Fears Over Iran's Nuclear Future

It comes within a week after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report last Tuesday, stating Iran’s refusal to answer questions about it’s current nuclear position, ‘raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.’ The activities mentioned, include not just the enrichment of uranium, but possible work on designing a sphere to house a nuclear weapon on a missile. Iran, though, affirmed that the evidence on which these claims are based on are forged; the IAEA responded with their evidence being, ‘broadly credible’.

The fears of Iran’s nuclear position stem from a plan offered, to which the bulk of uranium being enriched within its borders, was to be taken to Russia and France, to be converted into fuel rods, for peaceful nuclear energy. In an attempt to relieve global tension, by lowering Iran’s nuclear capacity for long-term talks over its nuclear capabilities, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refused the plan. Instead he proposed to send the uranium in smaller batches, arguing Iran may never get it back. The anxiety of Western powers revolves around that if Iran was given more time for the further enrichment of uranium, it would gain expertise enough to create a nuclear device, requiring enrichment of over 90%. With President Ahmadinejad openly critical about the USA and the UK, there is obvious cause for concern of Iran’s full nuclear intentions.

Iran’s refusals to comply with the Security Council, of the UK, Russia, China, France and the USA, after President Obama proposed peace talks over this issue, led to big sanctions imposed, with the USA currently holding a complete embargo on trade with Iran. President Ahmadinejad stated he would never negotiate on Iranian basic rights, and called the Iranian nuclear issue, ‘finished’.

However, Iran seems to have a valid position to state its rights of being able to enrich uranium; under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection from the IAEA, to which Iran has, but, however, strongly does not agree with them. Iran states it is doing everything allowed under the treaty, and will not succumb to international pressure; it claims it will not break its obligations under the NPT and will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb, with President Ahmadinejad telling NBC News on the 18th September 2009, ‘We don't need nuclear weapons... it's not a part of our programmes and plans.’

But, with growing fears of Iran’s nuclear expertise to create a nuclear weapon in the future, the IAEA persists that Iran has to stop all enrichment activities, and, alongside this, the suspension of its work on heavy water projects; notably the construction of a heavy water reactor. Such a reactor could produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium, for a nuclear deviceBut with international pressures on Iran to prevent nuclear armament, it begs the question, why is more not done to disarm nuclear weapons across the world quicker and more effectively? These warheads are astronomically expensive, and with just one having the capability to completely scar the Earth, destroying entire ecosystems and human life across several continents, they must all be dismantled as soon as possible, before such an apocalyptic event can occur. With world powers, like those in the Security Council, all owners of hundreds of warheads, their moral high ground is barely lifting off the floor, when criticising other developing countries for investing in this destructive power.

The UK’s replacement and upgrade of Trident missiles is going to add up to the total cost of £130 billion; 2/3 of national debt could be paid off with this sheer amount of money. But that is not all this money could be used for. Instead, how about this money being invested into the NHS to improve efficiency and the huge waiting lists of millions of patients in need of medical help? What about creating a better education system, where the next generation will hugely benefit from this investment, and generate greater economic growth in the long-run? Frustratingly, instead of using this money to stop the huge cuts going into the public sector, it is instead being spent on weapons which could potentially end the entire world. As Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat economics spokesperson, commenting on these costs stated, ‘These current government plans are totally unrealistic, in light of Britain’s serious budgetary constraints.’

There is no wonder Iran is so critically outspoken about western powers, with almost ‘international bullying’ occurring over who can and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Naturally there is concern over a country’s nuclear intentions, however greater action needs to be undertaken to reduce nuclear armaments significantly within the next few years across the world or this dispute will continue to be raised again and again. Worryingly, anytime it is raised and dependant on the issue, could push global tensions to the button.