"We have heard the Iranian president's statement. We are taking the situation with the Iranian nuclear program seriously, and we want to proceed from facts, not from emotions stirred up by politics, which different sides have displayed on many occasions," commented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Citing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Lavrov said that it had agreed with Iran on surprise inspections at the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility. He said it was essential to assess the situation on the basis of IAEA-confirmed facts rather than "statements that sometimes merely fan tensions."
Last Monday, Iran officially announced the start of uranium enrichment on an industrial scale. In a festive atmosphere, April 9 was proclaimed the Day of Nuclear Technologies. Tehran did not forget to make an ultimatum. The secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, warned that if Iran continues to be put under pressure because of its peaceful nuclear research program, it will have no other choice but to reconsider its membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). What else can the UN Security Council demand of Iran after such an obvious resolve?
Let's recall that the world community demands that Iran should stop uranium enrichment for fear that Tehran will not resist the temptation to use its nuclear program for military ends. On March 24, the Security Council adopted a resolution calling for tougher sanctions against Iran because of the latter's failure to stop enrichment. Iran was given 60 days to decide what to do with its nuclear program. Isn't its "nuclear maneuver" the response to the Security Council that Iran was supposed to give it in late May?
What is the Security Council supposed to do? Few experts doubt that Iran's uranium-enrichment program would do irreparable damage to the non-proliferation regime. If it goes unpunished, it will encourage other countries to follow suit, especially states on the nuclear threshold such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Argentina and Brazil. They are not going to listen to Tehran's assurances on the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program.
It is surprising that Tehran has not specified the exact number of centrifuges in Natanz. The deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad Saidi, said it would be necessary to wait 20 days for IAEA inspectors to present their report.
Tehran was speaking the same language a year ago when it announced that its scientists had mastered the technology for controlling a thermonuclear reaction. This is a coveted dream of all nuclear physicists, and some think that it will never become reality.
Few Russian experts doubt that Iran is vastly exaggerating its nuclear capabilities. By available estimates, the enrichment capacities of Iranian centrifuges are several thousand times less than in any other country with a full nuclear cycle. It will take Iran at least five years to enrich enough uranium for one nuclear plant. It would be more realistic to talk about five to seven years. Moreover, as of today, Iran does not have the required technologies for handling enriched uranium, and for this reason the very suggestion of commercial enrichment is counterproductive. "The Iranians are unable to independently build a fuel cluster for a nuclear plant, which means it cannot produce fuel for such a plant," said representatives of Techsnabexport, Russia's state nuclear materials exporter.
If this is so, why did Tehran stage this nuclear show, which looks an awful lot like primitive blackmail? Perhaps it wants once again to put the world on the horns of a dilemma: further escalate the confrontation with Iran, or reconcile itself to the prospect of a nuclear bomb in the hands of a "rogue state."
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
