• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
01.07.2010

DEVELOPMENTS ROUND THE NUCLEAR PROGRAMME OF IRAN

   

Sevak Sarukhanyan

Iran and its nuclear programme continue to be in the spotlight of the international relations and mass media. On May 17 the presidents of Iran and Brazil and the prime-minister of Turkey came to an agreement on re-enrichment of the uranium, which is enriched by Iran, outside its territory. Despite this Tehran still faces the danger of imposing new sanctions on it.

On May 17 in Tehran Iran, Brazil and Turkey came to an agreement on the issue of the nuclear programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran which bothered the international community most of all – the enrichment of uranium. After the negotiations which had lasted for 18 hours Iran agreed to enrich uranium on its territory up to 3.5% and then exchange it on the territory of Turkey with the uranium enriched up to 20% which later on should be used by the research reactor placed at the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre1. Despite the fact that the agreement acquired at the negotiations was characterized by all three countries as “revolutionary”, in several days it became clear that the agreement concluded and the policy of Tehran are far from resolving the nuclear programme of Iran.

Back on May 20 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran M. Motakki stated that those agreements are the “manifestation of the good will of Iran” and it did not mean that the Islamic Republic was going to give up on the programme of uranium enrichment on its own territory. Then he added: “Our decision is tended to show to the international community that we are open for the agreements”.

In fact, it is obvious that Iran will not abandon its programmes on building new capacities necessary for the enrichment of uranium and the document sighed will be used for diplomatic and informational purposes as well as to gain time. Such an opinion was expressed by the US State Secretary H. Clinton on May 28. She said that they expressed their point of view to the president of Brazil and her Brazilian colleague that providing Iran with time and opportunities to avoid the joint actions of the international community rather aggravated the situation in the world than promoted its solution.

It is remarkable that Russia’s stance is close to the one of the US and Russian president D. Medvedev even before the visit of the Brazilian president to Iran estimated the chances to success as “30%”. And though the agreement was acquired, Moscow did not abandon the idea of imposing new sanctions, and expressed the opinion that only after the exchange of the uranium on the territory of Turkey one can speak about the “new policy” of Iran.

During his visit to Germany on June 5 the president of the RF D. Medvedev stated: “We hope that the Iranian authorities will lend an ear to the international community’s voice. One cannot continue and double the irresponsible attitude, it is necessary to listen to what they say, cooperate and only in this case the existing problems can be solved”. It is necessary to mention that the president’s statement and tone were rather expressive: not the nuclear programme but Iranian authorities were criticized. This is new phenomenon in the “Iranian policy” of Russia.

Most probably, the statement of the president of the RF D. Medvedev was also conditioned by the fact that over the last period Tehran made rather anti-Russian statements which have not received the tough evaluation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the RF till now. Among those recent statements several can be mentioned.

On May 25 the ambassador of Iran to Russia M. Sajadi who due to his position should make softer appraisals of Moscow’s policy than any other diplomat from the Islamic Republic, hold a special press-conference and announced that “the six”, the member which is Russia, “acts with evil purpose and political subtext”.

And the president of Iran M. Ahmadinejad in his TV address on May 26 said that Moscow yielded to the pressure of the US and today Russia should think about “not appearing among the historical enemies of Iran”. With this purpose the Iranian president advised Russia (and that advice sounded more like a threatening) to change its stance on the nuclear programme of Iran.

Though the stance of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the statement of M. Ahmadinejad was rather soft – “most probably the statement was emotional” – but the administration of the RF president, represented by S. Prikhodko, the aide of the Russian president D. Medvedev on international policy, responded in a different way and rather toughly: “Nobody succeeded in supporting the authority through the demagogy. I am sure that the thousand-years-old Iranian history proves that”.

The fever pitch in the international community was boosted by the information published by “The New York Times” and “ITAR-TASS” on June 1 that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) new report on the nuclear programme of Iran presented to the members of the UN Security Council stated that Iran had already accumulated uranium enough for the creation of two nuclear bombs. According to the report of IAEA today Iran has already had 2.43 tons of accumulated uranium, instead of 2.06 tons registered in January. This figure makes it clear that the Iranian uranium reserves are growing fast, despite the active international resistance. As it was mentioned in the report, in the period from January to May the number of the centrifuges on the territory of Iran increased by 3.936 or by 50%. This information was aggravated by the June 4 statement of the vice-president Iran that his country was going to triple the number of the uranium enrichment centrifuges by the end of 2011.

One cannot say for sure to what extent the appraisals of “The New York Times” and “ITAR-TASS” are close to the appraisals given by the IAEA. But the fact that it was published simultaneously by Russian and American information giants can suggest either its reliability or the common policy of Russia and US on Iran. It is obvious that today Russia may come to terms with the US much easier than it was several years ago. The main reason may be considered the decision of the Obama administration not to initiate military actions against Iran, despite the fact how the nuclear programme of the later will develop.

Today one may say that the international community is rather close to making a decision on imposing new sanctions against Iran. Brazil and Turkey who are against such a decision can hardly help Iran avoiding the sanctions. Those two countries by their “pro-Iranian” policy pursue their own interests. Turkey makes another step in strengthening its position of advocate of the interests of the Muslim world and “anti-Israelism” and “pro-Iranianism” of Ankara are a part of that policy. Brazil being involved in the settlement of the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme which acquired an international resonance and which is of no importance for Brazil, simply consolidates its positions for being elected a permanent member of the UN Security Council. From this point of view both Turkey and Brazil can come to terms with the US and UN Security Council on imposing new sanctions against Iran.

And as for the efficiency of the new sanctions this issue can be discussed for quite a long time. In our opinion the Iranian nuclear programme entered the stage when Tehran sees quite another criterion of the efficiency – the nuclear bomb. And there is no economic sanction which can be more important than acquiring that achievement.

1 Let us mention that from clear technical point of view this reactor does not need 20% enriched uranium. After the modernization in 1990s this reactor works using its whole potential with the 5% enriched uranium.


Return
Another materials of author