Iran's nuclear program has no peaceful justification, US tells IAEA
Lacking any credible peaceful purpose, Tehran's expanding nuclear program blatantly defies international concerns, the latest US mission statement to the UN nuclear watchdog warned.
Lacking any credible peaceful purpose, Tehran's expanding nuclear program blatantly defies international concerns, the latest US mission statement to the UN nuclear watchdog warned.
“Iran continues to move further in the wrong direction. Iran continues to expand its nuclear program, to install additional advanced centrifuge cascades, and to produce highly enriched uranium for which it has no credible peaceful purpose,” US Ambassador Laura S.H. Holgate told the IAEA Board of Governors.
The statement stressed that the Islamic Republic of Iran is continually expanding its nuclear program by installing additional cascades of advanced centrifuges and producing highly enriched uranium. "Indeed, Iran’s production of 60 percent enriched uranium runs counter to the behavior of all other non-nuclear weapons states party to the NPT,” the statement said.
Confidential IAEA reports reviewed by Reuters on September 3rd indicate that Iran is persisting with its high-level uranium enrichment program, which could be utilized for the production of nuclear weapons. These reports stressed that despite all concerns, Tehran has increased its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Western countries have long argued that there is no civilian justification for Iran to enrich uranium to such a high level.
On the same day the US delivered its latest statement, Russia's Permanent Representative to international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, remarked at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting that "if the JCPOA were fully implemented, almost all of the existing concerns about Iran's nuclear program would have been resolved." Ulyanov asserted that the failure to fully implement the agreement was a consequence of the policies adopted by Western countries, particularly the US.
Earlier, Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the IAEA, also highlighted during a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors that Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium at 20% and 60% levels continue to grow. He further noted that the Agency does not have adequate information about the production and inventory of centrifuges in Iran.
He noted that the Islamic Republic has also increased the number of cascades used for UF6 enrichment.
According to Grossi's report, the IAEA has lost continuity of knowledge about the production and inventory of centrifuges, rotors, and diaphragms, as well as heavy water and uranium ore concentrate in Iran.
In 2021, the Islamic Republic ceased fulfilling its nuclear commitments under the JCPOA, including the provisional application of the Additional Protocol. Since then, the IAEA has been denied supplementary access in Iran.
September 11 is far from forgotten, but its aftermath is often viewed through the lens of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is frequently overlooked is how these costly and traumatic conflicts, and the geopolitical shifts they triggered, have shaped the current regional dynamics. Today’s complex Middle East quagmire, heavily influenced by Iran’s growing support for various actors, can be traced back to the ripple effects of those wars and the changes they imposed on the region’s power structure.
As hijacked airliners struck New York’s twin towers and the Pentagon, killing thousands, Americans united with a strength not seen since World War II. The global community rallied behind the United States, even supporting its swift invasion of Afghanistan to root out the terrorists responsible for the attacks. This unprecedented unity reflected the world’s collective resolve in confronting the threat of terrorism in the immediate aftermath of September 11.
But the ill-planned 2003 invasion of Iraq opened the floodgates to an Iranian expansion few could have imagined on September 10, 2001, when Saddam Hussein still controlled Iraq, practically begging Washington to be left alone and promising to behave. Disregarding the looming dangers of unintended consequences, the Bush administration relentlessly shoveled coal into the furnace of a reckless train, charging toward disaster in the region.
The Iraqi invasion badly damaged the US image among the Arabs, especially that the original excuse for the war, the alleged existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction proved false. This fueled a chain of events that allowed Iran to step into the power vacuum left by Saddam, reshaping the Middle East in ways no one foresaw. Meanwhile, the unending war in Afghanistan also sapped resources and focus, perhaps diverting attention from Iran's regional plans, while two simultaneous wars undoubtedly did not help the United States.
A few months after the invasion, signs began to emerge that Iran’s Islamic regime was beginning to build influence among Shiites in Iraq and even assisting the growing Sunni insurgency against the United States.
As the Taliban once famously said, “You may have the watches, but we have the time,” the Iranians began experimenting with a model of proxy warfare that today has brought the region to a new phase of instability, war and the partial closure of the Red Sea to a significant portion of world shipping.
As the US withdrew its forces from Iraq in 2009, Iran found a wide-open playing field in the country, exerting influence in local politics and becoming a king maker in the fragile and unstable democratic system in Iraq.
The more the region experienced tremors, the more Tehran capitalized on them to expand its influence, forming a Shiite crescent that now stretches to the Mediterranean. The first significant tremor came with the Arab Spring, followed by the outbreak of popular protests against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Tehran quickly stepped in, pledging military support to Assad in suppressing the growing rebellion, largely driven by the Sunni majority. By 2011, Iran was fully committed to the Syrian conflict, sending its Revolutionary Guard as "advisors" and organizing Iraqi, Afghan, and other forces to serve as foot soldiers in the brutal civil war. From 2011 to 2014, Iran’s involvement deepened, establishing a crucial foothold in Syria’s devastating conflict, all in an effort to safeguard Assad’s regime and expand its regional influence.
Meanwhile, the United States focused on diplomacy and sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions and fought ISIS in Iraq, without responding decisively to developments in Syria. Russia capitalized on the situation, deploying its forces to support Iranian efforts to crush the Syrian rebels. By the time former President Donald Trump partially reversed U.S. policy and took a tougher stance on Tehran, Syria was largely pacified, solidifying Iran’s Shiite crescent of influence extending to the Mediterranean.
During a brief period, following Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions and the January 2020 killing of Qasem Soleimani, Tehran's threat appeared to diminish. However, the situation shifted when President Joe Biden initiated new nuclear talks. Although these efforts ultimately proved futile, the US had already relaxed sanctions, allowing Iran to export nearly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day to China. Additionally, just before Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, Washington unfroze around $16 billion in Iranian assets, further loosening financial constraints on Tehran.
This has sparked criticism that the Biden administration indirectly enabled Iran’s support for the October 7 attack. While there may be some truth to this, one could argue that the roots of the October 7 incident trace back to earlier events—9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. These pivotal moments set the stage for the ongoing instability in the Middle East, with Iran gradually expanding its influence over the years.
