Iran and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weapons of mass destruction
By type
Biological warfare Chemical warfare Nuclear weapons Radiological weapons
Treaties
By country
Albania	Algeria
Argentina	Australia
Brazil	Bulgaria
Canada	PR China
France	Germany
India	Iran
Iraq	Israel
Japan	Netherlands
North Korea	Pakistan
Poland	Russia
South Africa	Syria
Taiwan (ROC)	United Kingdom
United States	v • d • e

Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims to chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. ^[1][2] On ideological grounds, a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been issued by the leader of the Islamic Republic.^[3]

The November 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judged that Iran halted an active nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran intended "to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame" if it chose to do so.^[4] Iran states its nuclear program is peaceful.^[5] The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that he has seen "maybe some studies about possible weaponization", but "no evidence" of "nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon" or "an active weaponization program" as of October 2007.^[6]

After the IAEA reported Iran's non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement,^[7][8] the UN Security Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities,^[9][10] and imposed sanctions against Iran three times^[11][12][13] when Iran refused to do so.^[14] Iran's representative to the UN argued that Iran categorically rejected the development of nuclear weapons and that the sanctions compelled Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology.^[11] The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but not the absence of undeclared activities,^[15] and has reached an agreement with Iran on the timeline for resolution of all the remaining verification issues specified in an August 2007 workplan.^[16] The Non-Aligned Movement has called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.^[17]

Contents 1 Nuclear weapons 1.1 Overview 1.2 History 1.3 IAEA 1.4 The Iranian stance 1.5 The U.S. stance 1.6 Other international responses 1.6.1 China 1.6.2 Russia 1.6.3 France 1.6.4 United Kingdom 1.6.5 Israel 1.7 Opinion in the Arab and Islamic world 1.7.1 The Baku declaration 1.7.2 Qatar and Arab vote against the U.N. Security Council resolution 1.8 The non-aligned movement 2 Biological weapons 3 Chemical weapons 4 Delivery systems 4.1 Missiles 4.2 Aircraft 5 See also 6 References 7 External links 7.1 News articles 7.2 Analysis 7.3 Commentary 7.4 Political statements 7.5 Organizations

[edit] Nuclear weapons

See also: Nuclear program of Iran

[edit] Overview

In September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions^[18], recalled a previous Iranian "policy of concealment" regarding its enrichment program^[19] and found that Iran had violated its NPT Safeguards Agreement.^[20] Another IAEA report stated "there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities ... were related to a nuclear weapons program."^[19] Iran has claimed that the military threat posed by Israel and the United States is forcing it to restrict the release of information on its nuclear program.^[21] Gawdat Bahgat, Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, speculates that Iran may have lack of confidence in the international community which was reinforced when many nations, under pressure from the United States, rejected or withdrew from signed commercial deals with the Iranian nuclear authority.^[22]

On 31 July 2006, the Security Council passed a resolution demanding Iran suspend its enrichment program.^[14] On December 23, 2006, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions against Iran,^[11] which were later tightened on March 24, 2007,^[12] because Iran refused to suspend enrichment. Iran's representative to the UN argued that the sanctions compelled Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology.^[11] The Non-Aligned Movement called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.^[17]

US intelligence has predicted Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredients for a nuclear weapon.^[23] On 25 October 2007 the United States declared the Revolutionary Guards a "proliferator of weapons of mass destruction", and the Quds Force a "supporter of terrorism".^[24] Iran responded that "it is incongruent for a country who itself is a producer of weapons of mass destruction to take such a decision."^[24] Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the IAEA, said he had no evidence Iran was building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with their rhetoric.^[25] Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has called for ElBaradei to be sacked, saying his policies regarding Iran "endanger world peace".^[26]

[edit] History

Iran, under the Iranian monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on July 1, 1968 and ratified the treaty on February 2, 1970.^[27]. This monarchy was replaced by the Islamic republic in 1979, but Iran remains bound to the NPT and to state its support for the treaty. The United States and Western European governments actively encouraged Iran's nuclear program and participated in it.^[28]

