BICOM

Key Points

• The revelation of a second, secret uranium enrichment facility offers clear evidence of Iran’s attempt to deceive the international community regarding the nature of its nuclear ambitions.
• The Iranian reaction over the last 72 hours, ahead of talks with the P5+1 scheduled for October 1, has been unambiguous and defiant. The regime test launched two short range missiles over the weekend, and later announced plans to test a new, longer range missile, capable of reaching Israel.
• A possible ‘freeze for freeze’ agreement, whereby Iran will pledge not to add any further capacity to its existing uranium enrichment facilities, and the international community will agree not to expand existing sanctions, can at best be a short term arrangement while talks continue.
• If talks to do not prove fruitful, renewed sanctions come on to the agenda. It is still not clear, however, to what extent if Russia and China would support increased sanctions on Iran. The current thinking among western diplomats is that Russia is moving closer to a pro-sanctions position.
• The question as to whether sanctions of any kind will be sufficient to cause the hard line and ideological regime in Iran to change course remains relevant. In the event of continued Iranian defiance, this question is likely to be put to the test.

Introduction

The dramatic revelation of a second, secret uranium enrichment facility in the city of Qom offers the clearest evidence to date of Iran’s attempt to deceive the international community regarding the nature and extent of its nuclear ambitions. The forthright and united stance taken by US President Barack Obama, President Nicholas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, when announcing the revelation at the G20 summit, shows that the patience of western leaders is wearing thin. Without speedy Iranian compliance with international requirements regarding its nuclear program, the likelihood of increased sanctions is higher than ever. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is also backing this stance, although the German elections prevented her from attending the G20 meeting on Friday.

PM Gordon Brown caught the current mood in the international community when he spoke of Iran’s ‘serial deception’. Brown went on to make clear that ‘the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful programme… Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow – endangering the non-proliferation regime, denying its people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.’  The British Prime Minister added that, ‘This is the third time that, I believe, they’ve been caught red handed not telling the truth about nuclear development.’ ^[i]

President Obama noted that Iran must now open up its nuclear facilities for inspection, or else set out on ‘a path that is going to lead us to confrontation’.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy made clear that ‘Everything must be put on the table now,’ Mr Sarkozy warned, ‘We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.’^[ii]

European diplomats preparing for the P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva scheduled for October 1 have said that if Iran does not agree to a timetable for talks on its nuclear program, then a swift move to a fourth round of UN Security Council sanctions is likely.

The situation is urgent. According to proliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, ‘If (Iran) decided today to go for a nuclear weapon and they didn’t care about anybody knowing about it, it’s possible they could do it in a year.’ Fitzpatrick suggested that such a weapon would be developed in a clandestine facility.^[iii]

This analysis will look into the events leading up to Friday’s dramatic announcement, and will consider what is likely to happen next.

Revelation of the Qom uranium enrichment facility

The joint appearance by the US, French and British leaders at the opening of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh was the culmination of a long process of investigation by American, British and French intelligence agencies. Suspicion that a second, secret uranium enrichment plant was under construction near Qom began three years ago, after US intelligence became aware that a tunnel was being built into a mountain near the city. At that time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad had just announced the resumption of uranium enrichment. Western intelligence agencies assumed that since the enrichment facility at Natanz was now subject to UN inspection, Iran would begin to build a second, secret enrichment capability. 

The construction and development of the Qom facility has been the subject of intensive surveillance, monitoring and investigation by the intelligence services of the US and some of its most trusted allies – including the UK, France and Israel – over the last three years.  The West’s knowledge of the facility was not revealed, however, and the monitoring of the facility presumably formed part of a much larger ongoing process of clandestine surveillance of the Iranian nuclear program.

Iran, having become aware that western governments knew of the existence of the Qom facility, apparently announced its existence to the IAEA in a letter on Monday. The announcement was laconic, describing the facility as a ‘pilot plant’ under construction. The Tehran government was clearly caught out by the revelations. President Ahmedinejad was told of the G20 announcement while he was taking part in an interview with Time magazine. 

American officials hope the revelations will help persuade countries reluctant to support serious international measures to prevent a nuclear Iran of the gravity of the problem.^[iv]  As permanent members of the Security Council, both Russia and China have the ability to prevent the passing of a fourth sanctions resolution. Both countries have been far more equivocal in their approach to the issue that the other three permanent members, Britain, France and the US.

It is reported that Russian President Dimitri Medvedev was informed of the existence of the Qom facility at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. This may explain the significant change in tone from the Russians, heralded by Medvedev’s statement at the GA that ‘sometimes sanctions are inevitable.’ ^[v] 

China, meanwhile, was appraised of the information regarding Qom only last Thursday. The official Chinese response has been to urge Iran to cooperate with the IAEA investigation into its nuclear facilities.

The Iranian response

The long held western knowledge of the Qom facility, and Iran’s blunt response to its impending revelation, call into question the image of the Tehran regime as an immensely sophisticated, skilled and Machiavellian operation. While Iran’s track record in dragging out negotiations, buying time and playing on western hopes is surely worthy of note, it should also be borne in mind that this is not the first time that the Iranians have been caught out by western intelligence agencies. Iran is not impermeable to western intelligence penetration, as revelations of the Iranian nuclear program over the last few years makes clear.^[vi] The subsequent Iranian reaction has been unambiguous and defiant.  The regime test launched two short range missiles over the weekend, and later announced plans to test a new, longer range missile, capable of reaching Israel. 

