Inside Iran's nuclear machine: what makes them tick?
August 27, 2006 Latest related coverage
* Iran president launches new nuclear project
Iran says it wants nuclear energy to fuel its economy. The United States says it wants to build an "Islamic bomb". Given rare access, Simon Tisdall spoke to the men in charge of the country's nuclear program.
TENSIONS between Iran and the West have rarely been greater. On the one side, President George Bush has accused Iran of being behind the attack by Hezbollah on Israel that sparked the Lebanon war and both the US and Britain say that Iran is bent on developing nuclear weapons.
On the other, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has claimed that the Bush Administration is trampling on the rights of Muslims throughout the world and the US is the "Global Arrogance" (the term that has replaced the "Great Satan" in the Iranian lexicon) in which Washington's plan for a "new Middle East" is simply a scheme to subjugate the region to US and commercial interests.
A recent article by Seymour Hersh, the respected US investigative reporter, which claimed that the war against Iran's proxy Hezbollah was a premeditated US-directed warm-up for an attack on Iran itself, stoked fears in Tehran that a US air assault on its nuclear facilities, even regime change, are moving to the top of the agenda.
Officials in Tehran worry that, after Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran is seen by George Bush as "unfinished business" — and that, urged on by Israel, he is determined to destroy what both countries see as the looming threat of an "Islamic bomb". They hear Mr Bush's talk of "Islamic fascists" and wonder whether he will soon be gunning for them.
On Wednesday Iran formally rejected an international demand that it suspend uranium enrichment to allay Western fears that it wants to build a nuclear bomb. Instead, it offered "serious talks" over its nuclear activities. It did not raise the issue of suspending enrichment by August 31 — Thursday — the deadline established by the United Nations Security Council. Sanctions now loom and tensions are worse than ever.
The story has mostly been reported from the outside, and from a Western perspective. But what are the prospects for war and peace as seen from inside Iran? For the past two weeks we have been given unprecedented access to explore what some of the country's most powerful men believe will happen next.
In a high-ceilinged, thickly carpeted inner sanctum of the fortress-like Supreme National Security Council building in central Tehran, Ali Larijani patiently spells out the factors that play a part in Iran's decisions. The CIA would dearly love to penetrate these walls. Perhaps it already has; visitors' mobile phones and other devices are confiscated.
Mr Larijani is an important man in Iran. As secretary of the security council and chief nuclear negotiator, it is he, and his predecessor, Hassan Rowhani, who have by turns tantalised, teased and infuriated the West during three years of discussions on the nuclear dossier. Iran plays a long and astute negotiating game, which Mr Larijani likens to "diplomatic chess". Officials say they learned at the feet of masters — the European powers who exploited Persia during the 19th century "Great Game". Britain is still referred to as the "Old Fox".
Mr Larijani has a daunting reputation as the dour former head of state television whose program schedules were both morally edifying and utterly tedious. His appointment by Mr Ahmadinejad was seen in the West as representing an ominous shift towards recalcitrance. But in person he is charming.
"There are many reasons why Iran is seeking nuclear power," he says. "The history of our nuclear activity dates back 45 years to the time of the ex-shah's regime. But after the Islamic revolution, some Western countries condemned Iran and cancelled their nuclear agreements with us. For example, the Americans had concluded an agreement for a research reactor in Tehran and also to provide the fuel. But they cancelled the agreement and did not give back the money. The Germans did the same. So the lesson was: we have to be self-sufficient, to provide fuel for ourselves."
He continues: "We don't see why we should stop the scientific research of our country. We understand why this is very sensitive. But they (the West) are categorising countries. Some countries can have access to high nuclear technology. The others are told they can produce fruit juice and pears! They say: 'Don't seek a nuclear bomb.' We don't have any objection to that. But unfortunately officials of some countries such as the UK say, 'We don't want you to have the knowledge for nuclear technology'. This is not logical. And we don't pay attention to this."
The Americans' contradictory impulses are to blame for the stand-off, he says. "After September 11, 2001, they faced a problem in Afghanistan. They requested assistance from Iran and we gave it. But after the problem ended in Afghanistan, they called us the 'axis of evil'. This paradox has always been their way. They want to kiss one side of our face but at the same time they also want to slap the other side."
Iran is still willing to negotiate, Mr Larijani concludes, but it will not give up its nuclear power program. Nor will it yield to conditions such as Mr Bush's demand for an immediate suspension of uranium enrichment. "If they are going to seek an imposed agreement by putting pressure on us, we will not accept it. If the atmosphere is not proper, we may delay our reply. If you try to cultivate a flower in salty land, it does not grow."
For Mr Larijani, the bottom line is respect. And the evident lack of it in Washington, magnified by loose talk of enforced regime change, is one of many reasons why Iran is going nuclear.
In some analyses, it has brought the two countries to the brink of military conflict. If the US attacks, experts say it is likely to take the form of "precision strikes" on the four main nuclear facilities and possibly Iranian armed forces and Revolutionary Guard bases, too. But Pentagon planners know Iran has the potential to retaliate, as the unexpected success of Hezb- ollah in Lebanon has shown.
Mohammad Saeidi is a practical man. Sidestepping the political, ideological and historical aspects of the nuclear dispute with the West, the vice-president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation is focused on a set of problems that must be solved logically if the country and its people are to develop to their full potential. "The country's oil and gas reserves will last a maximum of another 25 or 30 years," he says. "Therefore we have to provide other resources."
About 7000 people work in Iran's atomic establishment — principally in Tehran and at the Bushehr, Arak, Isfahan and Natanz complexes. Mr Saeidi says there are plans to build 20 nuclear power stations at a cost of $US24 billion ($A32 billion) to $US25 billion. The first, at Bushehr, built with Russian help, is expected to come on stream next year. Mr Saeidi says in going nuclear Iran is only following the example of other countries with growing populations and rising energy demand.
It is the cascade of 164 centrifuges constructed at Natanz that has drawn most international attention since Mr Ahmadinejad announced last April that Iran had mastered the processes for uranium enrichment. It was Natanz that finally prompted the US to join with European negotiators in offering the compromise incentives package that is now on the table. But like Mr Larijani, Mr Saeidi stresses the research stage nature of this work — and the ongoing inspections of Natanz and other plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
To try to divert nuclear material for bomb-making purposes without the UN knowing would be "impossible", he says, and if a deal is struck, Tehran would be ready to reintroduce spot checks. But bomb-making is not Iran's aim, Mr Saeidi says — even if it had the capacity, which it does not. Independent experts tend to agree that, at present, Iran does not have the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon. But that does not mean it will not in the future.
Mr Saeidi denies that Iran kept its facilities at Natanz secret, as claimed in 2003 by the Bush Administration. He says there was no legal necessity to notify the IAEA before nuclear material had entered the plant. "Natanz is a very large factory. You cannot hide it. It wasn't secret."
He also denies receiving help from Pakistan, now or in the past, despite a spate of disclosures concerning the proliferation network run by the Pakistani scientist, A. Q. Khan. "We don't have any relation to Pakistan on the nuclear issue. All the equipment and components we are using are made by Iranian companies and factories.
"We don't have any secret program. We don't have any secrets," Mr Saeidi says. Iran does not want the bomb, he and other officials insist, and it has no plans to build one. What it does want is a plentiful future supply of nuclear energy to fuel the rise of a new, more powerful nation — and in this ambition, it will brook no obstacles.
Many political moderates, Western diplomats and ordinary citizens say President Ahmadinejad's vision is to turn the clock back to a more honest and more dutiful time. And what better way to demonstrate the uplifting virtues and potency of this religious retrenchment than defiance of the West over the nuclear issue? Here is a golden opportunity to re-affirm Iran's compromised independence and dignity — and restore both the international respect and the religious values that Mr Ahmadinejad believes the revolution has squandered since 1989. This is Mr Ahmadinejad's chance.
It may be naive to believe that Iran's Government, surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbours and directly threatened by the US, is not seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. "The Americans have been seeking regime change in Iran ever since the victory of the revolution," say Mr Larijani. Given such widespread convictions, and the example of several other countries that have built atomic weapons without facing serious penalties, Iran's leaders might be thought remiss in not seeking to arm themselves.
But more naive, perhaps, and potentially even more destabilising, is Mr Ahmadinejad's apparent belief that by confronting the West over the nuclear issue, he can revive the purist, Khomeini-era ideal of fundamentalist Islamic revolution in a country that is changing rapidly. Most Iranians support the Government's pursuit of nuclear power. But most oppose the intolerant theocracy that is Ayatollah Khomeini's legacy.
In his brilliant new book, Confronting Iran, Ali Ansari portrays the growing "secularisation" of Iranian society as an unstoppable force. "Fewer and fewer people show an interest in organised religion," he writes. And in Tehran the evidence of that is everywhere. Iran is a rich country, poorly run. Slowly but surely its people are demanding and obtaining change. Iran does seem destined once again to be a great regional power but that destiny is likely to be attained despite its religious leadership — and despite the Bush Administration's bullying.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the articulate champion of Iran's national rights, is a potent figure. But Ahmadinejad, the would-be visionary leader of a resurgent revolution awaiting the coming of the Hidden Imam, is living a dangerous illusion. And it is Iranians, not the US Air Force, who should be allowed to shatter his dream.
Sunday August 27th 2006 PHILIP SHERWELL in NEW YORK
THE British prime minister Tony Blair faces the embarrassing prospect of once again being asked to back America, not the United Nations, as Washington prepares to forge a diplomatic "coalition of the willing" to pursue economic sanctions against Iran.
The strategy has been devised by John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, amid signs that the world body may fail to impose its own threatened penalties when Thursday's Security Council deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment expires.
The confrontation deepened yesterday as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated a new heavy water plant at Arak, south-west of Teheran, a few days after Iran pledged it would unveil a "momentous" breakthrough in its nuclear programme. Heavy water can be used to create a plutonium by-product for use in atomic warheads.
Iran publicly insists that its nuclear programme, which it operated in secret for 18 years, is for peaceful purposes, but western intelligence and governments are convinced that it is clandestinely pursuing an atomic bomb.
Mr Bolton is negotiating with US allies such as Britain and Japan to form their own coalition to freeze Iranian assets abroad and restrict trade if Teheran presses ahead with its nuclear programme unpunished by the UN.
Russia, which holds a veto at the Security Council, appeared to backtrack last week on earlier promises to support preliminary sanctions against Iran if, as expected, it flouts the August 31 deadline.
Washington intends to introduce a Security Council resolution soon after the Thursday ultimatum, proposing penalties which include a travel ban and assets freeze on prominent Iranian leaders.
Although Mr Bolton said he remains hopeful that Moscow and Beijing will back the move, he confirmed that Washington was also working on a fall-back diplomatic initiative outside the UN.
America will encourage other nations to impose the sort of trade sanctions that Washington has pursued against Iran since the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis.
"You don't need security council authority to impose sanctions, just as we have," he told the Los Angeles Times. The US wants European and Japanese banks to play a key role in clamping down on business with Iran.
Meanwhile, Israel has appointed a top general to oversee a war against Iran, prompting speculation that it is preparing for possible military action against Teheran's nuclear programme, writes Harry de Quetteville in Jerusalem.
Major General Elyezer Shkedy, Israel's air force chief, will be overall commander for the "Iran front", according to military sources.
Despite Iran's offer last week to engage in "serious talks" on its nuclear programme, Israel fears that the offer is simply to buy time for Teheran to secure all the technology it needs to build the bomb.
"Israel is becoming extremely concerned now with what they see as Iran's delaying tactics," said the Israeli Iran expert Meir Javedanfar. "They [the planners] think negotiations are going nowhere and Iran is becoming a major danger for Israel. Now they are getting ready for living with a nuclear Iran or letting the military take care of it."
The prospect of Israel "living with" a nuclear Iran appears remote. Last week Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told reporters that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel".
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