There are various estimates of when Iran might be able to produce a nuclear weapon, should it choose to do so:

• A 2005 assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded "if Iran threw caution to the wind, and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it might be able to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon by the end of this decade", assuming no technical problems. More plausible development programs Iran could choose to follow would take over a decade.^[29]
• A 2005 US National Intelligence Estimate stated that Iran was ten years from making a nuclear weapon.^[30]
• In 2006 Ernst Uhrlau, the head of German intelligence service, said Tehran would not be able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb before 2010 and would only be able to make it into a weapon by about 2015.^[31]
• In 2006 two former CIA officials asserted that fear of a US attack is a significant, but not the only, factor in Iranian nuclear policy.
• A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "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." ^[32]
• The head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei said on 24 May 2007 that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route.^[32]
• On 22 October 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei repeated that, even assuming Iran was trying to develop a nuclear bomb, they would require "between another three and eight years to succeed", an assessment shared by "all the intelligence services".^[33]
• In December 2007, the United States National Intelligence Estimate (that represents the consensus view of all 16 American intelligence agencies) concluded, with a "high level of confidence”, that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” at some future date.^[34][35] Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said 70 percent of the U.S. report was "true and positive," but denied its allegations of Iran having had a nuclear weapons program before 2003. Russia has said there was no proof Iran has ever run a nuclear weapons program.^[36] The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has stated that he has seen "maybe some studies about possible weaponization", but "no evidence" of "an active weaponization program" as of October 2007.^[6]

[edit] IAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous body, established by the United Nations, that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes.

According to the IAEA, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or even weapons-grade uranium. On March 6, 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices ... however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran's nuclear programme".^[37] However, the inspectors did find some sensitive documents, including instructions and diagrams on how to make uranium into a sphere, which is only necessary to make nuclear weapons. Iran furnished the IAEA with copies, claiming not to have used the information for weapons work, which it had obtained along with other technology and parts in 1987 and the mid-1990s.^[38] It is thought this material was sold to them by Abdul Qadeer Khan,^[39] though the documents did not have the necessary technical details to actually manufacture a bomb.

On December 18, 2003, Iran voluntarily signed, but did not ratify or bring into force, an Additional Protocol that allows IAEA inspectors access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops, and research and development locations.^[40] Iran agreed voluntarily to implement the Additional Protocol provisionally, however when the IAEA reported Iran's non-compliance to the United Nations Security Council on February 4, 2006 Iran withdrew from its voluntary adherence to the Additional Protocol.^[41]

On May 12, 2006, claims that highly-enriched uranium (well over the 3.5% enriched level) was reported to have been found "at a site where Iran has denied such sensitive atomic work", appeared. "They have found particles of highly enriched uranium [HEU], but it is not clear if this is contamination from centrifuges that had been previously found [from imported material] or something new," said one diplomat close to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These reports have not yet been officially confirmed by the IAEA (as of June 1, 2006).^[42][43][44]

On 31 July 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities.^[45]

In late 2006, "New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium — potential material for atomic warheads — have been found [by the IAEA] in a nuclear waste facility in Iran." However, "A senior U.N. official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the findings of traces of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities."^[46] In 2007 these traces were determined to have come from leaking used highly enriched uranium fuel from the TRR research reactor, which the U.S. supplied to Iran in 1967, and the matter was closed.^[47]

In July 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to allow inspectors to visit its Arak nuclear plant, and by August 2007 a plan for monitoring the Natanz uranium enrichment plant will have been finalised. ^[48]

In August 2007 the IAEA announced that Iran has agreed to a plan to resolve key questions regarding its past nuclear activities. The IAEA described this as a "significant step forward". ^[49]

In September 2007 the IAEA announced it has been able to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material has not been diverted from peaceful use. While the IAEA has been unable to verify some "important aspects" regarding the nature and scope of Iran's nuclear work, the agency and Iranian officials agreed on a plan to resolve all outstanding issues, Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.^[50] In an interview with Radio Audizioni Italiane the same month, ElBaradei remarked that "Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community".^[51] In October 2007, ElBaradei amplified these remarks, telling Le Monde that, even if Iran did intend to develop a nuclear bomb, they would need "between another three and eight years to succeed". He went on to note that "all the intelligence services" agree with this assessment and that he wanted to "get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb".^[33]

In late October 2007, according to the International Herald Tribune, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he had seen "no evidence" of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The IHT quoted ElBaredei as stating that,

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks." "But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No."

