Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 12 February 2008 | Nature 451, 750-751 (2008) | doi:10.1038/451750a
News
Atomic agency to give verdict on Iran
The International Atomic Energy Agency is wrapping up its inquiry into Iran’s nuclear activities and is expected to report its findings on 20 February. Declan Butler analyses how close the state is to nuclear weapons capability.
In 2003, Iranian opposition groups identified the physics research centre at Lavizan-Shian in northeastern Tehran as a clandestine nuclear facility. But by the time inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) got to the site in June 2004, Iran had bulldozed the facility to the ground, meticulously cleaned the site and removed all the topsoil.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Doesn't anyone ask the question, "What is such an oil rich nation wanting with nuclear energy?" It is self evident that ANY nuclear facility in Iran is being used for the covert production of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The question we need to ask ourselves is, what are we going to do about it, and how soon?
About Iran not showing some experiment sites to IAEA - if it's true - it can be becuase iran is not just a simple importer of the nuclear technology. it is researching the technology and inventing new tools to master the technology. obviously it doesn't want to reveal all the information and researches it's done cause other countries will simply steal the technology and use it.|||||||||||||||||| About Iran stopping enrichment and buy fuel from other countries, of course Iran wouldn't do that. since it will be another handle in other countries' hands to put pressure on Iran by halting the Export of the Fuel to Iran - and with recent events Iran is sure they'll use anything to put further pressure on it(everything on the table, right? ;) - plus Iran won't have the technology itself and has to pay more money (undergo some agreements) to get it from other countries. When it can produce it and it IS Iran's (any country's) right to do so why buy it from others? |||||||||||||||||| ---------- |||||||||||||||||| About the question, "What is such an oil rich nation wanting with nuclear energy?": What i know is the oil resources will be finished someday soon (before 100 years?) and plus the pollution burning all that oil causes is not comparable to nuclear energy. that's why we should look for newer and more clean energies. - at least that's why i read in books and see in news/movies -. but now that a country is actually implementing such actons, it is being accused for not needing it at all? also the main income of Iran is from Oil money. by using Other energies and exporting more of it's oil Iran can have more income, and use the money on other sections like healthcare, education etc.|||||||||||||||||| About "It is self evident that ANY nuclear facility in Iran is being used for the covert production of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.": I really wish some people would look at U.S actions and policies with the same suspection and ask themeselves is what the U.S is saying "actually true"? (not only in this case but in many cases what U.S said turned out to be wrong. so shouldn't we be a little more cautious?)|||||||||||||||||| And finally as an iranian i can surely say Iran wouldn't use a nuclear bomb even IF it had one. cause it's against our religion and culture to kill innocent people.and the first thing that will happen after that is the goverment will be overthrown by Iranian people themeselves. (it's the same with terror. like planting bombs in trains or buses etc.)|||||||||||||||||| And though i think Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb and is not trying to get one in near future. As an Iranian i really want Iran to have nuclear bombs not to use it but to prevent others from dropping nuclear bombs on us since the only nations that have many nuclear bombs and may actually use them are U.S and Israel and that would be dropped on my head.|||||||||||||||||| I have a question too: Doesn't anyone ask the question, "Why Israel has so many Nuclear Bombs and is not under pressure to dispose of them while it's not even in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?"|||||||||||||||||| I also think the western nations really look down on the rest of the world and think their lives are more valuable than ours. (from the comments i've read in different news sites and digg)
In this rather tendentious article Mr Butler seems to assume his result rather than prove it. As to Iran's motives for wanting nucler power- with the example of the US invasion of Iraq with a million deaths at their borders, it is clear the Iranians believe their threat of nuclear proliferation has prevented US intervention. It must be observed that since the US has thought that Iran might get The Bomb, we have let them alone militarily. The Bush Neo con adventure has proven to the world that the only way to stay free of US attack is to make very sure that you have a nuclear weapon as deterrent. That is the most sensible reaction that Iran could have to US and Israeli provocation. The Eretz Israel project is alive and well, the militarist expansion of Israel into the Middle East under the US's bullying protection. However, it has also been revealed to be psychotic, that is, out of touch with reality, for all of the oil in all the Middle East will not begin to pay for the damage and military costs of Iraq to the US, and an attack on Iran would be an order of magnitude more difficult and expensive. We cannot prevent Iranian physicists from understanding bomb physics. Nor can we prevent weapons assembly once HEU or plutonium are available. Monitoring and tagging of fissionable materials is a political, not a technical problem. If we could trace the provenance of fissionable materials in real time, we would have zero probability of such materials falling into the hands of terrorists, state or individual. That is far more effective, and far easier to do, than ramping up another military misadventure in the Middle East.
