Can President Bush stop Iran's nuclear programme?

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is peaceful and its nuclear technology is for energy only, not for weapons. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that his country has joined the nuclear club by enriching uranium at a sophisticated facility. The reported declaration heralds Tehran's technological breakthrough that crosses a clear line set down by the Bush Administration.

President Ahmadinejad's announcement was designed to play national pride. In the city of Mashad, the President stood before a backdrop of doves, and said, "We are saying again that the nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

"

Iran's nuclear issue is another test looming large for President Bush. President George W Bush who has defined his dealings with Iran in terms of confrontation since the early days of his Presidency may have drawn one step closer to a showdown after Tehran's declaration that it had successfully enriched uranium that could be used as nuclear fuel for generating electricity.

Reacting to Iranian President's announcement, Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow at the US Council of Foreign Relations, reportedly said, "If this is true, the genie is out of the bottle and the bottle is broken. This really changes the situation because much of the diplomacy was to stop the Iranians from getting to the enrichment stage."

Enrichment of uranium is the process whereby raw uranium is purified. Mined iron ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form, known as yellowcake. Yellowcake is processed and converted into gas by heating (above 64C). Thereafter gas is fed through centrifuges where its isotopes separate and process is repeated and uranium is enriched/purified. Low-level enriched uranium is used for power and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is reportedly able to purify or enrich it by mere 3.5% per cent -- enough for power generation -- while for nuclear weapons, 80% per cent purification (enrichment) of uranium is required. However, once enrichment process is learnt, it is possible to get 80% per cent and that is the worry for the US and other Western countries.

US intelligence officials say that Iran is about 10 years away from being able to develop a nuclear bomb. UN nuclear watchdog said that they believed the Iranians were moving faster than expected with their small-scale enrichment efforts. They predicted that Tehran might be able to build a nuclear bomb in three years.

For the Bush administrations, it appears there are two options for Iran, preventing it from enriching uranium: (a) military strike on nuclear plants and (b) UN sanctions on Iran.

With regard to the first option of military strike on nuclear facilities, in 1981 it worked with Iraq. Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor in Osirak, preventing Saddam Hussein from commencing nuclear programme.

The question is: Will it succeed for Iran? There is common consensus among many of the Western strategists that it would not work with Iran.

First, Iran has scattered its nuclear processing facilities all over the country. Secondly, some of the key nuclear processing plants (at Natanz, Isfaphan, Arak and Busheur) are located deep underground so that military strikes cannot reach them. Third, many nuclear facilities are located near mountainous regions and it is difficult for military strikes to get the exact locations. Finally, once enrichment knowledge is learnt, it will take a few years for Iranian scientists to resume it.

Then the fall-out from the military strikes would be unpredictable. It may cause serious damage to US interests in the Persian Gulf including its battle ships. The price of oil would escalate to an extent that it would slow down the global economic growth. The US soldiers in Iraq might be the targets of Iran's military assault. The US credibility that is currently at rock bottom in the Middle East will further deteriorate.

With regard to the second option, i.e. sanctions, empirical evidence suggests sanctions do not work. Furthermore Iran shares porous borders with Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkmenistan and its south is open to the sea. For oil-rich Iran, it would be easy to get what it wants from other countries.

Meanwhile it is interesting to find realism among the leaders in Britain and Israel about Iran's enrichment announcement. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw reportedly described the military action as "fantasy land."

Shimon Peres, the veteran Israeli leader, reportedly said Iran's announcement was "worrying and frustrating" but patience was needed. He added, "I do not recommend that we should be involved." Experts say Israel might not venture any plans like the 1981 bombing that destroyed Iraq's atomic reactor.

The Israeli military chief of staff Lieutenant General Dan Halutz told Army Radio that even if Iran did manage to produce a nuclear weapon it was not clear whether Israel would be its first target.

The US Secretary of State wants that the UN Security Council after 28th of April at its meeting should impose sanctions on Iran for being defiant to the statement of the Security Council to halt its enrichment programme. Iran would not stop the programme because it is the sovereign right of Iran to do it under the provisions of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The UN agency IAEA's head El Baradei cautioned patience and negotiation. China has the similar view and sent its Assistant Foreign Minister on 15th April to Tehran to facilitate dialogue among all parties. Although Russia is disappointed with Iran's announcement, it also thinks diplomacy is the way to go.

Not much is going right for the US President at present. With mid-term Congressional elections due in November, levels of public approval for his Presidency and for his policies in Iraq have sunk to about 35% per cent in opinion polls.

Furthermore, allegation of leaks from the President on disclosing classified information on a covert operative of a CIA (Valerie Plame) was intended to justify war on Iraq because Valerie's husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson did not find any evidence of import of uranium by Saddam Hussein. The latest twist prompted the Democrats' leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, to ask, witheringly, whether Mr. Bush's Oval Office is the "place where the buck stops or where the leaks start."

One danger appears to be that to recover his popularity among Americans and to divert their attention, President Bush might think that military strike on Iran may demonstrate that he is a man for "business" and a military attack on Iran's nuclear plants would in future save Americans in lives and treasure. The Iran scenario appears to be déjà vu of Iraq's adventure of the Bush administration.

What remains the reasonable option for the US is diplomacy. The truth is, if a country wants to build nuclear weapon, they are going to do it. North Korea, Pakistan and India were successful in producing weapons despite international scrutiny and surveillance.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.