The IHT report went on to say that "ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it."^[6]

In November 2007 ElBaradei circulated his latest report to the upcoming meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors.^[52][53][54] Its findings conclude that Iran has made important strides towards clarifying its past activities, including provided access to documentation and officials involved in centrifuge design in the 1980s and 1990s. Answers provided by Iran regarding the past P-1 and P-2 centrifuge programs were found to be consistent with the IAEA's own findings. However, Iran has ignored the demands of the UN Security council, and has continued to enrich uranium in the past year. The IAEA is not able to conclusively confirm that Iran isn't currently enriching uranium for military purposes, as its inspections have been restricted to workshops previously declared as part of the civilian uranium enrichment program, and requests for access to certain military workshops have been denied; the report noted that "As a result, the agency's knowledge about Iran's current nuclear program is diminishing". The report also confirmed that Iran now possesses 3000 centrifuges, a 10-fold increase over the past year, though the feed rate is below the maximum for a facility of this design. Data regarding the P-2 centrifuge, which Ahmadinejad has claimed will quadruple production of enriched uranium, was provided only several days before the report was published; the IAEA plan to discuss this issue further in December. In response to the report the US has vowed to push for more sanctions, whilst Iran has called for an apology from the US.^[55]

[edit] The Iranian stance

See further Nuclear program of Iran#The Iranian viewpoint.

Iran states the purpose of its nuclear program is the generation of power and that any other use would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, as well as being against Islamic religious principles. Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and rapidly-industrialising nation. It points to the fact that Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran's environment drastically. Additionally, Iran questions why it shouldn't be allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil fields eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products and export, not simple electricity generation. Furthermore, Iran argues that nuclear power makes fairly good economic sense. Building reactors is expensive, but subsequent operating costs are low and stable, and increasingly competitive as fossil-fuel prices rise.^[56] Iran also raises funding questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, not to speak of paying for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran has abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore.^[57] These claims have been echoed by Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq.

Iran claims a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT. Twelve other countries are known to operate uranium enrichment facilities. Iran, along with many other developing nations who are parties to the NPT,^{[citation needed]} argues that the Western position is hypocritical since the nuclear-weapon states have failed to meet their nuclear disarmament obligations in Article VI of the NPT.^[58] Iran also compares its treatment as a signatory to the NPT with three nations that have not ratified the NPT.^{[citation needed]} Each of these nations developed an indigenous nuclear weapons capability: Israel by 1968, India by 1974, and Pakistan by 1998. However, as NPT Article II calls on non-nuclear-weapon states to refrain from receiving weapons technology, the weapons plans Iran received from AQ Khan^{[citation needed]} place it in technical violation of its NPT obligatons.

On December 3, 2004, Iran's former president and an Islamic cleric, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani alluded to Iran's position on nuclear energy:

Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested. We want to get what we're entitled to. I say unequivocally that for no price will we be willing to relinquish our legal and international right. I also say unequivocally to those who make false claims: Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it will not give up its rights. Your provocation will not make us pursue nuclear weapons. We hope that you come to your senses soon and do not get the world involved in disputes and crises. [2]

On November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said that his country agreed to voluntarily and temporarily suspend the uranium enrichment program after pressure from the European Union on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as a confidence-building measure for a reasonable period of time, with six months mentioned as a reference.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. The text of the fatwa has not been released although it was referenced in an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.^[59]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a 2005 speech to the U.N. General Assembly said "We are concerned that once certain powerful states completely control nuclear energy resources and technology, they will deny access to other states and thus deepen the divide between powerful countries and the rest of the international community ... peaceful use of nuclear energy without possession of a nuclear fuel cycle is an empty proposition". [3]

