Iran’s refusal to allow inspection of military sites could derail nuclear agreement

Iran’s refusal to allow inspection of military sites could derail nuclear agreement

Published 10 June 2015

 

As the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council— the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China — plus Germany near a deal to ease international sanctions if Iran agrees to restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear activities, diplomats say Iran’s refusal to provide inspectors access to its military bases could set back the negotiations, which have been in the works for over twenty-months. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken has publicly said that U.S. officials want IAEA inspectors to be given “anywhere, anytime” access to sites where nuclear work is suspected, adding that the Obama administration will not accept a deal unless access is granted “to whatever Iranian sites are required to verify that Iran’s program is exclusively peaceful — period.”

As the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China — plus Germany near a deal to ease international sanctions if Iran agrees to restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear activities, diplomats say Iran’s refusal to provide inspectors access to its military bases could set back the negotiations, which have been in the works for over twenty-months.
Gary Samore, former nonproliferation advisor to President Barack Obama, told the Los Angeles Times that with Iran’s known enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, as well as a heavy-water reactor at Ark, under international oversight, the country’s leaders would likely look elsewhere to conduct any secret nuclear work. “It’s the undeclared sites that are the real threat,” he said.
Iran continues to deny its interest in building a nuclear weapon, saying its nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, but U.S. negotiators have reasons to be skeptical; considering that the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow were built and operated in secret until disclosed by outsiders.
Several months ago, U.S. officials involved with the negotiations believed Iran had agreed in principle on a plan in which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have wide latitude to investigate undeclared sites, but Iran would be able to dispute those request for investigation on a global stage. The Times notes that Iran’s negotiators recently began to reject that agreement after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made public that he would never allow foreigners into Iranian military bases.
Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken has publicly said that U.S. officials want IAEA inspectors to be given “anywhere, anytime” access to sites where nuclear work is suspected, adding that the Obama administration will not accept a deal unless access is granted “to whatever Iranian sites are required to verify that Iran’s program is exclusively peaceful — period.”
In the negotiating rooms, however, U.S. diplomats are not demanding immediate access to suspected nuclear sites. Instead, they are considering allowing a panel to review Iranian objections to certain inspections. Under this plan, in less than thirty days, IAEA inspection requests will be judged by a commission with representatives from the six negotiating countries, Iran, and possibly the European Union. Access to suspected sites would be granted if a majority of the eight representatives supported the IAEA request for access. A required majority would mean Iran alone, or Iran supported by Russia and China, would not have enough votes to stop an inspection if other members of the commission supported it. If Iran refused to cooperate or was found operating unauthorized nuclear work, sanctions would be quickly imposed.
Though Iranian leaders have vowed to reject foreign requests for access to the country’s military bases, U.S. negotiators are viewing the rejections as bargaining tactics and predict Iran will ultimately agree to the proposals. “The most positive interpretation is they’re just seeking negotiating leverage,” said Richard Nephew, a sanctions expert who was part of the U.S. team until earlier this year. “But if they start backing away from this key element, that becomes a real problem for the negotiations.”