the evidence pointing at military aspects of Iran’s programme ”appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts which naturally arise about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.”
The report said the number of centrifuges installed at the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz had grown by about 1 000 in the last two months, to 8 000.
Over the same period there was a slight drop in the number of those centrifuges being used to enrich uranium. The rest are spinning empty or have just been installed. UN officials said it was the first time in three years the number of active centrifuges had declined. It was not clear whether this was intended as a gesture to international opinion or the result of technical problems. A UN official said: ”We prefer not to speculate.”
Despite having fewer centrifuges being used for enrichment, the output of the Natanz plant appears to be fairly steady at 2,77kg of low enriched uranium (LEU) a day. Iran now has accumulated 1 508kg of LEU. LEU is used in nuclear power reactors rather than weapons, but Iran’s Western critics argue it can be converted relatively easily into weapons-grade high enriched uranium.
Iran now has enough, if that was done, to make a single nuclear warhead. Therefore, Iran’s critics are unlikely to see the drop in the number of functioning centrifuges as an Iranian concession.
They have also rejected two other recent Iranian gestures – allowing IAEA inspectors to see a heavy water plant under construction in Arak and agreeing to improve monitoring at Natanz — as ploys aimed at defusing international pressure.
The IAEA report comes at a critical time, just over three weeks before a UN summit meeting, which has become a de facto deadline for Iran to respond to an international package of incentives to suspend uranium enrichment.
The Iranian government has said it will issue a response, but has also said it will not negotiate on enrichment, which it insists is its sovereign right. If there are no signs of compromise from Tehran then the US, Britain and France will lead a campaign to impose new sanctions, probably focused on Iran’s energy sector. If they fail to win support from Russia and China at the UN, they will seek to build as much international support as they can.
The possible targets of new sanctions are Iran’s dependence, despite being an oil-rich state, on foreign supplies of refined petroleum, and its need for technology and equipment to update its oil and gas production and export capacity.
However, there are concerns among European and US officials that such measures, aimed at the heart of the Iranian economy, could rally the country around the leadership in the wake of President Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election, and are likely to break the fragile international consensus on dealing with Tehran. As international tensions mounted in the run up to the IAEA report, ElBaradei came under intense pressure over its content and presentation. There were even leaked reports that he was holding back evidence against Iran. Today, the IAEA issued a rare rebuke over those leaks alongside the report.
”Regrettably, time and again unidentified sources feed the media and member states with misinformation or misinterpretation,” an agency spokesman, Marc Vidricaire, said. ”This time around, there are articles claiming that the secretariat is hiding information, and that there are sharp disagreements among staff members involved about the contents of the report. Needless to say, such allegations have no basis in fact.” – guardian.co.uk