On 6 August 2005, Iran rejected a 34 page European Union proposal intended to help Iran build "a safe, economically viable and proliferation-proof civil nuclear power generation and research program.” The Europeans, with US agreement, intended to entice Iran into a binding commitment not to develop uranium enrichment capability by offering to provide fuel and other long-term support that would facilitate electricity generation with nuclear energy. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi rejected the proposal saying, "We had already announced that any plan has to recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium".^[60]

Iran resumed its uranium enrichment program in January 2006, prompting the IAEA to refer the issue to the UN Security Council.

On February 21, 2006, Rooz, a news website run by Iranian exiles, reported that Hojatoleslam Mohsen Gharavian, a student of Qom’s fundamentalist cleric Mesbah Yazdi, spoke about the necessity of using nuclear weapons as a means to retaliate and announced that "based on religious law, everything depends on our purpose".^[61] In an interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency the same day, Gharavian rejected these reports, saying "We do not seek nuclear weapons and the Islamic religion encourages coexistence along with peace and friendship...these websites have tried to misquote me."^[62]

On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iranian scientists working at the pilot facility at Natanz had successfully enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level, using a small cascade of 164 gas centrifuges. In the televised address from the city of Mashhad he said, "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology".^[63] It is worth noting that the level of enrichment to produce a nuclear bomb is about 90%.

In May 2006 some members of the Iranian legislature ("Majlis" or Parliament) sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan threatening to withdraw from the NPT if Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear technology under the treaty was not protected.^[64]

On 21 February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: "If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities". The White House's spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer and called it a "false offer". ^[65]

[edit] The U.S. stance

• The United States argues that Iran has violated both Article III and Article II of the NPT.^[66] The IAEA Board of Governors, in a rare divided vote, found Iran in noncompliance with its NPT safeguards agreement for a 1985-2003 "policy of concealment"^[19] regardging its efforts to develop enrichment and reprocessing technologies.^[7] The United States,^[67] the IAEA^[68] and others^[69] consider these technologies to be of particular concern because they can be used to produce fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.

• The United States has argued that Iran's concealment of efforts to develop sensitive nuclear technology is prima facie evidence of Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons, or at a minimum to develop a latent nuclear weapons capability. Others have noted that while possession of the technology "contributes to the latency of non-nuclear weapon states in their potential to acquire nuclear weapons" but that such latency is not necessarily evidence of intent to proceed toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons, since "intent is in the eye of the beholder".^[70]

• The United States has also provided information to the IAEA on Iranian studies related to weapons design, activities, including a the intention of diverting a civilian nuclear energy program to the manufacture of weapons, based on a laptop computer reportedly linked to Iranian weapons programs. The United States has pointed to other information reported by the IAEA, including the "Green Salt" project, the possession of a document on manufacturing uranium metal hemispheres, and other links between Iran's military and its nuclear program, as further indications of a military intent to Iran's nuclear program.^{[citation needed]} The IAEA has said U.S. intelligence provided to it through 2007 has proven inaccurate or not led to significant discoveries inside Iran;^[71] however, the US, and others have recently provided more intelligence to the agency.^[72]

• The United States acknowledges Iran's right to nuclear power, and has joined with the EU-3, Russia and China in offering nuclear and other economic and technological cooperation with Iran if it suspends uranium enrichment. This cooperation would include an assured supply of fuel for Iran's nuclear reactors.^{[citation needed]}

• A potential reason behind U.S. resistance to an Iranian nuclear program lies in Middle Eastern geopolitics. In essence, the US feels that it must guard against even the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Some nuclear technology is dual-use; i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, and to develop nuclear weapons, a situation that resulted in India's nuclear weapons program in the 1960s. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the Middle East, weakening US influence. It could also encourage other Middle Eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own further reducing US influence in a critical region.^{[citation needed]}

