Recently, international attention has been focused on preventing a deterioration into a regional campaign due to the war in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas and the aid that Iran and the “Axis” provide to Hamas as part of it. Against this background, the annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was held on November 22-24 in Vienna, which discussed, among other things, the agency’s report published on November 15 regarding Iranian nuclear progress. plan.
The IAEA reported that Iran, which has openly expressed its desire to destroy the State of Israel, has increased the production rate of enriched uranium to a level of up to 60%, a level very close to that required for nuclear weapons. This increase violates the 2015 nuclear agreement, in which Tehran committed to reduce its uranium enrichment to 3.67%. The US and European countries condemned the Iranian decision as a threat to the Middle East.
To produce a nuclear weapon, uranium must be enriched to about 90%. Nuclear scientists explain that reaching the 20% enrichment level marks half way to the 90% level, and the transition from 60% to 90% enrichment is relatively quick. Despite Tehran’s insistence that its nuclear program has no military use, experts stress that such high enrichment levels have no civilian applications.
The increase in Iran’s production rate is worrying and may lead to further escalation in the Middle East. The US and European countries have expressed their intention to work for Iran’s return to the nuclear agreement, but the effectiveness of these efforts is still unclear.
The report describes Iran’s refusal to move forward with implementing the joint statement, failure to provide additional information on “open files” and unwillingness to cooperate in the revised Code 3.1, which hinders the agency’s ability to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material.
If Iran acquires the atomic bomb it desires, the Middle East may enter a nuclear arms race, which will significantly increase the Iranian threat to Israel and the neighboring countries. Iran’s current position as the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world, funding organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Assad regime in Syria and others, adds to the complexity of the situation.
The cancellation of visas for the agency’s senior inspectors, as well as the potential for countermeasures by Iran in the nuclear field, highlight the delicate situation and the fear of an irreversible escalation in relations.
The recent tensions between the US and Iran, along with Iran’s involvement in the conflict in Gaza and its directives to the Shiite militias in Iraq, make the likelihood of reaching a temporary or long-term agreement on the nuclear issue significantly lower. The criticism in Washington further complicates the possibility of such an agreement.
Iran’s behavior in the “Iron Swords” system emphasizes the fear of an external threat to its sovereignty. Regardless, it is essential to address Iran’s enrichment program and consider strategies to halt its progress, balancing pressure with potential incentives for Tehran to limit its program.
