Iran and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weapons of mass destruction
By type
Biological warfare Chemical warfare Nuclear weapons Radiological weapons
By country
Algeria	Argentina
Australia	Brazil
Canada	P.R. China
France	Germany
India	Iran
Israel	Italy
Japan	Netherlands
North Korea	Pakistan
Poland	Russia
South Africa	ROC (Taiwan)
United Kingdom	United States
This box: view • talk • edit

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

As of 2006, Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A number of countries, including the U.S., France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom, have accused Iran of a clandestine intention to develop nuclear weapons. On 31 July 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding Iran suspend its nuclear activities.^[1]

Contents 1 Biological weapons 2 Chemical weapons 3 Nuclear weapons 3.1 IAEA 3.2 The Iranian stance 3.3 The United States' stance 3.4 Other international responses 3.4.1 France 3.4.2 United Kingdom 3.4.3 Israel 3.5 Opinions in the Arab and Islamic world 3.5.1 The Baku Declaration 3.5.2 Qatar & Arab vote against the U.N. Security Council Resolution 3.6 The Non-Aligned Movement 4 Delivery Systems 4.1 Missiles 4.2 Aircraft 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

[edit] Biological weapons

Iran

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Iran

Sharia Constitution Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Guardian Council Ahmad Jannati Majlis Gholam Haddad-Adel Judicial system of Iran Mahmoud Shahroudi Assembly of Experts Ali Meshkini Expediency Council Hashemi Rafsanjani Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani Ministry of Intelligence and Security Government of Iran City and Village Councils Political parties Elections: 2006 AoE, 2006 CVC Foreign relations

Other countries • Politics Portal view • talk • edit

Iran ratified the Biological Weapons Convention on August 22, 1973.^[2]

Iran has advanced biology and genetic engineering research programmes supporting an industry that produces world class vaccines for both domestic use and export.^[3] The dual use nature of these facilities mean that Iran, like any country with advanced biological research programmes, could easily produce biological warfare agents.

A 2005 report from the United States Department of State claimed that Iran began work on offensive biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War, and that their large legitimate biotechnological and biomedical industry "could easily hide pilot to industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential BW programme, and could mask procurement of BW-related process equipment". The report further said that "available information about Iranian activities indicates a maturing offensive programme with a rapidly evolving capability that may soon include the ability to deliver these weapons by a variety of means".^[4]

According to The Nuclear Threat Initiative, Iran is known to possess cultures of the many biological agents for legitimate scientific purposes which have been weaponised by other nations in the past, or could theoretically be weaponised, though they do not allege that Iran has attempted to weaponise them, Iran possesses sufficient biological facilities to potentially do so.^[5]

[edit] Chemical weapons

Iran is one of the few countries in the world that has experienced chemical warfare (CW) on the battlefield, suffering tens of thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, in chemical attacks during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. As a result Iran has promulgated a very public stance against the use of chemical weapons, making numerous vitriolic comments against Iraq's use of such weapons in international forums. Following from its experiences, Iran signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on January 13, 1993 and ratified it on November 3, 1997.

A US Central Intelligence Agency report dated January 2001 alleges Iran has manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons - including blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents, and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them. It further claims that during the first half of 2001 Iran continued to seek production technology, training, expertise, equipment, and chemicals from entities in Russia and China that could be used to help Iran reach its goal of having an indigenous nerve agent production capability.^[6]

[edit] Nuclear weapons

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on July 1, 1968 and ratified the treaty on February 2, 1970.^[7]

A number of countries, including the U.S., France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom, have accused Iran of a clandestine intention to develop nuclear weapons.

A 2005 assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded "if Iran threw caution to the wind, and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it might be able to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon by the end of this decade, assuming no technical problems. More plausible development programmes Iran could choose to follow would take over a decade".^[8]

[edit] IAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an autonomous body, established by the United Nations, that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes.

According to the IAEA, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or even weapons-grade uranium. On March 6, 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".^[9]

On December 18, 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol that allows IAEA inspectors access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops, and research and development locations.^[10]

On May 12, 2006, claims that highly enriched uranium (well over the 3.5% enriched level) was reported to have been found "at a site where Iran has denied such sensitive atomic work", appeared. "They have found particles of highly enriched uranium [HEU], but it is not clear if this is contamination from centrifuges that had been previously found [from imported material] or something new," said one diplomat close to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These reports have not yet been officially confirmed by the IAEA (as of June 1, 2006).^[11][12][13]. [Note: reader discretion is advised since the above claims come from unverifiable sources and as such should be taken with the appropriate amount of scepticism.]

