Iran Nuclear-Fuel Plan Spurs Uncertainty in West

Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire
Oct. 25, 2013, 11:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — Atom­ic-en­ergy plans un­veiled this week by a top Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar of­fi­cial could cast doubt on Tehran’s read­i­ness to ne­go­ti­ate lim­its on fuel-pro­duc­tion tech­no­lo­gies that also could gen­er­ate bomb ma­ter­i­al, West­ern is­sue ex­perts told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire.

The United States and five oth­er coun­tries have been ex­pec­ted to press Ir­an in on­go­ing talks to dis­mantle at least a por­tion of its urani­um-en­rich­ment cent­ri­fuges — a move that could pre­vent the Middle East­ern coun­try from rap­idly mak­ing enough highly en­riched fuel for a nuc­le­ar weapon, ana­lysts said. Tehran has main­tained for years that it only wants its nuc­le­ar equip­ment for non­mil­it­ary use, but its as­sur­ances have so far failed to sway Wash­ing­ton and U.S. al­lies.

In re­cent days, the dy­nam­ics of these latest, be­hind-closed-doors talks on Ir­an’s nuc­le­ar as­pir­a­tions — launched in Geneva on Oct. 15 by the sev­en na­tions’ polit­ic­al dir­ect­ors, who plan to meet again on Nov. 7 — may have changed. The stakes are high, as a col­lapse in ne­go­ti­ations could leave the sides with no clear route to re­solve the stan­doff that some fear could es­cal­ate in­to war.

On Tues­day, Ir­an’s atom­ic en­ergy or­gan­iz­a­tion in­dic­ated the coun­try might soon be­gin pro­du­cing its own power-plant fuel. This move has promp­ted some ana­lysts to ques­tion wheth­er the coun­try is will­ing to re­duce its quant­ity of en­rich­ment cent­ri­fuges, a move that could prove cru­cial to de­fus­ing the in­ter­na­tion­al stan­doff.

The six coun­tries ne­go­ti­at­ing with Ir­an want to en­sure that if the Middle East­ern coun­try de­cided to use its cent­ri­fuges to pro­duce nuc­le­ar-bomb ma­ter­i­al, oth­er gov­ern­ments would have time to re­spond with mil­it­ary or oth­er meas­ures be­fore Tehran could pro­duce enough fuel for a weapon, a former Obama WMD czar and oth­er ex­perts have in­dic­ated.

This week’s rev­el­a­tion that Ir­an could start mak­ing its own atom­ic fuel has “in­ter­est­ing” tim­ing, be­cause the na­tion’s ne­go­ti­at­ors have in­sisted on the con­fid­en­ti­al­ity of their dis­cus­sions with the five per­man­ent U.N. Se­cur­ity Coun­cil mem­ber na­tions and Ger­many, said Si­mon Hende­r­son, dir­ect­or of the Gulf and En­ergy Policy Pro­gram at the Wash­ing­ton In­sti­tute for Near East Policy.

Ir­an plans in three months to start man­u­fac­tur­ing “urani­um di­ox­ide” to “feed” its single nuc­le­ar power plant, a state me­dia re­port quoted agency head Ali Ak­bar Salehi as say­ing.

The Ir­a­ni­an news art­icle ap­pears to refer to the pro­duc­tion of urani­um fuel rods, a pro­cess in which urani­um di­ox­ide is an “in­ter­me­di­ate product,” Hende­r­son said in a brief tele­phone in­ter­view.

“The Rus­si­ans would prob­ably be very happy to con­tin­ue sup­ply­ing the fuel, but the Ir­a­ni­ans are es­sen­tially sig­nal­ing that [if] they want to fuel this re­act­or them­selves, they need to re­tain a very large en­rich­ment ca­pa­city,” the ana­lyst said.

He ad­ded it is im­possible to know wheth­er Salehi’s an­nounce­ment was a ne­go­ti­ation tac­tic co­ordin­ated with dip­lo­mats.