• In 2003, the United States insisted that Tehran be "held accountable" for seeking to build nuclear arms in violation of its agreements.^[73] In June 2005, the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice required IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to either "toughen his stance on Iran" or fail to be chosen for a third term as IAEA head.^[74] The IAEA has on some occasions criticised the stance of the U.S. on Iran's program.^[75] The United States denounced Iran's successful enrichment of uranium to fuel grade in April 2006, with spokesman Scott McClellan saying, they "continue to show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction". In November 2006, Seymour Hersh described a classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. He continued, "The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," adding that a current senior intelligence official confirmed the assessment.^[76] On February 25, 2007, The Daily Telegraph reported that the United States Fifth Fleet, including the Nimitz-class supercarriers Eisenhower, Nimitz and Stennis "prepares to take on Iran".^[77]

• Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states^[78]. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran^[79] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way." ^[80]

• In September 2007, Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, cautioned the IAEA not to interfere with international diplomacy over Iran's alleged weapons program. She said the IAEA's role should be limited to carrying out inspections and offering a "clear declaration and clear reporting on what the Iranians are doing; whether and when and if they are living up to the agreements they have signed." ElBaradei has called for less emphasis on additional UN sanctions and more emphasis on enhanced cooperation between the IAEA and Tehran. Iran has agreed with IAEA requests to answer unresolved questions about its nuclear program. ElBaradei has often criticized what he called "war mongering," only to be told by Rice to mind his business.^[81]

• In December 2007, the United States National Intelligence Estimate (which represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies) concluded, with a "high level of confidence”, that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen. The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” at some future date. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said he hoped the administration would “appropriately adjust its rhetoric and policy”.^[82][83]

[edit] Other international responses

The claims and counter claims have put an immense amount of pressure on Iran to reveal all aspects of its nuclear program to date. A great deal of this pressure has come from Iran's trade partners: Europe, Japan, and Russia. Iran has been slow to respond, claiming the pressure is solely an attempt by the US government to prevent it from obtaining nuclear technology.

[edit] China

The Chinese Foreign Ministry supports the peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear issue through diplomacy and negotiations. In May 2006 Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Liu Jianchao stated "As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran enjoys the right to peaceful use of nuclear power, but it should also fulfil its corresponding responsibility and commitment". He added "It is urgently needed that Iran should fully cooperate with the IAEA and regain the confidence of the international community in its nuclear program".^[84]

In April 2008, several news agencies reported that China had supplied the IAEA with intelligence on Iran's nuclear program following a report by Associated Press reporter George Jahn based on anonymous diplomatic sources.^[85] Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu described these reports as "completely groundless and out of ulterior motives".^[86]

[edit] Russia

On December 5, 2007 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he had seen no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran, no matter how old.^[87]

[edit] France

On February 16, 2006 French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said "No civilian nuclear programme can explain the Iranian nuclear programme. It is a clandestine military nuclear programme."^[88]

In January 2007, former French President Jacques Chirac, speaking "off the record" to reporters from The New York Times, indicated that if Iran possessed a nuclear weapon, the weapon could not be used. Chirac alluded to mutually assured destruction when he stated: ^[89]

“Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

[edit] United Kingdom

On 8 May 2006, Former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of British Land Forces, General Sir Hugh Beach, former Cabinet Ministers, scientists and campaigners joined a delegation to Downing Street opposing military intervention in Iran. The delegation delivered two letters to Prime Minister Tony Blair from 1,800 physicists warning that the military intervention and the use of nuclear weapons would have disastrous consequences for the security of Britain and the rest of world. The letters carried the signatures of academics, politicians and scientists including some of 5 physicists who are Nobel Laureates.

CASMII delegation

On 17 July 2006, a meeting in the House of Commons challenged Tony Blair’s statement that Iran and Syria are to blame for the latest crisis in the Middle East and condemned a decision by the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. Commons Meeting

[edit] Israel

Israel, which is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and which is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons,^[90] has frequently claimed that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program and would use nuclear weapons against it.