Iran is already guilty even before the IAEA report is out. That is the tone of Declan Butler's article. He consulted a US senior government advisor who could hardly be an objective observer. This official said "the 3,000 centrifuges currently installed at Natanz would be more than adequate for generating enough HEU for nuclear weapons." But the New York Times, which is generally hawkish on Iran, reporting on the IAEA latest finding then on 15 November last year noted that the centrifuges "were operating well below their capacity, and that so far it had not discovered any evidence that Iran was enriching to a level that would produce bomb-grade fuel." Butler refers to "European Commission Joint Research Centre’s Theoretical Centrifuge and Cascade Simulator". They must be so secretive that doing a search using various search engines on the name and various combinations of the name only comes out with Butler's own article and an article quoting Butler's. Van Eysinga (above) asks, "What is such an oil rich nation wanting with nuclear energy?" Well, two things: First, Iran is starved of investment in the oil industry because of sanctions by the US and also by the EU because of US pressure. So it is not pumping out oil to its potential capacity. Second, as reported by the Guardian 24 May last year, "the country has a large budget deficit caused by fuel subsidies and there are fears that rising demand could exhaust Iran's oil-exporting capacity within 15 years." Thus, nuclear energy is a hedge against the oil running out. Anyhow, Iran is entitled as any country to nuclear technology as stipulated under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT.
I think we should all accept the verdict of professional bodies such as IAEA otherwise I see no reason to have them. Over the past few years South Korea and Brazil were found guilty of hiding sensitive nuclear activities and their files were closed in a matter of months. Also I don't know what motivates the write to claim that Iran should have informed IAEA of his plans for enrichment. The governing rule is that a country should inform IAEA 6 months before pumping gas into the centrifuge and that is what Iran has done. Besides if Iran got equipments from black market is because there wasn't any other market available to Iran. So I think the article didn't offer anything new but standard accusations. We all know that Iran has to explain certain experiments and we should wait for IAEA report noting that if IAEA is under pressure is not from Iran because doesn't have the force! I also found the argument that an oil reach country wants enrichment for weapon program ludicrous and certainly based on lack of knowledge about Iran in this case. Note that Iran has a population of 75 million with one largest fraction of working age in the world. That means a surge in internal demand for energy. Meeting this demand by generating electricity from fossil sources will leave Iran with no oil to export in few years time. For a country which relies on oil for most part of its economy that is devastating. With regard to natural gas, a significant fraction of that should be pumped to oil wells to keep up the current oil production rate. Furthermore there are difficulties in finalizing gas production and exports to even regional countries due to US pressures. And even if Iran solves all these, without the need for nuclear power, then it will be blamed for producing too much CO2! I should also stress that the air pollution in capital Tehran and other major cities is very high and Tehran is in fact the most polluted city in the world. So a clean energy is much required. What prolongs the issue of Iran's nuclear dossier is not whether Iran needs or doesn't need nuclear energy. Whole thing is politicized and there is only one way out and that is a political settlement. This is not easy give the long history of Iran - US relations.
