• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND PROLIFERATION TREATY'S FUTURE

RIA Novosti

MOSCOW (Lt. Gen. Gennady Yevstafiyev (Rtd), Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation, for RIA Novosti) - From May 2 through 27, New York will host the sixth review conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Given that conferences are held once every five years, this is a rare and important event. However, even though only a month is left before the conference opens, neither a coordinated agenda nor a work program has been drafted. Indeed, a UN report on the implementation of the previous conference's decisions has not been ordered despite the numerous problems in this sphere.

In 1995, the NPT was extended for an indefinite period, and it is virtually impossible to amend its provisions. However, it seems that the United States would like to make some changes and adjust the document to its current foreign policy needs.

When the case accusing Iraq of proliferating nuclear weapons was lost, the emphasis was then successfully placed on overthrowing the tyrant. But Iran, which claims the role of a regional center of power, is a real adversary and it is stubbornly developing a nuclear program.

In addition, Iran covers an area in the Caspian Sea and Central Asia where the U.S. has long failed to establish its strategic interests, though the time seems to be right now. The secrecy surrounding the ayatollahs coupled with the Iranian authorities' contradictory and confused nuclear policy allowed Washington to open a front against Tehran in the IAEA and other international organizations several years ago and transform Iran's nuclear program into a serious irritant in international relations.

Just as it did with Iraq, the CIA claims that it knows for certain that Tehran, an NPT signatory, is pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program in breach of Article 2 of the Treaty. Langley does not understand the extent to which the Agency discredited itself over Iraq by doctoring lies to political orders.However, this is not the point.

When developing the "rogue state" concept, its authors claimed that since the NPT cannot be amended in writing, the global community must realize that such countries as Iran, even if they are parties to the NPT, cannot apply their "inalienable right" under Article 4 (i.e., "to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes") without exception. Accordingly, this is evidently a design to substantiate and confirm, both politically and economically, the status of an intermediate category of states that are obliged to honor their NPT commitments, but have no rights under the document.

If the United States alone pursued this policy in the past, then the situation has changed today. Only recently, we could appreciate the balanced approach of Britain, France and Germany in seeking a reasonable compromise that would ease concern about Iran's military nuclear program and enable it to apply scientific and technical progress in the nuclear sphere. In essence, it boiled down to the following: Tehran should confirm that it had no plans to build nuclear weapons, suspend its major uranium-enrichment programs (54,000 centrifuges), but retain the right to carry out a small pilot uranium-enrichment program (500-600 centrifuges). Meanwhile, the international inspection system should be bolstered to ensure better control.

This plan worked out in cooperation with the IAEA, naturally, coupled with its other elements, and was merely a compromise. To some extent, it encroached on Iran's rights but it went some way to defusing the conflict prior to the New York conference in May.

Even though there were some difficulties, the process was running its appointed course until Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made her European tour. NATO allies had long wanted to make peace with George Bush and so made a "historical step" at the expense of the compromise formula of the agreement with Iran. As usual, they claimedtheir position was proof of the allies' common position and that Washington had made concessions.

Only one word changed: "suspension" was replaced with "cessation." With a stroke of the pen, Dr. Rice pushed the Europeans' months of work back to square one. Who is the winner now?

On March 24, the three major European states met with Iranian representatives in Paris, which showed they had returned to a deadlock. At any rate, they agreed to continue the talks. Meanwhile, Dr. Rice went to Pakistan and quietly reprimanded America's strategic ally that it had concealed information about the international transfer activities of the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan.

There is the impression that if the 1979 revolution had not happened, and Iran were still ruled by Washington's strategic ally, the shah, who had already started developing nuclear energy, then Tehran would be receiving similarly light dressing down from its benefactor, even if it had the bomb.