On December 11, 2005 then Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon put the Israeli Defense Forces on high alert for the possibility of ordering airstrikes against Iran's nuclear installations.^[91] Nonetheless, airstrikes are seen as a last resort due to the dispersal, hardening and defence by Surface-to-air missiles of Iranian sites.^[92]

On January 6, 2007 a news report cited claims that Israel may be preparing for a nuclear strike on Iran's enrichment facilities using bunker-buster bombs.^[93]

On January 15, 2007, Ardeshir Hosseinpour, an Iranian junior scientist involved in The Uranium Conversion Facility at Isfahan died, reportedly due to "gassing"^[94]. Other reports indicate that several other scientists were killed or injured, and treated in nearby hospitals.^[95]

On January 21, 2007, the death of Ardeshir Hosseinpour was finally reported, first by the Al-Quds daily^[96] and the Iranian Student's News Agency^[97] (both in Arabic)^[95].

On February 2, 2007, the U.S. private intelligence company Stratfor released a report saying that Ardeshir Hosseinpour was killed by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, through the use of radioactive poisoning^{[98][99][100][101]}.

On February 4, 2007, Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor confirmed the details of Stratfor's report to The Sunday Times^[99]. Despite the previous reports, the "semi-official"^[102] Fars News Agency reported that an unnamed informed source in Tehran told them that Ardeshir Hosseinpour was not involved in the nuclear facility at Isfahan, and that he "suffocated by fumes from a faulty gas fire in sleep."^[103]

On February 25, 2007, The Daily Telegraph reported that Israel has sought negotiations with the United States for permission to use Iraqi airspace for an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.^[104]

On December 5, 2007, Israel said it will continue it's policy against the Iranian nuclear program despite a US report saying Iran had halted it's nuclear program in 2003. Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni traveled to Brussel on 7 December to argue in favour of more international sanctions against Iran because Israel believes Iran has restarted their nuclear program. ^[105]

[edit] Opinion in the Arab and Islamic world

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on October 31, 2003, that Grand Ayatollahs, like Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, and Iranian clerics led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction. SFGate.com quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying: "The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."^[106]

On April 21, 2006, at a Hamas rally in Damascus, Anwar Raja, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine representative from Lebanon declared:

"The Muslim, Iranian, fighting people now possess nuclear capabilities. My brother, the Iranian representative sitting here, let me tell you that we, the Palestinian people, are in favour of Iran having a nuclear bomb, not just energy for peaceful purposes."^[107]

On May 3, 2006 Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al Baghdadi was interviewed on Syrian TV. On his interview he declared his support for the Islamic world to obtain nuclear weapons:

''Why shouldn't an Islamic or Arab country have a nuclear bomb? I am not referring to the Iranian program, which the Iranians say is for peaceful purposes. I am talking about a nuclear bomb. This Arab Islamic nation must obtain a nuclear bomb. Without a nuclear bomb, we will continue to be oppressed, and the American destruction... The American donkiness... The American donkey itself will always continue to attack us, because the Americans are very conceited.[4]

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan already possesses nuclear weapons, see Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction for further details.

On May 12, 2006 AP published an interview with Pakistan's former chief of staff Mirza Aslam Beg In the AP interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff.

They didn't want the technology. They asked: 'Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us.

Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them. But he insists the Pakistani government didn't help, even though he says former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians offered more than $4 billion for the technology. [5]

[edit] The Baku declaration

A declaration signed on June 20, 2006 by the foreign ministers of 56 nations of the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference stated that "the only way to resolve Iran's nuclear issue is to resume negotiations without any preconditions and to enhance co-operation with the involvement of all relevant parties".