On 31 July 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities.^[14]

In late 2006, "New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium — potential material for atomic warheads — have been found [by the IAEA] in a nuclear waste facility in Iran." However, "A senior U.N. official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the findings of traces of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly, said that while the uranium traces were enriched to a higher level than needed to generate power, they were below weapons-grade."^[15]

[edit] The Iranian stance

Iran states the purpose of its nuclear programme is the generation of power and that any other use would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory (but has threatened to withdraw from), as well as being against Iranian religious principles. Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and rapidly industrialising nation. It points to the fact that Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran's environment drastically. Additionally, Iran questions why it shouldn't be allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil fields eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products and export, not simple electricity generation. Furthermore, Iran argues that nuclear power makes fairly good economic sense. Building reactors is expensive, but subsequent operating costs are low and stable, and increasingly competitive as fossil-fuel prices rise. ^[16] Iran also raises funding questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, let alone pay for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran has abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore ^[17].

Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT. Iran, and many other developing nations who are signatories to the NPT, believe the Western position to be hypocritical, claiming that the NPT's original purpose was universal nuclear disarmament. Iran also compares its treatment as a signatory to the NPT with three nations that have not ratified the NPT. Each of these nations developed an indigenous nuclear weapons capability: Israel by 1968, India by 1974, and Pakistan by 1998.

On December 14, 2001, Iran's former president and an Islamic cleric, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani alluded to Iran's position toward Israel and the Western world. He said (according to a translation by the BBC):

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. [4] [5]

However, years later on December 3, 2004, he backtracked:

Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested. We want to get what we're entitled to. I say unequivocally that for no price will we be willing to relinquish our legal and international right. I also say unequivocally to those who make false claims: Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it will not give up its rights. Your provocation will not make us pursue nuclear weapons. We hope that you come to your senses soon and do not get the world involved in disputes and crises. [6]

On November 14, 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said that his country agreed to voluntarily and temporarily suspend the uranium enrichment programme after pressure from the European Union on behalf of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, as a confidence-building measure for a reasonable period of time, with six months mentioned as a reference.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.^[18]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The text of the fatwa has not been released although it was referenced in an official statement at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.^[18]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a 2005 speech to the U.N. General Assembly said "We are concerned that once certain powerful states completely control nuclear energy resources and technology, they will deny access to other states and thus deepen the divide between powerful countries and the rest of the international community ... peaceful use of nuclear energy without possession of a nuclear fuel cycle is an empty proposition". [7]

On 6 August, 2005, Iran rejected a 34 page European Union proposal intended to help Iran build "a safe, economically viable and proliferation-proof civil nuclear power generation and research programme.” The Europeans, with US agreement, intended to entice Iran into a binding commitment not to build atomic arms by offering to provide fuel and other long-term support that would facilitate electricity generation with nuclear energy. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi rejected the proposal saying, "We had already announced that any plan has to recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium".^[19]

Iran resumed its uranium enrichment programme in January 2006, prompting the IAEA to refer the issue to the UN Security Council.

On February 21, 2006, the reformist Internet daily Rooz reported that Hojatoleslam Mohsen Gharavian, a student of Qom’s fundamentalist cleric Mesbah Yazdi, spoke about the necessity of using nuclear weapons as a means to retaliate and announced that "based on religious law, everything depends on our purpose"^[20].

In an exclusive interview with IRNA on February 21, 2006, Gharavian rejected reports quoting him as saying that the use of nuclear weapons is allowed according to the Islamic tenets. He claimed to have been misquoted, that his remarks had been distorted, and that enemies of Iran had attempted to create pretexts and misuse the issue through hue and cry^[21].

On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iranian scientists working at the pilot facility at Natanz had successfully enriched uranium to the 3.5 percent level, using a small cascade of 164 gas centrifuges. In the televised address from the city of Mashhad he said, "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology".^[22]

In May 2006 some members of the Iranian legislature ("Majlis" or Parliament) sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan threatening to withdraw from the NPT if Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear technology under the treaty was not protected.^[23]

[edit] The United States' stance

• A potential reason behind US resistance lies in Middle Eastern geopolitics. In essence, the US feels that it must guard against even the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapons capability. Some nuclear technology is dual-use; i.e. it can be used for peaceful energy generation, and to develop nuclear weapons, a situation that resulted in India's nuclear weapons programme in the 1960s. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the middle east, weakening US influence. It could also encourage other middle eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own further reducing US influence in a critical region.

• The U.S.'s primary concern with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is that it believes Iran sponsors international terrorism^{[citation needed]}.