Ir­an would need between 60,000 and 100,000 of its most-ba­sic cent­ri­fuge mod­el — more than three times the num­ber it now pos­sesses — to fully take over fuel pro­duc­tion for its nuc­le­ar plant at Bushehr, said Dav­id Al­bright, head of the In­sti­tute for Sci­ence and In­ter­na­tion­al Se­cur­ity in Wash­ing­ton.

That quant­ity might be enough to run the Bushehr re­act­or, but Salehi on Thursday re­af­firmed plans to build more atom­ic en­ergy sites that would re­quire ad­di­tion­al fuel.

Speak­ing to GSN by tele­phone, Al­bright said Ir­an would have to cap its en­rich­ment pro­gram at no more than 10,000 “IR-1” ma­chines to provide a six-month buf­fer peri­od ad­equate for an in­ter­na­tion­al re­sponse if the na­tion tried to pro­duce nuc­le­ar-weapon fuel.

Meet­ing that re­quire­ment would re­quire Ir­an to dis­mantle some of its en­rich­ment equip­ment already in place, ac­cord­ing to In­ter­na­tion­al Atom­ic En­ergy Agency data high­lighted in a Thursday ana­lys­is by Al­bright’s or­gan­iz­a­tion.

As of Au­gust, Ir­an had more than 19,000 IR-1 cent­ri­fuges in­stalled at its main en­rich­ment plant and in a hardened bunker fa­cil­ity, ac­cord­ing to the find­ings. Of those ma­chines, 10,190 were act­ively en­rich­ing urani­um.

Al­bright, though, cau­tioned against view­ing Salehi’s an­nounce­ment in a strictly neg­at­ive light.

“It cuts both ways,” he said, be­cause fuel rods are harder to con­vert in­to bomb fuel than their pre­curs­or ma­ter­i­al, low-en­riched urani­um hex­a­flu­or­ide. Ir­an has already amassed tens of thou­sands of pounds of the lat­ter sub­stance.

Former U.S. State De­part­ment of­fi­cial Mark Fitzpatrick said Ir­an’s fuel-pro­duc­tion an­nounce­ment lines up with its pre­vi­ously stated pro­pos­al to pro­duce power-re­act­or ma­ter­i­al from stock­piled urani­um.

However, he ad­ded in an e-mail that the Middle East­ern na­tion might not be cap­able of gen­er­at­ing ma­ter­i­al for use in its own power re­act­or.

“I doubt that Rus­sia has provided the spe­cific­a­tions that would al­low Ir­an to safely use do­mest­ic­ally pro­duced fuel rods in the Bushehr re­act­or,” said Fitzpatrick, who now heads the Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion and Dis­arm­a­ment Pro­gram at the Lon­don-based In­ter­na­tion­al In­sti­tute for Stra­tegic Stud­ies.

The nuc­le­ar plant was con­struc­ted by a Rus­si­an state-run con­tract­or, which man­aged the site un­til last month.

What We're Following See More »
CFPB Decision May Reverberate to Other Agencies
1 hours ago

"A federal appeals court's decision that declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau an arm of the White House relies on a novel interpretation of the constitution's separation of powers clause that could have broader effects on how other regulators" like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
1 hours ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Twitter Bots Dominated First Debate
2 hours ago

Twitter bots, "automated social media accounts that interact with other users," accounted for a large part of the online discussion during the first presidential debate. Bots made up 22 percent of conversation about Hillary Clinton on the social media platform, and a whopping one third of Twitter conversation about Donald Trump.

Center for Public Integrity to Spin Off Journalism Arm
2 hours ago

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the nonprofit that published the Panama Papers earlier this year, is being spun off from its parent organization, the Center for Public Integrity. According to a statement, "CPI’s Board of Directors has decided that enabling the ICIJ to chart its own course will help both journalistic teams build on the massive impact they have had as one organization."

EPA Didn’t Warn Flint Residents Soon Enough
3 hours ago

According to a new report, the Environmental Protection Agency waited too long before informing the residents of Flint, Mich. that their water was contaminated with lead. Written by the EPA's inspector general, it places blame squarely at the foot of the agency itself, saying it had enough information by June 2015 to issue an emergency order. However, the order wasn't issued until the end of January 2016.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.