[edit] Qatar and Arab vote against the U.N. Security Council resolution

July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council gives until August 31, 2006 for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and related activities or face the prospect of sanctions [6]. The draft passed by a vote of 14-1 (Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council, opposing). The same day, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif qualified the resolution as "arbitrary" and illegal because the NTP protocol explicitly guarantees under international law Iran’s right to pursue nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. In response to today’s vote at the UN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his country will revise his position vis-à-vis the economic/incentive package offered previously by the G-6 (5 permanent Security council members plus Germany.)[7]

[edit] The non-aligned movement

On September 16, 2006 in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries, at the summit level, declared supporting Iran's nuclear program for civilian purposes in their final written statement [8]. That is a clear majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations, which comprise 55% of the world population.

On September 11, 2007 the Non-Aligned Movement rejected any "interference" in Iran's nuclear transparency deal with U.N. inspectors by Western countries through the UN Security Council. The movement also has become disenchanted with Iran's intransigent position on the situation surrounding its nuclear program. ^[17]

[edit] Biological weapons

Iran ratified the Biological Weapons Convention on August 22, 1973.^[108]

Iran has advanced biology and genetic engineering research programs supporting an industry that produces world-class vaccines for both domestic use and export.^[109] The dual-use nature of these facilities mean that Iran, like any country with advanced biological research programs, could easily produce biological warfare agents.

A 2005 report from the United States Department of State claimed that Iran began work on offensive biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War, and that their large legitimate bio-technological and bio-medical industry "could easily hide pilot to industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential BW program, and could mask procurement of BW-related process equipment". The report further said that "available information about Iranian activities indicates a maturing offensive program with a rapidly evolving capability that may soon include the ability to deliver these weapons by a variety of means".^[110]

According to The Nuclear Threat Initiative, Iran is known to possess cultures of the many biological agents for legitimate scientific purposes which have been weaponised by other nations in the past, or could theoretically be weaponised. Although they do not allege that Iran has attempted to weaponise them, Iran possesses sufficient biological facilities to potentially do so.^[111]

[edit] Chemical weapons

Iran has experienced chemical warfare (CW) on the battlefield, suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, in chemical attacks during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. As a result, Iran has promulgated a very public stance against the use of chemical weapons, making numerous vitriolic comments against Iraq's use of such weapons in international forums. Iran did not resort to using chemical weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, though it would have been legally entitled to do so under the then-existing international treaties on the use of chemical weapons which only prohibited the first use of such weapons. Following its experiences during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on January 13, 1993 and ratified it on November 3, 1997.

A U.S. Central Intelligence Agency report dated January 2001 speculated that Iran had manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons - including blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents, and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them. It further claimed that during the first half of 2001, Iran continued to seek production technology, training, expertise, equipment, and chemicals from entities in Russia and China that could be used to help Iran reach its goal of having indigenous nerve agent production capability.^[112] However the certainty of this assessment declined and in 2007 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency limited its public assessment to just noting that "Iran has a large and growing commercial chemical industry that could be used to support a chemical agent mobilization capability."^[113]

Iran is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans chemical weapons, delivery systems, and production facilities. Iran has not made any declaration of a weapons stockpile under the treaty.

[edit] Delivery systems

[edit] Missiles

Iran is believed to have a current inventory of 25 to 100 Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of 2100 km and are capable of being armed with conventional high explosive, submunition, chemical, biological, radiological dispersion and potentially nuclear warheads. A Shahab-4 with a range of 2000 km and a payload of 1000 kg is believed to be under development. Iran has stated the Shahab-3 is the last of its war missiles and the Shahab-4 is being developed to give the country the capability of launching communications and surveillance satellites. A Shahab-5, an intercontinental ballistic missile with a 10,000km range, is also believed to be under development.^[114]

Iran has 12 X-55 long range cruise missiles purchased without nuclear warheads from Ukraine in 2001. The X-55 has a range of 2500 to 3000 kilometers.^[115]

Iran's most advanced missile, the Fajr-3, has an unknown range but it's range is estimated to be 2500 km. The missile is radar evading and can strike targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. [9].

