Although the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany and Iran have agreed to extend the deadline to July 7, prospects of any real breakthrough in the matter are bleak .
Knowledgeable sources say signs are ominous with seemingly irreconcilable differences between the two main parties in the dialogue, Washington and Tehran. American President Barack Obama has declared he would sign an agreement only after being assured it would prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. A major hitch is over including the inspection of Tehran’s military sites “anytime, anywhere– no bureaucratic committees, no moving the ball, no sites off limits.” Besides, Washington (and close allies) insist Tehran reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 7.6 tons. According to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran’s stockpile of the fuel, which can be used to fuel a reactor or processed further for weapons, has grown to eight tons.
Washington argues no future risk can be allowed in regard to the alleged Iranian nuclear weapon program. Both of Iran’s now-declared facilities for processing uranium into fuel have the potential to power a reactor or manufacture a bomb and were developed under military cover, later to be to transferred to civilian authorities. Tehran is very unlikely to oblige Washington in this matter. In Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the final word. He has reiterated he is opposed to any long-term freeze on Iran’s nuclear research and development, the full disclosure of past nuclear work, or inspections of military sites.
The sources say it would be hard for President Obama, even if he wished, to accommodate Tehran on such fundamental propositions. He has been under the scrutiny of the powerful US Senate. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Corker has recently written a letter accusing him of a “breathtaking” retreat from their ( P5+1) “original goals and statements” in the nuclear talks with Iran. The letter laments the negotiators “have moved” from a trying to strike a 20-year agreement, to a 10-year one and seem ready to let Tehran proceed with its ballistic missile program and research and development for advanced nuclear centrifuges.
The components necessary to achieving a good deal should include: anywhere, anytime inspections, including military sites; strict limits on centrifuge R&D; disclosure of Iran’s past atomic military work ; phased suspension of sanctions based upon Iran’s compliance with its obligations under a futuristic deal; and the creation of an effective mechanism to re-impose sanctions automatically in the event of any violations.
Unfortunately, the P5+1 seem prepared to accept a deal that does not include full disclosure of Iran’s past atomic research . They have promised to provide Iran with advanced nuclear technology. Their currently reported draft promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which could produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned. On its part, the Obama administration has deviated a lot from its original path in the matter. Initially, it demanded a “full suspension of uranium enrichment as required by multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.” But now it is permitting Iran to continue enriching uranium with 5060 centrifuges. Initially, the administration insisted that Iran shut down Fordow but now over 1,000 centrifuges are to remain in this underground facility largely impenetrable to attack.
It would not be wise to rule out Iran’s atomic weapons designs in future. American Secretary of State John Kerry recently claimed that Washington has had “absolute knowledge” of Iran’s past atomic weapons work. The Secretary asserted,“It’s critical to us to know that going forward, those activities have been stopped.” But it is impossible to design an effective verification system that could measure breakout time or ensure atomic weapons “activities have been stopped.” Former Director of the CIA Michael Hayden has refuted even the Kerry claim that Washington has had perfect knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program. Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano is on record having said, “We don’t know what they did in the past.”
