IAEA 'mismanagement' raises Tehran's ire
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
This week, the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
is holding a meeting in Vienna and, as expected, non-proliferation issues
pertaining to North Korea and Iran will be given top priority. This is at a
time when United States officials have made optimum use of the IAEA's recent
report that indirectly confirms that Iran has "sufficient fissile material to
make a bomb", to quote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
In his opening address to the IAEA meeting, Mohammad ElBaradei, the agency's
director general, said that Iran's nuclear activities were being monitored and
there was no evidence of military diversion, adding however that "Iran has not
enrichment-related activities, or its work on heavy water-related projects. Nor
has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol [of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty]. Iran has not permitted the agency to perform the required design
information verification at the IR-40 reactor currently under construction.
Such access, together with the sampling of destroyed and salvaged equipment and
debris, is essential for the agency to complete its assessment."
ElBaradei has been downplaying Iran's cooperation for some time, raising the
ire of Tehran and leading some commentators to attribute this to, among other
things, such extraneous factors as the new low in Iran-Egypt relations. This is
in light of ElBaradei's Egyptian background and growing tensions between Tehran
and Cairo over the recent Gaza war and Cairo's reported readiness to embrace
the exiled Iranian opposition, the Mujahideen-e Khalq Organization, which is
getting kicked out of Iraq.
A Tehran University political science professor, expressing Tehran's growing
dissatisfaction with respect to the IAEA's performance, asked: "Mr ElBaradei in
his own reports has repeatedly confirmed that (a) 'The agency has been able to
continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran' and
(b) that 'all nuclear material in the country remain under agency containment
and surveillance', so the question is why is he suddenly quiet on all that is
positive in Iran's cooperation with the IAEA?"
Another analyst at the Institute for Strategic Studies, a Tehran think-tank,
told the author that ElBaradei, who went on record last October as stating
categorically that Iran did not have enough low-enriched uranium to develop one
nuclear bomb, may have been genuinely surprised by the results of the agency's
physical inventory. He added, however, "Mr ElBaradei should have known there
was the possibility of some discrepancy and we are surprised by his surprise."
What is more, whereas ElBaradei and some of his colleagues gave themselves the
license to speculate on the timeline when Iran could convert its peaceful
nuclear work into weaponization - ElBaradei most recently put the estimate at
two to five years from now - the reaction in Iran is that this is highly
irresponsible and even odd since he does not make similar statements about
other countries such as Japan and South Korea. These countries have similar
capabilities and the IAEA should refrain from such speculations that lend
themselves to serious misinformation on Iran, let alone dangerous political and
even military deductions by the US and Israel.
Case in point, it is noteworthy that Mullen's statement above came in response
to a rather misleading question by a CNN reporter, who conveyed the impression
that the IAEA has indeed confirmed that Iran has sufficient enriched uranium to
make a bomb. Subsequently, instead of amending his response in light of the
intense heat that it generated, not to mention the simultaneous press interview
by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who indirectly contradicted Mullen by
insisting that Iran was nowhere near putting together a bomb, Mullen through
his spokesman Captain John Kirby, stuck to his guns. Kirby "clarified" that his
boss was simply referring to the IAEA's finding that Iran had processed 2,222
pounds (1,010 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium.
Expectedly, Iran was swift in taking issue with Mullen's remark, calling it
pure propaganda, yet one can only imagine the rising temperature in Tehran over
the IAEA's perceived mismanagement of the Iran nuclear file. After all, the
IAEA has issued a statement of clarification that exonerates Iran of any blame
for "understating" the volume of enriched uranium and even praises Iran for
Yet there is no sign that anyone in the US government is aware of this very
important clarification that carries potential policy ramifications. Surely
this issue is important enough to warrant repetition, not only by the IAEA
spokesperson but also ElBaradei himself, given the fact that the US and to a
lesser extent the European media continue to behave as if no such clarification
has been issued to directly contradict the alarms raised by them.
From Iran's vantage point, the most irritating aspect of the IAEA "misplaying
its cards on Iran" has to do with the likely negative effect on Moscow's
nuclear cooperation with Tehran. The timing of the latest IAEA report, and all
the sinister media spin on it, which emerged during a visit to Tehran last week
by a high-level Russian delegation, may have something to do with the latter's
turnabout on their pre-visit promise that they would be disclosing a specific
date for the opening of the much-delayed Russian-made power plant in Bushehr in
Concerning the latter, the visiting head of Russia's atomic agency, Sergei
Kreinko, at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart refused to
give a dateline for Bushehr's opening, nor did he bother to second his host's
statement that the plant would be fully operational by the end of this summer.
Angered by Russia as it continues to "play politics with Bushehr", Iran's
former president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Rafsanjani at his Friday prayer sermon
strongly urged Russia to live up to its contractual commitments.
According to the Iranian press, Kreinko in his private meetings in Tehran
conceded that "Russia has no more excuses for delaying the opening of Bushehr".
Well, maybe no technical excuse, but plenty of political ones relating to
Moscow-Washington relations that are obviously intruding here and much depends
on the April summit between US President Barack Obama and Russia's President
On the bargaining table is Russia's delivery of sophisticated S-300
surface-to-air missiles that could cripple an Israeli air strike on Iran's
nuclear facilities. A new bipartisan study by the pro-Israel Washington
Institute For Near East Studies think-tank has proposed a set of policies for
the Obama administration to dissuade Moscow from going ahead with this military
sale and to impose tougher sanctions against Iran.
The Russian daily Kommersant reported that the Obama administration had offered
to forego the controversial missile defense shield in Europe in exchange for
Russia's support of Iran's nuclear program. The downside of such a bargain is
that Russia will surely be coerced by the US in the future on other issues, and
may now feel emboldened to squeeze Moscow further militarily to get concessions
In conclusion, the likely outcome of this week's IAEA meeting will be another
fresh log in Washington's furnace of sanctions on Iran, which requires
consensus among Washington, Moscow, Beijing and other parties in the "Iran
Six" concert - Britain, France and Germany.
Although Iranian officials have exhorted the leaders of this group to act "with
realism" and prudence, given the IAEA's willingness to coordinate its moves on
Iran with Obama's script for action against Iran, Tehran is unlikely to prevent
a renewed multilateral effort aiming to curb its nuclear activities. The
question is how far this effort will go to squeeze Iran when such pressures are
likely to backfire on the US's regional policy toward Iraq, Afghanistan and the
larger Middle East?
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New
Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry,
click here. His
Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing
, October 23, 2008) is now available.