• Iran's support of Hamas and Islamic Jihad [8] leads to US fear that Iranian nuclear weapons could find their way into the hands of Islamic militants

• The U.S. maintains that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil reserves since nuclear power is more expensive for the Iranians to generate than oil-fired power. However, it should be noted that this argument has taken a back seat as developing nations have re-invested in their civilian nuclear industries and as magazines such as The Economist have taken an economic stance similar to that of Iran's.^[24]

• The US government is concerned that Iran does not formally recognise Israel's right to exist, and some Iranian politicians have openly called for the destruction of Israel [9].

• In 2003 the US insisted that Tehran be "held accountable" for seeking to build nuclear arms in violation of its agreements [10].

In June 2005, the US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice required IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to either toughen his stance on Iran or fail to be chosen for a third term as IAEA head.[11]

The IAEA has on some occasions criticized the stance of the U.S. on Iran's program.[12]

The USA denounced Iran's successful enrichment of uranium to fuel grade in April 2006, with spokesman Scott McClellan saying, they "continue to show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction".

In November 2006, Seymour Hersh described a classified draft assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency "challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. He continued, "The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," adding that a current senior intelligence official confirmed the assessment.[13]

[edit] Other international responses

The claims and counter claims have put an immense amount of pressure on Iran to reveal all aspects of its nuclear programme to date. A great deal of this pressure has come from Iran's trade partners: Europe, Japan, and Russia. Iran has been slow to respond, claiming the pressure is solely an attempt by the US government to prevent it from obtaining nuclear technology.

[edit] France

On February 16, 2006 French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said "No civilian nuclear programme can explain the Iranian nuclear programme. It is a clandestine military nuclear programme."^[25]

[edit] United Kingdom

On 8th May 2006, Former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of British Land Forces, General Sir Hugh Beach, former Cabinet Minsters, scientists and campaigners joined a delegation to Downing Street opposing military intervention in Iran. The delegation delivered two letters to Prime Minister Tony Blair from 1,800 physicists warning that the military intervention and the use of nuclear weapons would have disastrous consequences for the security of Britain and the rest of world. The letters carried the signatures of academics, politicians and scientists including some of 5 physicists who are Nobel Laureates.

CASMII delegation

On 17th July 2006, a meeting in the House of Commons challenged Tony Blair’s statement that Iran and Syria are to blame for the latest crisis in the Middle East and condemned a decision by the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. Commons Meeting

[edit] Israel

Israel, a non declared nuclear power, claims that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme and would use nuclear weapons against Israel.

Israel is concerned that Iran has developed missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads between the two countries. This concern was intensified when Iran publicly paraded some of the missiles under anti-Israeli banners, such as "Death to Israel"^[26] and "Israel should be wiped off the map". See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel.

Reasons for Israeli concern can be summed up in 5 points:

1. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Iranian leaders deny Israel's right to exist.^[27]
2. Iran develops its nuclear energy technology in clandestine facilities.^[28][29]
3. The distance from Iran to Israel is within the range of missile systems possessed by both countries.
4. Iran maintains a close relationship with the Hezbollah organisation ^[30], which has been involved in violent conflicts with Israel.
5. Iran has pledged to attack Israel if it is attacked, even if it was attacked by the United States (and not Israel).^[31]

On December 11, 2005 then Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon put the Israeli Defense Forces on high alert for the possibility of ordering airstrikes against Iran's nuclear installations.^[32] However, airstrikes are seen as a last resort due to the dispersal, hardening and defense by Surface-to-air missiles of Iranian sites. ^[33]

[edit] Opinions in the Arab and Islamic world

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on October 31, 2003, that Grand Ayatollahs, like Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, and Iranian clerics led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction. SFGate.com quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying: "The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."^[34]

On April 21, 2006, at a Hamas rally in Damascus, Anwar Raja, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine representative from Lebanon declared:

"The Muslim, Iranian, fighting people now possess nuclear capabilities. My brother, the Iranian representative sitting here, let me tell you that we, the Palestinian people, are in favor of Iran having a nuclear bomb, not just energy for peaceful purposes."^[35]

On May 3, 2006 Iraqi Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al Baghdadi was interviewed on Syrian TV. On his interview he declared his support for the Islamic world to obtain nuclear weapons:

Why shouldn't an Islamic or Arab country have a nuclear bomb? I am not referring to the Iranian program, which the Iranians say is for peaceful purposes. I am talking about a nuclear bomb. This Arab Islamic nation must obtain a nuclear bomb. Without a nuclear bomb, we will continue to be oppressed, and the American destruction... The American donkiness... The American donkey itself will always continue to attack us, because the Americans are very conceited.[14]

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan already possesses nuclear weapons, see Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction for further details.

