Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue
news.bbc.co.uk
Iran has failed to comply with a 21 February 2007 deadline set by the UN Security Council for it to stop the enrichment of uranium.
The council imposed sanctions in a resolution last December and said that further sanctions would be considered if a 60-day deadline for compliance was not met.
What was Iran supposed to do?
It had to stop all enrichment activities, including the preparation of uranium ore, the installation of the centrifuges in which a gas from the ore is spun to separate the richer parts and the insertion of the gas into the centrifuges. It also had to suspend its work on heavy water projects, notably the construction of a heavy water reactor. Such a reactor could produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium for a nuclear device.
What has it done instead?
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it has installed two cascades of centrifuges at its Natanz plant with two more nearing completion. It has lowered into the plant the hexafluoride gas to be inserted into the centrifuges. It is said to be preparing to install 3000 centrifuges to make "industrial" amounts of nuclear fuel.
What sanctions were imposed in December?
Resolution 1737 was passed on 23 December 2006 under Article 41 of the UN Charter which allows for economic sanctions but not the use of military force.
It mandates all UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems".
The resolution also directs states to freeze the funds and assets of a list of key individuals and companies linked to Iran's nuclear or missile programmes.
What happens next?
The Security Council will consider new economic sanctions. However any such sanctions will need a new decision. The US is calling for them. The Russians and Chinese might question them, as they have been reluctant in the past.
Was Iran not offered help with civilian nuclear power?
Yes and the offer, from a group of Western countries including the US, still stands. However, as a condition for any talks, Iran has to suspend enrichment first. It does not accept such a pre-condition.
What is the background to this confrontation?
The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.
Bushehr nuclear reactor
Iran says its nuclear regime is peaceful
Western members of the IAEA called on Iran to commit itself to stopping all enrichment activities permanently, but it has refused to do so and has now abandoned a temporary halt as well.
The clash with Iran escalated in February 2006, when the IAEA as a whole reported Iran to the Security Council.
A month later, the Security Council decided to take up the issue after receiving a copy of an IAEA report on Iran which said that it could not "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran".
What is Iran's position on enrichment?
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection.
Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself. It says it will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure, and he has denounced the US as "tyrannical".
"The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said.
Why is the West so worried?
Western powers fear that Iran secretly wants to develop either a nuclear bomb or the ability to make one, even if it has not decided to build one right now. So they want Iran to stop any enrichment. The same technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used for producing fuel for a nuclear explosion.
The West says that Iran cannot be trusted because it long hid an enrichment programme.
How soon could Iran build a bomb if it decided to do so?
The latest estimate from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London (in its 2007 annual review) says: "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one implosion-type weapon. That day is still 2-3 years away at the earliest."
Iran initially installed 164 centrifuges but, according to IISS expert Mark Fitzpatrick, it has had problems in getting these to run properly, so it could take some time to work out how to run the 3000 it is expected to install next.
Other experts think it could be a long time. Norman Dombey, Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics at Sussex University said: "It would probably take about two years to install and run [the 3,000 centrifuges] and another two before they could enrich enough uranium for one weapon."
Might the US attack Iran?
The US says it wants a peaceful solution. An attack would not only risk Iranian retaliation, it would be hard to justify legally. The US is said to have plans but it has plans for many contingencies and it has not taken a decision.
Does Iran intend to build nuclear weapons?
Iran says its policy is "Yes" to enrichment but "No" to nuclear weapons. A fatwa against nuclear weapons has been issued by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
One other possibility is that Iran wants to develop the capability, but has left a decision on whether to actually build a nuclear weapon for the future.
The sceptics argue that Iran has no need to make its own nuclear fuel as this can be provided by others, so they conclude that Iran must be intending one day to make a bomb.
Could Iran leave the NPT?
Yes. Article X gives a member state the right to declare that "extraordinary events" have "jeopardised the supreme interests of the state". It can then give three months notice to quit. That would leave it free to do what it wanted.
And, in fact, on 7 May, its parliament threatened to force the government to withdraw if the stand-off was not resolved "peacefully".
What about fears for regional conflict?
There are fears of a broader, possibly military, crisis. The US has said publicly that it will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. President George W Bush has said that he wants diplomacy to solve this, but that nothing is ruled out.
There have been press reports that Israel, which bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981, has begun planning for a possible raid. But like the US, Israel says that diplomacy is the priority.
Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?
Article VI commits them to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads, but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament.
Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not affected by the NPT.
Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?
Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity. |
