Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal
These days, almost everyone is curious about an erratic and hence potentially troublesome nuclear deal reached between Iran and the P 5+1 (read America).
Soon after the agreement, the two sides have begun interpreting it in opposite directions. Americans are claiming that Iran would have to significantly roll back its nuclear programme, whereas Iranian interpretation does not endorse this point of view. Soon the IAEA’s version would start pouring in to further compound the confusion. Moreover, Obama may not be able to hold the Israeli pressure and congressional dynamics. Hence, America may backtrack.
Immediately after the agreement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov summarized the deal as: "This deal means that we agree that it is necessary to recognize Iran's right to peaceful atoms, including the right to enrichment, provided that the questions that remain to the Iranian nuclear programme and the programme itself come under strict control of the IAEA. This is the final goal, but it has already been set in today's document."
The opponents of the deal insist that Iran has retained its potential to create a nuclear weapon. The whole of its Uranium enrichment infrastructure remains intact. A disappointed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "I emphasize: the deal does not envisage the elimination of a single centrifuge.”
Many experts are of the view that Iran’s large nuclear infrastructure, which consists of some 17,000 enrichment centrifuges, is needed if a country has 12-15 operating nuclear plants which have to be supplied with fuel rods. Of now Iran has only one nuclear power plant, in Bushehr, which receives its fuel from Russia. Iran has agreed to stringent intrusive monitoring and control procedures employing video cameras, meters and snap inspections. Interestingly it has been allowed to manufacture centrifuges to replace those becoming