Iranian officials also sounded defiant. Ali-Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, explained the reason behind the construction of the Qom facility in the following terms: ‘the new site is meant to tell the enemy that Iran is determined not to allow its nuclear activities to be stopped, even for one second.’^[vii]

What will happen next?

The revelations of the Qom facility and the defiant Iranian response have raised the tension between Iran and the West. The statement by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates to CNN over the weekend that the West has ‘between one and three years’ to prevent a nuclear Iran, suggests a sense of growing urgency.^[viii]

In Geneva this week, the Iranian regime will therefore be faced by a newly united and determined stance on the part of the US and its allies. Media reports have suggested that the Iranians will be offered a ‘freeze for freeze’ agreement, whereby Iran will pledge not to add any further capacity to its existing uranium enrichment facilities. In return, the P5+1 countries will agree not to expand existing sanctions, and IAEA inspections of existing facilities will continue. Such an arrangement would not be a long term solution, since it allows Iran to continue to stockpile enriched uranium. It is at best a stop gap until a permanent agreement can be reached that stops Iran acquiring materials that would allow it to build a nuclear bomb.

The real question, of course, is what will follow if Iran rejects this demand, as is likely.  In this regard, the stances of Russia and China are crucial. Russia has played an important role in the development of the Iranian nuclear program. Specifically, the plutonium reactor at Bushehr has been constructed with Russian help and according to Russian specifications under an agreement between Tehran and Moscow.  Russian spokesmen have justified the involvement in the Iranian nuclear program by arguing that it is preferable that Iranian nuclear facilities be ‘transparent’ and ‘under international control’ than that the programme remain isolated. 

The links with Iran have clearly been of benefit to the Russian economy. They also conform to a larger Russian ambition to maintain links and leverage with all sides in the region. However, Russia of course has no deep ideological commitment to the Iranian regime and no overwhelming reason to align with an aggressive Teheran regime bent on confrontation. President Obama’s decision to drop plans for a missile shield in central Europe, which Russia has long opposed, may also have played its part in the apparent shift in tone from the Russians. 

General Vladimir Dvorkin of the Russian government-linked Centre for International Security in Moscow said that the Qom site meant that Iran ‘was closer to weapons grade uranium’ and that the international response must be ‘very tough… the question now is which new sanctions should be applied to Iran.’^[ix]

It is still not clear, however, if Russia would in fact support increased sanctions on Iran and whether the sanctions they would support would be enough. This is also the case with China. The current thinking among western diplomats is that Russia is moving closer to a pro-sanctions position. China, meanwhile, western diplomats hope, might at least be persuaded to abstain in a sanctions vote in the Security Council, thus not preventing the passing of the resolution. The Chinese are traditionally reluctant to use their veto alone, thus challenging an international consensus.    

The Geneva talks are the next focus of action. But all the signs are that Iranian defiance looks set to continue. Ahmedinejad himself dismissed international concerns regarding the Qom facility. He said that since no nuclear material had yet been introduced into it, and was not due to do so for another 18 months, Iran had not broken any rules by concealing it.^[x]

Conclusion

It is clear that Iran’s continued defiance of the international community over its nuclear programme, and its dismissive attitude to the Obama led policy of engagement, have stretched the patience of the international community. Renewed sanctions are now a realistic possibility. The question as to whether the sanctions the international community can muster will be sufficiently ‘crippling’ to force Iran to rethink its policy. Indeed, there is a question as to whether sanctions of any kind will be sufficient to cause the hard line and ideological regime in Iran to change course. In the event of continued Iranian defiance, this question is likely to be put to the test.    

 

---

 

[i] Alex Spillius, Andrew Porter and David Blair, “Iran defiant amid new nuclear plant row,” Daily Telegraph, 28 September 2009.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk

[ii] “Obama, Brown, Sarkozy issue strong statement to Teheran,” ABC News, 25 September 2009.  http://blogs.abcnews.com

[iii]  There is a debate between intelligence agencies regarding whether Iran is engaged currently in developing a warhead continues.  See William Broad, Mark Mazetti and David Sanger, “Nuclear debate brews: is Iran designing warheads?’ New York Times, 28/9. http://www.nytimes.com

[iv] Iran Said to Have Covert Nuclear Facility, David E. Sanger, New York Times, September 26, 2009

[v] Catherine Philip, Frances Elliott and Giles Whittell, “How secrecy over Iran’s Qom nuclear facility was finally blown away,” Times, 26 September 2009.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk

[vi] Iran’s recent five page letter in response to concerns over its nuclear program, in which it expressed its willingness to discuss a variety of international issues, has generally been seen as derisory.

[vii] “Iran test fires long range missile,” Financial Times, 28 September 2009.  http://www.ft.com

[viii] “Gates says best option on Iran is diplomacy,” Washington Times, 27 September 2009. http://www.silobreaker.com

[ix] “Diplomats warn of new sanctions if talks falter,” Financial Times, 28 September 2009. 

[x]  Financial Times.