The nuclear showdown at the UN Security Council over Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is the result of inordinate delays in Iran’s response to resolving differences with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The US alleges that Iran is pursuing a secret nuclear weapon programme, but lacks convincing evidence. Russia and China see the issue as a lack of confidence between Iran and the IAEA. The IAEA, for its part, is inconclusive in establishing a military link to Iran’s nuclear energy programme. The UNSC resolution asks Iran to stop enrichment related and reprocessing activities or face tougher sanctions. Iran terms the UNSC resolution politically motivated.

Iran’s case has emerged as the test case for NPT. First, there has been repeated occurrences of ‘non-reporting’ of certain nuclear activities or ‘material loss’ during the fuel cycle activities, which a member state under the IAEA is obliged to declare. Second, the dwindling confidence of nuclear suppliers in assisting non-nuclear weapon states for possible breach of international commitments creates mutual suspicion between the two sides. In fact, nuclear power generation involves dual-use technology (civil and military) and the IAEA plays the crucial role of a nuclear watchdog to ensure non-diversion of technology and material for military purposes. Third, even the IAEA has incrementally found it difficult to perform its role as evident from the disclosures about involvement of NPT members in clandestine transfers of nuclear technology and materials. Fourth, the differential treatment of members within the NPT-defined non-nuclear weapon states do create inherent weaknesses in the efficacy of the prevailing control regimes. Finally, as long as NPT countries do take concrete steps to reduce the dangers to nuclear security, it would be difficult to control the increasing number of potential seekers of weapons.

... contd.