There is more than one way to draw Iran back in from the cold, reports Roshanak Taghavi Iran stated last week in a letter to France, Britain, Germany and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was no longer obliged to stick to its initial agreement with Britain, France and Germany to stop building P2 centrifuges and that would recommence making and testing them. Upset with a recent IAEA report reproaching the country's failure to be upfront about all activities related to enriching uranium, Iran declared that the three European countries had not helped end the IAEA investigation as they had agreed to, and thus negated any obligation on Iran's part to stop building centrifuges. The IAEA was trying to determine Iran's initial source of P2 centrifuges and find out where the remnants of low and highly enriched uranium found on other centrifuges came from. It prolonged its investigation after receiving satellite photos of a possible undeclared nuclear facility for uranium enrichment outside Tehran. Signatories of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran has signed, may enrich uranium for reactor fuel. The risk, however, is that once a country has developed the capacity to enrich fuel-grade uranium, it can then go on to produce weapons-grade uranium. The country may then withdraw from the treaty and build a nuclear weapon. Thus all enrichment programs must be made known to, and safeguarded by, the IAEA. Centrifuges separate enriched uranium so that it can be used to fuel a nuclear reactor, which then generates electricity. They can also be used to develop weapons- grade uranium. The United States has accused Iran of trying to develop a secret nuclear weapons program. Iran maintains that it merely wants to acquire the capacity to independently fuel its own reactors for peaceful purposes. An Iranian source, who asked to remain anonymous, told Al-Ahram Weekly that the IAEA and the rest of the international community are wary of Iranian assertions because the country withheld the truth about some of its nuclear- related activities in the past. "Iran clearly lied," the source said, "and had centrifuges." According to this same source, Iran's nuclear program is suspicious because the financial burden and environmental damage Iran must bear in order to build a nuclear reactor "make very little economic sense". Iran harbors the world's second largest gas reserves after Russia, and has enough gas to generate electricity for roughly the next 300 years. The Weekly 's source believes that Iran wants the ability to fuel its own nuclear reactors for three reasons. First, Iran does not want to depend on the West for the fuel rods necessary to fuel its reactors. "More Iranians have been killed by chemical weapons since the Second World War than in the rest of the world put together," the source said, "and these outlawed weapons were provided by the West. Iran could not even buy arms to defend itself as there was an arms embargo on Iran. How can Iran ever trust the word of the West?" Second, "Iran has clear security needs," said the source. "Having some nuclear capability would afford it the option to obtain a deterrent more quickly if needed for security reasons. American calls for regime change are not exactly reassuring for those who run Iran." Third, Iran's economic problems have prompted the country's hardliners to look for a way to maintain their power over the country. "Iran's economic outlook is not bright," the source said. "I think that because the country is weak economically, the hardliners feel that they can strengthen their power base by building Iran's nuclear capability." Thus, according to this source, the United Nations must offer Iran a carrot that would place non-enrichment in Iran's best economic interests. "The world is willing to offer North Korea and the rest of the world economic incentives not to do this." Iran, the source said, has no reason not to and thus "has nothing to lose". The United States is still imposing sanctions against Iran and will not return the country's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) claims, which were frozen after the Iranian revolution. "If the US was really serious about it, it would offer Iran more, and reciprocate by lifting sanctions and settling Iran's FMS claims quickly as opposed to dragging it out." The Iraqi court's recent exclusion of Iranian claims from its list of charges against Saddam Hussein appears to reaffirm Iran's notion that it cannot depend on others to consider its concerns. Iran is charging Saddam Hussein for Iraq's 1980 invasion of Iran, which resulted in over one million Iranian casualties, and his use of chemical weapons Iranian forces. Enforcing Iran's claims for reparations against Iraq for damages suffered during the Iran- Iraq war would be a plausible carrot the UN could offer, the source said, "because as long as the world uses the stick with Iran, it will not comply." The Weekly was told of two other carrots that could be offered for Iranian cooperation. The first would involve American support of Iranian entry into the World Trade Organization. The second would involve having the UN Security Council apologize for not implementing stronger measures against Iraq when it invaded Iran and formally guaranteeing Iran's territorial integrity from future attack by anyone. While foreign direct investment and the lifting of economic sanctions against the country would be of great benefit, alternatives exist for a new beginning.