On November 2, 2006, Iran fired unarmed missiles to begin 10 days of military war games. Iranian state television reported "dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km to up to 2,000 km...Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs." These launches come after some United States-led military exercises in the Persian Gulf on October 30, 2006, meant to train for blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction [10].

[edit] Aircraft

Main article: Iranian Air Force

Any aircraft could potentially be used to host some form of WMD distribution system. Iran has a varied airforce with planes purchased from many countries, including the United States. Due to sanctions, the Iranian government has encouraged production of domestically manufactured planes and, since 2002, has built its own transport aircraft, fighters, and gunship helicopters.

[edit] See also

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747
• Nuclear program of Iran
• Operation Merlin
• Green Salt Project
• Iranian Space Agency

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Chemical Weapons - Iran
• Annotated Google map of Iranian nuclear sites
• In Focus : IAEA and Iran
• Annotated bibliography on Iran's nuclear weapons program from the Alsos Digital Library
• Q & A with Director General of the IAEA on Iran, International Atomic Energy Agency, 22 February 2008, Video (5 min 43 s), Transcript.
• Report by the Director General of IAEA: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 22 February 2008, GOV/2008/4.

[edit] News articles

• No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program, August 2005.
• Highly Enriched Uranium Detected:
  • Mail and Guardian article
  • USA Today article
  • Regnum News article
• U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan
• [11], for a huge archive of news reports and articles on the Iranian nuclear program and the U.S. military response to it, updated daily, and going back for several years.
• US-Iran "Game of Chicken": Iran Stays Firm despite UN Sanctions by Akbar E. Torbat: US - Iran nuclear standoff can be modeled as a "game of chicken" that is well known in game theory.

[edit] Analysis

• Iran's ballistic missile developments - long-range ambitions Jane's Defence Weekly, 8 September 2006
• Towards Transatlantic Cooperation in Meeting the Iranian Nuclear Challenge - analysis by George Perkovich, IFRI Proliferation Papers n°14, 2005
• Iran's Nuclear History, Prof. Mohammad Sahimi, Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California, and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, October 2, 2003
• The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published a number of informative articles on Iran in the past few years: Countdown to Showdown, Nov/December 2004; Schooling Iran's Atom Squad, May/June 2004; The Centrifuge Connection, March/April 2004; Iran, Player or Rogue?, Sept/October 2003; Iran: Furor over Fuel, May/June 2003.
• Nuclear Files.org guide to proliferation - Iran
• Iran’s Nuclear Program — Situation and Implications, (March 2007)
• Iran's Race for Nuclear Weapons
• Iran’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities: A Pattern of Peaceful Intent?PDF (2.36 MiB), US State Department, September 2005 - presentation of US position. Satellite photography and quotes from Iranian leaders are documented and analyzed.

[edit] Commentary

• Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons, Le Monde diplomatique, November 2005 - questions whether Iran's nuclear program was really clandestine as commonly claimed.
• Forced to Fuel (Harvard Int'l Law Review, Vol. 26 No. 4 - Winter 2005) lays out the case for nuclear energy in Iran, by Prof. Muhammad Sahimi.
• "George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?" The Guardian, 5 January 2006, (extract from James Risen book)
• If Iran Gets Nukes by Abolghasem Bayyena, Antiwar.com, January 17, 2006
• Farideh Farhi, IAEA's Latest Report on Iran: Time to Move On, Informed Comment: Global Affairs, Friday 22 February 2008, [12].

[edit] Political statements

• Iran’s Continuing Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction Testimony by John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, before the House International Relations Committee Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, Washington DC, June 24, 2004
• Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Remarks by John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security to the Hudson Institute, August 17, 2004
• Iranian Response to UN Security Council Resolution Ambassador Javad Zarif's statement to the UN Security Counsel in response to the resolution requiring Iran to suspend enrichment, July 31, 2006.
• Video-Interviews with Ali Asghar Soltanieh (Amb. Iran) during the NPT PrepCom 2008

[edit] Organizations

• CASMII - The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran