The N-word: Iran, enrichment and the bomb

In the early 2010s, Iran believed that a war waged against it by Israel, which would pull in the United States, was an inevitability. At the time, American newspapers were warning that Israel was on the verge of bombing Iran, the IAEA was working hand in glove with the Americans to increase pressure on the Persians, and the country was being suffocated by sanctions that were only looking to get worse.

The Iranians, according to political analyst Trita Parsi, made a strategic calculation at the time — that the war would come and it would devastate them, but it would also destroy the Americans.

In this book, Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy, Parsi notes that Iranian officials thought the Iraq war had already turned the US into a ‘limping giant’, that another war in the region would end its superpower status, and that it would no longer be able to dominate the Middle East. Sure, they ventured, Iran would be ruined by the war, but they placed their hope on the longevity of Persia as a civilisation. Iran would endure, they thought. It would bounce back after a few decades and take its place in the sun after defeating the United States.

The Americans were bewildered when they first found out that this was a grim but genuine conclusion the Iranians had reached. In the face of subjugation, they would choose annihilation. The Obama administration became more acquainted with the way Iranians thought while negotiating the nuclear framework deal. A senior White House official noted: “The Iranians simply won’t capitulate [even if faced with war],”, adding “[be]cause they’re Iranians.”

The ceasefire

On June 22, seven American stealth bombers dropped twelve 30,000 pound bombs on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility and two on Natanz, while the research facility in Isfahan was targeted with twelve Tomahawk missiles. In response, Iran targeted Al-Udeid air base in Qatar with 19 missiles, in what it says was like for like. Though really it was as unlike as you could get; advance notice was given of the strikes and they were easily intercepted. Shortly after, there was a ceasefire.

While the ‘Twelve Day’ war seems to have come to an end, Iran has come out of this round (for there will be future rounds) looking somewhat strong even at its weakest. As is often the case, the weaker country has the most to gain from a ceasefire. Iran, having lost Syria, unable to rely on a hollowed out Hezbollah, and suffering early blows from an audacious Mossad infiltration, is the weakest it’s been in decades. Still, it has shown that despite it being more isolated than ever, despite its immensely vulnerability from the air, and despite its lack of advanced weaponry, it can still fight.

Meanwhile, Israel comes out of this weakened. It has not been able to win a war against Hamas, a resistance group with enhanced fireworks as weapons, and it has not been able to win against Iran, which proved that the Iron Dome is more an Iron Sieve which can be countered by strategically saturating Israel’s air defence with missiles. Already running low on missile interceptors and fearing a lengthy war of attrition would be unpopular among its populace, Israel agreed to a ceasefire despite its military supremacy. Netanyahu has proven that while he may huff and he may puff, but he cannot blow your house down. The Israelis no longer look inviolable.

The right to enrich

At the heart of this war is the selective denial of the Iranians’ sovereign right to enrich. This is a right they are entitled to under the Non-Proliferation Treaty which allows states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran’s enrichment rights were also endorsed in 2012 by 120 states (including Pakistan) in the Non-Aligned Movement, undermining the argument that the state’s quest is a rogue one.

Iran’s negotiations with Trump failed because while he initially said he was willing to discuss measures imposed on Iran’s right to weaponise — get nuclear weapons — but not its nuclear capability — which would include enrichment for peaceful purposes, he later fell back on the Bush-era and Israel-endorsed red line that Iran does not have the right to enrich at all, let alone weaponise.

The Obama administration had allowed the Iranians this right but imposed limits on its ability to weaponise in exchange for sanctions relief. It had also ensured that Iran’s nuclear programme would be subject to IAEA oversight and safeguards. While Iran has many stocks of 60 per cent uranium, it does not have stocks of uranium which is 90 per cent enriched — the amount required for nuclear warheads.

Nuclear ‘haves’ vs ‘have nots’

The Non-Proliferation Treaty has been criticised for creating nuclear apartheid; dividing the haves and the have nots. Those who already have nuclear weapons are to pursue good faith negotiations towards nuclear disarmament — with the provision drafted in fuzzy legalese which has never been acted upon — while no other state is allowed to acquire the bomb. The Iranians are party to the NPT, having signed it on the first day possible [they are now contemplating withdrawing from it], and seek the right to enrich, whereas Israel is not and possesses nuclear weapons.

This same pattern has also been observed with Saudi Arabia which also wants to enrich uranium. Journalist and New York Times bestselling author, Bob Woodward, in his latest book, War, quotes from a meeting between American Senator Lindsey Graham and Saudi crown prince Muhammad Bin Salman. During the meeting, which he says took place in Saudi Arabia and broached the topic of Muhammad Bin Salman’s desire to enrich, Graham reportedly said: “that’s going to be hard to do because people are afraid you’ll create a bomb”. The Saudi leader reportedly replied: “I don’t need uranium to make a bomb … I’ll just buy one from Pakistan.”

For Iran, the right to enrich is a sovereign issue they refuse to give up. In 2009, 96 per cent of Iranians believed that sanctions were worth the price of retaining the country’s enrichment right. In How Sanctions Work: Iran and the Impact of Economic Warfare, a university professor interviewed by the authors said that “If the nuclear sanctions get removed … then the West will sanction us for our ballistic missiles. Then it’ll be human rights sanctions. Then it’ll be another reason for sanctions. Just look at any country that has challenged Western power — whether political or economic — what do you see? They get sanctioned in order to break their will and make them succumb to Western power.”

While this is undoubtedly true, the right to enrich has come at a steep price. Sanctions dealt a serious blow to Iran’s economy, affecting its growth and resulting in sharply declining living standards. Its banks have been cut off from SWIFT, the global network that allows financial transactions and even during the Coronavirus pandemic, Iran could buy medicines and pharmaceutical goods but could not pay for them because of sanctions. Meanwhile, its nuclear scientists have been assassinated in droves, often by remote controlled bombs, and cyber attacks have been conducted on energy and electricity grids.

The IAEA’s hypocrisy

At the same time, Iran has had to deal with a heavily politicised IAEA. The Agency’s bent against Iran can be traced back to at least 2009 when a Japanese diplomat, Yukiya Amano, was appointed its head in 2009, who WikiLeaks later revealed had said in a meeting with the US ambassador that “he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program”. In 2011, a new IAEA report was published, which was to further increase pressure on Iran, including to cut it off from other developing countries that had resisted American efforts to leave Iran out in the cold. It seems Amano was largely passing on much of the information provided by Israel without engaging in fact checking.

The report, for the first time, suggested Iran may have an ongoing nuclear weapons programme, going against earlier IAEA assessments, US intelligence reports, and to the censure of former IAEA officials themselves, including former director general, Hans Blix, who said it was irresponsible to base conclusions on information that had not been verified. Other officials decried that the report was reminiscent of intelligence provided to the IAEA to help Bush’s case for war against Iraq. This faulty intel (provided by the Italians) had stated that the Iraqis had bought uranium from Niger only for then IAEA head Mohammad ElBaradei to check them and demonstrate to the Security Council that the documents had been forged.

The Iranians are again alleging that the incumbent IAEA head, Rafael Grossi, is in cahoots with the West, having published a report stating that Iran had violated its safeguarding agreement with the Agency, and that it could not ignore that this raised ‘proliferation concerns’, only to later say, after Iran had been bombed, that there was no proof Iran wanted a nuclear weapon. What is clear, however, is that the American and Israeli attacks on nuclear sites were unlawful.

Unlawful attacks

The United States, in joining Israel’s attacks against Iran, has also violated the prohibition on the use of force in the UN Charter. Neither state has any evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon. Indeed, US intelligence agencies continue to believe that Iran has yet to decide whether to build the bomb. Furthermore, there is also no indication that were the weapon to be built, Iran intends to use it against Israel.

Additionally, the laws of war also protect nuclear power plants during armed conflicts, obliging states to refrain from attacking them for such an attack could release dangerous forces. As Iran likely removed the nuclear material from the nuclear sites hit, this has not resulted in radioactive contamination. However, the IAEA had warned that any direct hit on Bushehr, Iran’s nuclear power plant, could result in a major radiation crisis. Al Jazeera reported that “on June 19, the Israeli military said that it had attacked Bushehr, but later said that the announcement was a mistake”.

Many commentators have pointed out that, as with Iraq after its Osirak nuclear reactor was hit by Israel in 1981, the strikes on nuclear sites will merely further Iran’s resolve to obtain the bomb. Iraq was prompted and emboldened by the strike to pursue a serious weapons programme, before it was dismantled in the First Gulf War. It is likely Iran will do the same.

A place in the haves

Former President Obama said in his inaugural address in 2009, “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. … We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Now that Iran is through this round of conflict, regime unchanged, it will likely return to the negotiating table to haggle over its enrichment. While the West believes regime change will bring about a change in Tehran’s nuclear policy, it is wrong. Even if they had brought the Shah’s son into power to do their bidding, he would have eventually cut those ties to smile at the West and build the bomb. Instead, they have the Ayatollahs who scowl at the West and build the bomb.

Both know that the clenched fist is all the West understands; they must enrich away.

Header image: An Iranian flag is pictured near a missile during a military drill, with the participation of Iran’s Air Defense units, Iran, October 2020. — Reuters/File