The objective of the inflexible attitude of Bush Administration on the Iranian nuclear programme is to persuade Tehran to give up its fuel cycle endeavour and accept nuclear fuel from abroad
The nuclear fuel cycle continues to dominate Tehran and Washington relations, with little positive change, despite the confirmation of the latter’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Report that the former shelved work on its atomic bomb in 2003. The objective of this inflexible attitude of Bush Administration on the Iranian nuclear programme is to persuade Tehran to give up its fuel cycle endeavour and accept nuclear fuel from abroad. Tehran, however, made it clear that any proposal, which hinders its nuclear fuel cycle ambitions, would be unacceptable.
The recent NIE Report findings were different from the 2005 and 2007 estimates. It was a complete reversal from past conclusions on Iran’s nuclear programme. This disturbed many in the United States Congress and members of the Bush Administration. They questioned immediately the validity of the Report’s findings. Some of them without out rightly rejecting it, demanded conscious approach to deal with the Iranian nuclear programme. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) stated, “If it's inaccurate, it could result in very serious damage to legitimate American policy.” Nonetheless, the National Intelligence officials defended the accuracy of their findings. It was reported that Deputy National Intelligence Director Donald Kerr during a hearing in the Congress defended the National Intelligence Estimate. He argued that the intelligence community had concluded with “high confidence” that Iran ended its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and with “moderate confidence” that Tehran has not resumed the effort.
The Report testifies (to some extent) Tehran’s claim that it has not been working for nuclear weapons development. Despite it, the disturbing variables are: First, Iran has continued to ignore United Nations Security Council’s demands to halt its uranium enrichment programme, which could produce nuclear fuel for power production or highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Second, it has continued to develop its ballistic missile arsenal as well as aircraft that could carry nuclear weapons. Third, the vague stance of the International Atomic Energy (IAEA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. In November 2007 IAEA concluded that the agency is not sure “whether there was any military involvement in the (Iranian) programme” but neither can it be quite confident of its “exclusively peaceful nature.” This imprecise position of IAEA reinforces the Americans stance that Iran has been engaged in developing nuclear weapons; therefore the United Nations Security Council should adopt severe economic sanctions against Iran.
The Bush Administration, opposes Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme because it believes that the latter’s nuclear facilities have a military use. It is convinced that nuclear capable Iran would undermine its interests and its ally’s, especially Israel, security in the Middle East. Therefore, it has been strongly opposing Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme. On December 8, United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates alleged that Iran’s foreign policy and missile programme pose a threat to the United States. Robert Gates alleged that Tehran was developing “medium-range ballistic missiles that are not particularly cost-effective unless equipped with warheads carrying weapons of mass destruction.” This is a clear indication that Bush Administration has little faith in the findings of NIE Report.
In the Middle East, Israel is the only state, which assembled nearly 200 nuclear weapons. The Americans and their like-minded states deliberately ignore the reality that the presence of Israeli nuclear arsenal increases the risk of nuclear proliferation, and tensions in the region. They seemed convinced that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme would unleash nuclear arms race in the region. For instance, Defense Secretary Gates ignored Israelis nuclear weapons programme while condemning Iran’s nuclear stance. He said, “Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbours, it has not shipped weapons to a place like Iraq to kill thousands of civilians, it has not threatened to destroy any of its neighbours, it is not trying to destabilise the government of Lebanon, so I think there are significant differences in terms of both the history and the behaviour of the Israeli and Iranian governments.”
The preceding discussion manifests that Bush Administration remained stick to its earlier demands. It demands that Tehran should give up the fuel cycle, the enrichment and reprocessing. The United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after a bilateral meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on December 7, 2007 vowed to pursue the sanctions and keep pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Without the suspension of uranium enrichment programme, the problem would not be resolved. The continuity of work in the said area would gradually equip Iran with technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Precisely, this unjustifiable approach of the Americans in the Middle East would not facilitate in resolving the Iranian nuclear problem. Iran would continue declining the Western states demand to suspend its endeavours to convert uranium ore into nuclear fuel for power stations.
Iranians are not willing to end their nuclear fuel cycle development. This controversy naturally instigates the Washington to lobby for a third round of sanctions against the Tehran. Iran is already under sets of United Nations Security Council resolution sanctions over its nuclear programme. While, Moscow and Beijing seemed reluctant to support Washington in the near future against Iran, because they believed that new US intelligence undermined Washington’s case for a third round of sanctions. In short, the unwillingness of two permanent members of the Security Council and American NIE Report necessitate that Bush Administration should revise its Middle East policy for the sake of entire regions peace and security.