It would be good if the author of this piece had at least fact-checked some of his claims... For example, there was no "topsoil removed" from Lavisan-Shian: "Washington accused Iran of removing a substantial amount of topsoil and rubble from the site and replacing it with a new layer of soil, in what U.S. officials said might have been an attempt to cover clandestine nuclear activity at Lavizan. Former U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Kenneth Brill, accused Iran in June of using ``the wrecking ball and bulldozer'' to sanitize Lavizan prior to the arrival of U.N. inspectors. But another diplomat close to the IAEA told Reuters that on-site inspections of Lavizan produced no proof that any soil had been removed at all." (See: "No Sign of Nuke Work at Suspect Iran Site – Diplomats" – Reuters September 30, 2004) As for Iran's "flagrant violations" of its safeguards agreement, the IAEA reported in 2003 that they had no relationship to a weapons program, and the IAEA has also repeatedly stated that all fissile material in iran has been accounted for and none has been diverted for military use. Indeed, the IAEA reports of Aug 2007 and Nov 2007 cleared Iran of almost all the charges, and the expected Feb 2008 report will clear up the issue of the last traces of HEU too. Tsk Tsk, Nature.
Iran does need nuclear power to save their oil for the export income it can produce. Nuclear electricity is less costly. Iran raises sucpicions by spending heavily to do fuel enrichment which they can purchase cheaply from old nuclear powers who are no longer building bombs. Iran raises red flags by being secretive about their nuclear activities and is in fact actively inviting a military strike from fearful adversaries. Perhaps the mullas want a foreign attack to unite their people behind the inept theocracy.
Sir-- I am having a hard time understanding why "Nature" a scientific journal is so much obsessed with political news like this. I would expect to read such a paper in News Week, New York Times or watch it on Fox News! No doubt, Declan Butler's comments are biased! I would recommend that he takes some scientific methodology courses before writing on such sensitive issues. Iran has never accepted the allegations by USA and other members of the western community. IAEA has not either been able to prove any evidence in support of the allegations. That's right! There are some unanswered questions, but it does not mean that Iran is pursuing bomb! Your article is more like a court verdict than a commentary in a scientific journal of high caliber. It lacks a scientific approach. You have already declared Iran as "guilty". It's not good for Nature to put its prestige on the line with political stuff like this; neither it is good for the scientific community to read stuff that is much more appropriate for highly biased lay publications! I would like to ask Declan a question: Why does not any body bother to even mention the name of the states who have never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and already have the bomb? Since I was a child (I'm old by the way!), Israel has always been threatening Iran of a military attack. Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and other countries in the region have been attacked by Israel several times! Do you/we know how much enriched uranium they have in Israel; where have they stored them; who provides them with the stuff and many other questions of this kind that you have mentioned about Iran's nuclear program? I believe the only problem in the world today is the "double standards" of the western governments towards other nations! It is way more dangerous than even an atomic bomb!
Dear Sir, First of all this thing really hurt me that a prestigious scientific journal is publishing so biased comments about a nation “IRAN†who did not erased two Japanese cities from the world map nor destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan into rocks and/ or nor deprived poor Palestinian people from their homeland. Yes off course, nuclear weapons are clear threat to world peace and they must be banned internationally. According to author Iran is guilty, but what about the nuclear program of America and Israel, both having a huge pile of these weapons and one of them tested these weapons on innocent Japanese. But they are so-called peaceful??? Is this not a big jock to contemporary civilized world? Yes off course NATURE must highlight these issues but in neutral sense. Nature should narrate the difficulties of destroyed peoples of Palestine and Afghanistan which are suffering from terrorisms of……………………………………….instead of targeting any nation who never destroyed nor can destroy any country or nation but is fighting for his right of attaining nuclear technology.
Dear chief editor I would appreciate anybody who answers my question concerning nuclear activity of Iran. What is the difference between Iran and some countries who already have nuclear energy and even nuclear weapons. If you are concerned about the Iran's nuclear activity you would have had to be concerned about the which country or countries especially in middle east have launched arms race. Once you have experienced the taste of wrong prejudice about Iraq, which led to sectarian violations and insurgency in this country. Have you ever asked yourselves during the 8 years war between Iran and Iraq which countries armed Iraq with mass destruction weapons which ended in horrendous massacre in Halabche, the Kurdish city in east of Iraq, I am not going to say how many Iranian suffered from chemical weapons. This is the vision of hypocrisy that the countries which are responsible for violations and wars in middle east are judging about the right of other nations.