On May 12, 2006 AP published an interview with Pakistan's former chief of staff Mirza Aslam Beg In the AP interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff.

"They didn't want the technology. They asked: 'Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us." Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them. But he insists the Pakistani government didn't help, even though he says former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians offered more than $4 billion for the technology. [15]

[edit] The Baku Declaration

A declaration signed on June 20, 2006 by the foreign ministers of 56 nations of the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference stated that "the only way to resolve Iran's nuclear issue is to resume negotiations without any preconditions and to enhance co-operation with the involvement of all relevant parties".

[edit] Qatar & Arab vote against the U.N. Security Council Resolution

July 31, 2006: The UN Security Council gives until August 31, 2006 for Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and related activities or face the prospect of sanctions [16]. The draft passed by a vote of 14-1 (Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council, opposing). The same day, Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif qualified the resolution as "arbitrary" and illegal because the NTP protocol explicitly guarantees under international law Iran’s right to pursue nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. In response to today’s vote at the UN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his country will revise his position vis-à-vis the economic/incentive package offered previously by the G-6 (5 permanent Security council members plus Germany.)[17]

[edit] The Non-Aligned Movement

On September 16, 2006 in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries declared supporting Iran's nuclear program for civilian purposes in their final written statement [18]. That is a clear majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations.

[edit] Delivery Systems

[edit] Missiles

Iran is believed to have a current inventory of 25 to 100 Shahab-3 missiles which have a range of 2100km and are capable of being armed with conventional high explosive, submunition, chemical, biological, radiological dispersion and potentially nuclear warheads. A Shahab-4 with a range of 2000km and a payload of 1000kg is believed to be under development. Iran has stated the Shahab-3 is the last of its war missiles and the Shahab-4 is being developed to give the country the capability of launching communications and surveillance satellites. A Shahab-5, an intercontinental ballistic missile with a 10,000km range, is also believed to be under development.^[36]

Iran has 12 X-55 long range cruise missiles purchased without nuclear warheads from Ukraine in 2001. The X-55 has a range of 2500 to 3000 kilometers.^[37]

Iran's latest and most advanced missile, the Fajr-3, has an estimated range of 2500km and MIRV capability [19].

On November 2, 2006, Iran fired unarmed missiles to begin 10 days of military war games. Iranian state television reported "dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km to up to 2,000 km...Iranian experts have made some changes to Shahab-3 missiles installing cluster warheads in them with the capacity to carry 1,400 bombs." These launches come after some United States-led military exercises in the Persian Gulf on October 30, 2006, meant to train for blocking the transport of weapons of mass destruction [20].

[edit] Aircraft

27-30 Su-24MK tactical strike fighters^[38]

[edit] See also

• Nuclear program of Iran
• Operation Merlin
• Iranian nuclear crisis
• Iranian Space Agency

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Iran's ballistic missile developments - long-range ambitions Jane's Defence Weekly, 8 September 2006
• Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons, Le Monde diplomatique, November 2005 - questions whether Iran's nuclear program was really clandestine as commonly claimed.
• [21] Ambassador Javad Zarif's statement to the UN Security Counsel in response to the resolution requiring Iran to suspend enrichment, July 31 2006.
• No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program, August 2005.
• Forced to Fuel (Harvard Int'l Law Review, Vol. 26 No. 4 - Winter 2005) lays out the case for nuclear energy in Iran, by Prof. Muhammad Sahimi.
• Iran's Nuclear History, Prof. Mohammad Sahimi, Chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California, and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, October 2, 2003
• Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Remarks by John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security to the Hudson Institute, August 17, 2004
• Iran’s Continuing Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction Testimony by John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, before the House International Relations Committee Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, Washington DC, June 24, 2004
• "George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?" The Guardian, 5 January 2006, (extract from James Risen book)
• The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published a number of informative articles on Iran in the past few years: Countdown to Showdown, Nov/Dec 2004; Schooling Iran's Atom Squad, May/June 2004; The Centrifuge Connection, March/April 2004; Iran, Player or Rogue?, Sept/Oct 2003; Iran: Furor over Fuel, May/June 2003.
• Nuclear Files.org guide to proliferation - Iran
• If Iran Gets Nukes by Abolghasem Bayyena, Antiwar.com, January 17, 2006
• Iran's Race for Nuclear Weapons
• Annotated Google map of Iranian nuclear sites
• Iran’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities: A Pattern of Peaceful Intent?, US State Department, September 2005 - presentation of US position. Satellite photography and quotes from Iranian leaders are documented and analyzed. PDF
• Highly Enriched Uranium Detected: [22] [23][24]
• CASMII - The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran