This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) Parts of this article (those related to lack of information on significant changes from 2013–15, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) need to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (July 2015) This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. When this tag was added, its readable prose size was 21,000 words. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. (May 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on the
Nuclear program of Iran
Timeline
Facilities
Arak Bushehr Darkhovin Fordow Natanz Isfahan Nuclear Technology/Research Center Karun atomic energy site
Organizations
Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Oghab 2 International Atomic Energy Agency P5+1
International agreements
Non-Proliferation Treaty Additional Protocol 2013 interim agreement, Geneva 2015 prelim agreement, Lausanne 2015 final agreement, Vienna Reactions Aftermath Negotiations United States withdrawal
Domestic laws
Nuclear Achievements Act Iranian act implementing the JCPOA Majlis commission US Congress review
Individuals
Iranian nuclear negotiators Rouhani Larijani Jalili Zarif Abbasi Aghazadeh ElBaradei Fakhrizadeh Salehi
Related
Assassination of nuclear scientists AMAD Project Iran and WMD Ali Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons Manufactured Crisis Iran–United States relations after 1979 Sanctions against Iran UN resolutions WMD-free zone Views on Iran's nuclear program
v t e

Iran has research sites, two uranium mines, a research reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known uranium enrichment plants.^[1]

Commencing in the 1950s with support from the US under the Atoms for Peace program, Iran's nuclear program was geared toward peaceful scientific exploration. In 1970, Iran ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), subjecting its nuclear activities to IAEA inspections. After the 1979 Iranian Revolution, cooperation ceased and Iran pursued its nuclear program clandestinely.

An investigation by the IAEA was launched as declarations by the National Council of Resistance of Iran in 2002 revealed undeclared Iranian nuclear activities.^[2][3] In 2006, Iran's noncompliance with its NPT obligations moved the United Nations Security Council to demand Iran suspend its programs. In 2007, the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated Iran halted an alleged active nuclear weapons program in 2003.^[4] In November 2011, the IAEA reported credible evidence that Iran had been conducting experiments aimed at designing a nuclear bomb, and that research may have continued on a smaller scale after that time.^[5][6] On 1 May 2018 the IAEA reiterated its 2015 report, saying it had found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons activity after 2009.^[7][8][9]

Operational since September 2011, the Bushehr I reactor marked Iran's entry into nuclear power with Russia's assistance. This became an important milestone for Rosatom to become the largest player in the world nuclear power market.^[10] Anticipated to reach full capacity by the end of 2012, Iran had also begun constructing a new 300 MW Darkhovin Nuclear Power Plant and expressed plans for additional medium-sized nuclear power plants and uranium mines in the future.

Despite the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed at addressing Iran's nuclear concerns, the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 prompted renewed sanctions, impacting diplomatic relations. The IAEA certified Iran's compliance up until 2019, but subsequent breaches strained the agreement.^[11][12] In a 2020 IAEA report, Iran was said to have breached the JCPOA and faced criticism from signatories.^[13][14] In 2021, Iran faced scrutiny regarding its assertion the program was exclusively for peaceful purposes, especially with references to growth in satellites, missiles, and nuclear weapons.^[15] In 2022, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran head Mohammad Eslami announced a strategic plan for 10 GWe of nuclear electricity generation.^[16] In October 2023, an IAEA report estimated Iran had increased its uranium stockpile 22 times over the 2015 agreed JCPOA limit.^[17]

History

1950s - 1960s

Iran's nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States.^[18] On 5 March 1957, a "proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy" was announced under the Eisenhower administration's Atoms for Peace program.^[19]

In 1967, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor supplied by US company American Machine and Foundry, which was fueled by highly enriched uranium.^[20][21]

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, making Iran's nuclear program subject to IAEA verification.

A Central Treaty Organization nuclear sciences institute^[22] was moved from Baghdad to Tehran after Iraq left CENTO.

The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the last Shah of Iran.^[23] Following the Revolution, most of the international nuclear cooperation with Iran was cut off. In 1981, Iranian officials concluded that the country's nuclear development should continue. Negotiations took place with France in the late 1980s and with Argentina in the early 1990s, and agreements were reached. In the 1990s, Russia formed a joint research organization with Iran, providing Iran with Russian nuclear experts and technical information.^[10]

1970s

The Shah approved plans to construct up to 23 nuclear power stations by 2000.^[24] In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn ... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."^[25]

US and European companies scrambled to do business in Iran.^[26] Bushehr, the first plant, would supply energy to the city of Shiraz. In 1975, the German firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe reactora was to have been completed in 1981.

In 1975, Sweden's 10 percent share in Eurodif went to Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogéma and the Iranian Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne pour l'enrichissement de l'uranium par diffusion gazeuse) enterprise with 60 and 40 percent shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25 percent share in Eurodif, which gave Iran its 10 percent share of Eurodif. The Shah lent 1 billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory, to have the right of buying 10 percent of the production of the site.

In 1976, US President Gerald Ford signed a directive offering Iran the chance to buy and operate a US-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from reactor fuel.^[27] The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

A 1974 CIA proliferation assessment stated "If is alive in the mid-1980s ... and if other countries have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit."^[28]

Post-revolution, 1979–1989

Following the 1979 Revolution, most of the international nuclear cooperation with Iran was cut off. Kraftwerk Union stopped work at the Bushehr project in January 1979, with one reactor 50 percent complete, and the other reactor 85 percent complete, and fully withdrew from the project in July 1979. The company said they based their action on Iran's non-payment of $450 million in overdue payments,^[29] while other sources claim it was due to American pressure.^[30][31] The United States also cut off the supply of highly enriched fuel for the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, forcing it to shut down for a number of years. Eurodif also stopped supplying enriched uranium to Iran.^[30][32] Iran later argued that these experiences indicate foreign facilities and fuel supplies are an unreliable source of nuclear fuel supply.^[30][33]

In 1981, Iranian governmental officials concluded that the country's nuclear development should continue. Reports to the IAEA included that a site at Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTEC) would act "as the center for the transfer and development of nuclear technology, as well as contribute to the formation of local expertise and manpower needed to sustain a very ambitious program in the field of nuclear power reactor technology and fuel cycle technology." The IAEA also was informed about Entec's materials department, which was responsible for fabricating UO₂ pellet fabrication, and chemical department, whose goal was the conversion of U₃O₈ to nuclear grade UO
₂.^[34]

In 1983, IAEA officials assisted Iran in chemical aspects of fuel fabrication, chemical engineering, and design aspects of pilot plants for uranium conversion, corrosion of nuclear materials, LWR fuel fabrication, and pilot plant development for production of nuclear grade UO
₂.^[34] However, the US government "directly intervened" to discourage IAEA assistance in UO
₂ and UF₆ production.^[35] A former US official said "we stopped that in its tracks." Iran later set up a bilateral cooperation on fuel cycle related issues with China, but China also agreed to drop most outstanding nuclear commerce with Iran, including the construction of the UF
₆ plant, due to US pressure.^[34]

In April 1984, the BND leaked a report that Iran might have a nuclear bomb within two years with Pakistani uranium; this was the first public Western intelligence report of a post-revolutionary nuclear weapons program in Iran.^[36] Later that year, Minority Whip of the US Senate Alan Cranston asserted that Iran was seven years away from being able to build its own nuclear weapon.^[37]

During the Iran–Iraq War, the two Bushehr reactors were damaged by multiple Iraqi air strikes and work on the nuclear program came to a standstill. Iran notified the International Atomic Energy Agency of the blasts, and complained about international inaction and the use of French-made missiles in the attack.^[38][39] In late 2015, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani revealed that Iran considered pursuing weapons of mass destruction during the war against Iraq.^[40]

In 1985, Iran began to pressure France in order to recover its debt from the Eurodif investment and to get the enriched uranium delivered. French hostages were taken in Lebanon from spring 1985; in 1986, terror attacks were perpetrated in Paris and Eurodif manager Georges Besse was assassinated. In their investigation La République atomique, France-Iran le pacte nucléaire, David Carr-Brown and Dominique Lorentz pointed to the Iranian intelligence services' responsibility. It was later ascertained, however, that the assassination was committed by the left-wing terror group Action directe. On 6 May 1988, French premier Jacques Chirac signed an accord with Iran: France agreed to accept Iran as a shareholder of Eurodif and to deliver enriched uranium "without restrictions".

In 1987–88, Argentina's National Atomic Energy Commission signed an agreement with Iran to help in converting the reactor from HEU fuel to 19.75 percent low-enriched uranium, and to supply the latter fuel to Iran.^[41] According to a 2006 Argentine report, during the late 1980s and early 1990s the US pressured Argentina to terminate its nuclear cooperation with Iran, and from early 1992 to 1994 negotiations between Argentina and Iran took place with the aim of re-establishing the three agreements made in 1987–88.^[42] Some have linked attacks such as the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the AMIA bombing as part of an Iranian campaign to pressure Argentina into honoring the agreements.^[43][44] The uranium was delivered in 1993.^[45]

1990–2002

From the early 1990s, Russia formed a joint research organization with Iran called Persepolis that provided Iran with Russian nuclear experts, as well as technical information. Five Russian institutions, including Roscosmos, helped Tehran improve its missiles. The exchange of technical information with Iran was personally approved by SVR director Trubnikov.^[46] President Boris Yeltsin had a "two track policy" offering commercial nuclear technology to Iran and discussing the issues with Washington.^[47]

In 1991, France refunded more than $1.6 billion, while Iran remained a shareholder of Eurodif via Sofidif. However, Iran refrained from asking for the produced uranium.^[48][49]

In 1992, Iran invited IAEA inspectors to visit all the sites and facilities they asked. Director General Blix reported that all activities observed were consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy.^[50][51] The IAEA visits included undeclared facilities and Iran's nascent uranium mining project at Saghand. In the same year, Argentine officials disclosed (under pressure from the US) that their country had canceled a sale to Iran of civilian nuclear equipment worth $18 million.^[52]

In 1995, Iran signed a contract with Rosatom to resume work on the partially complete Bushehr plant, installing into the existing Bushehr I building a 915 MWe VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor.

In 1996, the US convinced China to pull out of a contract to construct a uranium conversion plant. However, the Chinese provided blueprints for the facility to the Iranians, who advised the IAEA that they would continue work on the program; IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei even visited the construction site.^[53]

Overview of 2002–2012

In 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) exposed the existence of an undisclosed uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, leading to emerging concerns about Iran's nuclear program.^[54][55] In 2003, after the Iranian government formally acknowledged the facilities, the Atomic Energy Agency inspected them, finding that they had a more advanced nuclear program than had previously been anticipated by U.S. intelligence.^[56] That same year, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) first reported that Iran had not declared sensitive enrichment and reprocessing activities.^[3] Enrichment can be used to produce uranium for reactor fuel or (at higher enrichment levels) for weapons.^[57] Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful,^[58] and had then enriched uranium to less than 5 percent, consistent with fuel for a civilian nuclear power plant.^[59] Iran also claimed that it was forced to resort to secrecy after US pressure caused several of its nuclear contracts with foreign governments to fall through.^[60] After the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards agreement to the UN Security Council, the Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities^[61] while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has argued that the sanctions are "illegal," imposed by "arrogant powers," and that Iran has decided to pursue the monitoring of its self-described peaceful nuclear program through "its appropriate legal path," the International Atomic Energy Agency.^[62] The initial discovery of the enrichment facility in Natanz, as well as Iran's refusal to fully cooperate with the IAEA, heightened tensions between Iran and Western powers.^[63]

After public allegations about Iran's previously undeclared nuclear activities, the IAEA launched an investigation that concluded in November 2003 that Iran had systematically failed to meet its obligations under its NPT safeguards agreement to report those activities to the IAEA, although it also reported no evidence of links to a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA Board of Governors delayed a formal finding of non-compliance until September 2005, and reported that non-compliance to the Security Council in February 2006. After the Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its safeguards agreement to the Security Council, the Council demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs. The Council imposed sanctions after Iran refused to do so. A May 2009 US Congressional Report suggested "the United States, and later the Europeans, argued that Iran's deception meant it should forfeit its right to enrich, a position likely to be up for negotiation in talks with Iran."^[64]

In exchange for suspending its enrichment program, Iran was offered "a long-term comprehensive arrangement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."^[65] However, Iran has consistently refused to give up its enrichment program, arguing that the program is necessary for its energy security, that such "long term arrangements" are inherently unreliable, and would deprive it of its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology. In June 2009, in the immediate wake of the disputed Iranian presidential election, Iran initially agreed to a deal to relinquish its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in return for fuel for a medical research reactor, but then backed out of the deal.^[66] Currently, thirteen states possess operational enrichment or reprocessing facilities,^[67] and several others have expressed an interest in developing indigenous enrichment programs.^[68]

To address concerns that its enrichment program may be diverted to non-peaceful uses,^[69] Iran offered to place additional restrictions on its enrichment program including, for example, ratifying the Additional Protocol to allow more stringent inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, operating the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz as a multinational fuel center with the participation of foreign representatives, renouncing plutonium reprocessing, and immediately fabricating all enriched uranium into fuel rods.^[70] Iran's offer to open its uranium enrichment program to foreign private and public participation mirrors suggestions of an IAEA expert committee which was formed to investigate the methods to reduce the risk that sensitive fuel cycle activities could contribute to national nuclear weapons capabilities.^[71] Some non-governmental US experts have endorsed this approach.^[72][73]

In every other case in which the IAEA Board of Governors made a finding of safeguards non-compliance involving clandestine enrichment or reprocessing, the resolution has involved (in the cases of Iraq^[74] and Libya^[75][76][77]) or is expected to involve (in the case of North Korea^[78][79]) at a minimum ending sensitive fuel cycle activities. According to Pierre Goldschmidt, former deputy director general and head of the department of safeguards at the IAEA, and Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, some other instances of safeguards noncompliance reported by the IAEA Secretariat (South Korea, Egypt) were never reported to the Security Council because the IAEA Board of Governors never made a formal finding of non-compliance.^[80][81] Though South Korea's case involved enriching uranium to levels near weapons grade,^[82] the country itself voluntarily reported the isolated activity^[83] and Goldschmidt has argued "political considerations also played a dominant role in the board's decision" to not make a formal finding of non-compliance.^[84]

A 23 March 2012 US Congressional Research Service report quotes a 24 February IAEA report saying that Iran had stockpiled 240 pounds of 20-per-cent-enriched uranium as an indication of their capacity to enrich to higher levels.^[85] The authoritarian politics of Iran may pose additional challenges to a scientific program requiring cooperation among many technical specialists.^[86] Some experts argue that the intense focus on Iran's nuclear program detracts from a need for broader diplomatic engagement.^[87][88] US intelligence officials interviewed by The New York Times in March 2012 said they continued to assess that Iran had not restarted its weaponization program, which the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate said Iran had discontinued in 2003, although they have found evidence that some weaponization-related activities have continued. The Israeli Mossad reportedly shared this belief.^[89]

2002–2006

On 14 August 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, publicly revealed the existence of two nuclear sites under construction: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground), and a heavy water facility in Arak. It has been strongly suggested that intelligence agencies already knew about these facilities but the reports had been classified.^[2]

The IAEA immediately sought access to these facilities and further information and co-operation from Iran regarding its nuclear program.^[90] According to arrangements in force at the time for implementation of Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA,^[91] Iran was not required to allow IAEA inspections of a new nuclear facility until six months before nuclear material is introduced into that facility. At the time, Iran was not even required to inform the IAEA of the existence of the facility. This "six months" clause was standard for implementation of all IAEA safeguards agreements until 1992, when the IAEA Board of Governors decided that facilities should be reported during the planning phase, even before construction began. Iran was the last country to accept that decision, and only did so on 26 February 2003, after the IAEA investigation began.^[3]

In May 2003, shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, elements of the government of Mohammad Khatami made a confidential proposal for a "Grand Bargain" through Swiss diplomatic channels. It offered full transparency of Iran's nuclear program and withdrawal of support for Hamas and Hezbollah, in exchange for security assurances from the United States and a normalization of diplomatic relations. The Bush administration did not respond to the proposal, as senior US officials doubted its authenticity. The proposal reportedly was widely blessed by the Iranian government, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.^[92][93][94]

France, Germany and the United Kingdom (the EU-3) undertook a diplomatic initiative with Iran to resolve questions about its nuclear program. On 21 October 2003, in Tehran, the Iranian government and EU-3 Foreign Ministers issued a statement known as the Tehran Declaration^[95] in which Iran agreed to co-operate with the IAEA, to sign and implement an Additional Protocol as a voluntary, confidence-building measure, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of the negotiations. The EU-3 in return explicitly agreed to recognize Iran's nuclear rights and to discuss ways Iran could provide "satisfactory assurances" regarding its nuclear power program, after which Iran would gain easier access to modern technology. Iran signed an Additional Protocol on 18 December 2003, and agreed to act as if the protocol were in force, making the required reports to the IAEA and allowing the required access by IAEA inspectors, pending Iran's ratification of the Additional Protocol.

The IAEA reported 10 November 2003,^[96] that "it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." Iran was obligated to inform the IAEA of its importation of uranium from China and subsequent use of that material in uranium conversion and enrichment activities. It was also obligated to report experiments with the separation of plutonium. However, the Islamic Republic reneged on its promise to permit the IAEA to carry out their inspections and suspended the Additional Protocol agreement outlined above in October 2005.

A comprehensive list of Iran's specific "breaches" of its safeguards agreement, which the IAEA described as part of a "pattern of concealment," can be found in a 15 November 2004 report of the IAEA on Iran's nuclear program.^[97] Iran attributed its failure to report certain acquisitions and activities to US obstructionism, which reportedly included pressuring the IAEA to cease providing technical assistance to Iran's uranium conversion program in 1983.^[60][98] On the question of whether Iran had a hidden nuclear weapons program, the IAEA's November 2003 report states that it found "no evidence" that the previously undeclared activities were related to a nuclear weapons program, but also that it was unable to conclude that Iran's nuclear program was exclusively peaceful.

In June 2004, construction began on IR-40, a 40 MW heavy water reactor.

Under the terms of the Paris Agreement,^[99] on 14 November 2004, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary and temporary suspension of its uranium enrichment program (enrichment is not a violation of the NPT) and the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol, after pressure from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany on behalf of the European Union. The measure was said at the time to be a voluntary confidence-building measure, to continue for some reasonable period of time (six months being mentioned as a reference) as negotiations with the EU-3 continued. On 24 November, Iran sought to amend the terms of its agreement with the EU to exclude a handful of the equipment from this deal for research work. This request was dropped four days later. According to Seyed Hossein Mousavian, one of the Iranian representatives to the Paris Agreement negotiations, the Iranians made it clear to their European counterparts that Iran would not consider a permanent end to uranium enrichment:

Before the Paris text was signed, Dr Rohani ... stressed that they should be committed neither to speak nor even think of a cessation any more. The ambassadors delivered his message to their foreign ministers prior to the signing of the Paris agreed text ... The Iranians made it clear to their European counterparts that if the latter sought a complete termination of Iran's nuclear fuel-cycle activities, there would be no negotiations. The Europeans answered that they were not seeking such a termination, only an assurance on the non-diversion of Iran's nuclear programme to military ends.^[100]

In February 2005, Iran pressed the EU-3 to speed up talks, which the EU-3 refused to do.^[101] The talks made little progress because of the divergent positions of the two sides.^[102] Under pressure from US, European negotiators could not agree to allow enrichment on Iranian soil. Although Iranians presented an offer, which included voluntary restrictions on the enrichment volume and output, it was rejected. The EU-3 broke a commitment they had made to recognize Iran's right under NPT to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.^[103]

In early August 2005, after the June election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, Iran removed seals on its uranium enrichment equipment in Isfahan,^[104] which UK officials termed a "breach of the Paris Agreement"^[105] though a case can be made that the EU violated the terms of the Paris Agreement by demanding that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment.^[106] Several days later, the EU-3 offered Iran a package in return for permanent cessation of enrichment. Reportedly, it included benefits in the political, trade and nuclear fields, as well as long-term supplies of nuclear materials and assurances of non-aggression by the EU (but not the US).^[105] Deputy head of AEOI Mohammad Saeedi rejected the offer as "very insulting and humiliating"^[105] and independent analysts characterized it as an "empty box".^[107] Iran's announcement that it would resume enrichment preceded the election of Ahmadinejad by several months. The delay in restarting the program was to allow the IAEA to re-install monitoring equipment. The actual resumption of the program coincided with the election of Ahmadinejad, and the appointment of Ali Larijani as chief nuclear negotiator.^[108]

Around 2005, Germany refused to continue exporting nuclear equipment or refund money Iran had paid for such equipment in the 1980s.^[29]

In August 2005, with Pakistani assistance,^[109] a group of US government experts and international scientists concluded that traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and were not evidence of a clandestine weapons program in Iran.^[110] In September 2005, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that "most" highly enriched uranium traces found in Iran by agency inspectors came from imported centrifuge components, validating Iran's claim that the traces were due to contamination. Sources in Vienna and the State Department reportedly stated that, for all practical purposes, the HEU issue had been resolved.^[111]

In a speech to the United Nations on 17 September 2005, Ahmadinejad suggested that Iran's enrichment might be managed by an international consortium, with Iran sharing ownership with other countries. The offer was rejected out of hand by the EU and the US.^[103]

The IAEA Board of Governors deferred a formal decision on Iran's nuclear case for two years after 2003, while Iran continued cooperation with the EU-3. On 24 September 2005, after Iran abandoned the Paris Agreement, the Board found that Iran had been in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement, based largely on facts that had been reported as early as November 2003.^[112]

On 4 February 2006, the 35-member Board voted 27–3 (with five abstentions: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya, and South Africa) to report Iran to the UN Security Council. The measure was sponsored by the EU-3 and backed by the US. Two permanent Council members, Russia and China, agreed to referral only on condition that the Council take no action until March. The three members voting against referral were Venezuela, Syria, and Cuba.^[113][114] In response, on 6 February 2006, Iran suspended its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and all other voluntary and non-binding cooperation with the IAEA beyond that required by its safeguards agreement.^[115]

In late February 2006, IAEA Director ElBaradei proposed a deal whereby Iran would give up industrial-scale enrichment and limit its program to a small-scale pilot facility, and agree to import its nuclear fuel from Russia (see nuclear fuel bank). The Iranians indicated that while they would not be willing to give up their right to enrichment in principle, they were willing to^[116] consider a compromise. However, in March 2006, the Bush administration made it clear that they would not accept any enrichment at all in Iran.^[117]

The IAEA Board of Governors deferred the formal report to the Security Council of Iran's non-compliance (required by Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute)^[118] until 27 February 2006.^[119] The Board usually makes decisions by consensus, but in a rare decision it adopted the resolution by vote, with 12 abstentions.^[120]

On 11 April 2006, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium in a televised address from the northeastern city of Mashhad, where he said "I am officially announcing that Iran joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology." The uranium was enriched to 3.5 percent using over a hundred centrifuges.

On 13 April 2006, after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the previous day that the Security Council must consider "strong steps" to induce Tehran to change course in its nuclear ambitions, Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran would not back away from uranium enrichment and that the world must treat Iran as a nuclear power, saying "Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger," because "We won't hold talks with anyone about the right of the Iranian nation to enrich uranium."^[121]

On 14 April 2006, the Institute for Science and International Security published a series of analyzed satellite images of Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan.^[122] Featured in these images is a new tunnel entrance near the Uranium Conversion Facility at Esfahan and continued construction at the Natanz uranium enrichment site. In addition, a series of images dating back to 2002 shows the underground enrichment buildings and its subsequent covering by soil, concrete, and other materials. Both facilities were already subject to IAEA inspections and safeguards.

On 28 July 2006, the UN Security Council approved a resolution to give Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of sanctions.^[123]

Iran responded to the demand to stop enrichment of uranium 24 August 2006, offering to return to the negotiation table but refusing to end enrichment.^[124]

Majlis speaker Qolam Ali Hadad-adel said on 30 August 2006, that Iran had the right to "peaceful application of nuclear technology and all other officials agree with this decision," according to the semi-official Iranian Students News Agency. "Iran opened the door to negotiations for Europe and hopes that the answer which was given to the nuclear package would bring them to the table."^[124]

In Resolution 1696 of 31 July 2006, the Security Council demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing related activities.^[125]

In Resolution 1737 of 26 December 2006, the Council imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with Resolution 1696.^[126] These sanctions were primarily targeted against the transfer of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies^[127] and, in response to concerns of China and Russia, were lighter than that sought by the United States.^[128] This resolution followed a report from the IAEA that Iran had permitted inspections under its safeguards agreement but had not suspended its enrichment-related activities.^[129]

UN Security Council

The UN Security Council has passed eight resolutions on Iran's nuclear program:

• Resolution 1696 (31 July 2006) demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities,
• Resolution 1737 (23 December 2006) imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its enrichment activities, required Iran to cooperate with IAEA,
• Resolution 1747 (24 March 2007) expanded the list of sanctioned Iranian entities,
• Resolution 1803 (3 March 2008) extended those sanctions to additional persons and entities,
• Resolution 1835 (27 September 2008) reaffirmed the preceding four resolutions,
• Resolution 1929 (9 June 2010) imposed a complete arms embargo on Iran, banned Iran from any activities related to ballistic missiles, authorized the inspection and seizure of shipments violating these restrictions, extended the asset freeze to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), and established a Panel of Experts (whose mandate was extended three times by Resolution 1984 (8 June 2011), Resolution 2049 (7 June 2012), and Resolution 2105 (5 June 2013)).

IAEA reports, 2007–2015

The IAEA has consistently stated it is unable to conclude that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Such a conclusion would normally be drawn only for countries that have an Additional Protocol in force. Iran ceased its implementation of the Additional Protocol in 2006, and also ceased all other cooperation with the IAEA beyond what Iran acknowledged it was required to provide under its safeguards agreement, after the IAEA Board of Governors decided, in February 2006, to report Iran's safeguards non-compliance to the Security Council.^[115] The Council, invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, then passed Resolution 1737, which obligated Iran to implement the Additional Protocol. Iran responded that its nuclear activities were peaceful and that Security Council involvement was malicious and unlawful.^[130] In August 2007, Iran and the IAEA entered into an agreement on the modalities for resolving remaining outstanding issues,^[131] and made progress in outstanding issues except for the question of "alleged studies" of weaponization by Iran.^[132] Iran said it did not address the alleged studies in the IAEA work plan because they were not included in the plan.^[133] The IAEA did not detect the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies and said it regrets it was unable to provide Iran with copies of the documentation concerning the alleged studies, but said the documentation was comprehensive and detailed, and therefore needed to be taken seriously. Iran said the allegations are based on "forged" documents and "fabricated" data, and that had not received copies of the documentation to enable it to prove that they were forged and fabricated.^[134][135]

In 2011, the IAEA began to voice growing concern over possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program, and has released a number of reports chastising Iran's nuclear program to that effect.^[136]

In February 2007, anonymous diplomats at the IAEA reportedly complained that most US intelligence shared with the IAEA had proved inaccurate, and none had led to significant discoveries inside Iran.^[137]

On 10 May 2007, Iran and the IAEA vehemently denied reports that Iran had blocked IAEA inspectors when they sought access to Iran's enrichment facility. On 11 March 2007, Reuters quoted IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire, "We have not been denied access at any time, including in the past few weeks. Normally we do not comment on such reports but this time we felt we had to clarify the matter ... If we had a problem like that we would have to report to the board ... That has not happened because this alleged event did not take place."^[138]

On 30 July 2007, IAEA inspectors spent five hours at the Arak complex, the first such visit since April. Visits to other plants in Iran were expected during the following days. It has been suggested that access may have been granted in an attempt to head off further sanctions.^[139]

August 2007 Report and Agreement between Iran and the IAEA

An IAEA report to the Board of Governors on 30 August 2007 stated that Iran's Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz was operating "well below the expected quantity for a facility of this design," and that 12 of the intended 18 centrifuge cascades at the plant were operating. The report stated that the IAEA had "been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran," and that longstanding issues regarding plutonium experiments and HEU contamination on spent fuel containers were considered "resolved." However, the report added that the Agency remained unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran's nuclear program.

The report also outlined a workplan agreed by Iran and the IAEA on 21 August 2007. The workplan reflected agreement on "modalities for resolving the remaining safeguards implementation issues, including the long outstanding issues." According to the plan, these modalities covered all remaining issues regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities. The IAEA report described the workplan as "a significant step forward," but added "the Agency considers it essential that Iran adheres to the time line defined therein and implements all the necessary safeguards and transparency measures, including the measures provided for in the Additional Protocol."^[140] Although the workplan did not include a commitment by Iran to implement the Additional Protocol, IAEA safeguards head Olli Heinonen observed that measures in the workplan "for resolving our outstanding issues go beyond the requirements of the Additional Protocol."^[141]

According to Reuters, the report was likely to blunt Washington's push for more severe sanctions against Iran. One senior UN official familiar said US efforts to escalate sanctions against Iran would provoke a nationalistic backlash by Iran that would set back the IAEA investigation in Iran.^[142] In late October 2007, chief IAEA inspector Olli Heinonen described Iranian cooperation with the IAEA as "good," although much remained to be done.^[143]

In late October 2007, according to the International Herald Tribune, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that he had seen "no evidence" of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The IHT quoted ElBaradei as saying "We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks. ... But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." The IHT report went on to say that "ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it."^[144]

November 2007 report

A IAEA report of 15 November 2007 found that on nine outstanding issues listed in the August 2007 workplan, including experiments on the P-2 centrifuge and work with uranium metals, "Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency," but it warned that its knowledge of Tehran's present atomic work was shrinking due to Iran's refusal to continue voluntarily implementing the Additional Protocol, as it had done in the past under the October 2003 Tehran agreement and the November 2004 Paris agreement. The only remaining issues were traces of HEU found at one location, and allegations by US intelligence agencies based on a laptop computer allegedly stolen from Iran which reportedly contained nuclear weapons-related designs. The IAEA report also stated that Tehran continues to produce LEU. Iran has declared it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT, despite Security Council demands that it cease its nuclear enrichment.^[145]

On 18 November 2007, Ahmadinejad announced that he intended to consult with Arab nations on a plan, under the auspices of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to enrich uranium in a neutral third country, such as Switzerland.^[146]

Israel criticized IAEA reports on Iran as well as the former IAEA-director ElBaradei. Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman dismissed the IAEA reports as being "unacceptable" and accused IAEA head ElBaradei of being "pro-Iranian."^[147]

February 2008 report

On 11 February 2008, news reports stated that the IAEA report on Iran's compliance with the August 2007 workplan would be delayed over internal disagreements over the report's expected conclusions that the major issues had been resolved.^[148] French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stated that he would meet with ElBaradei to convince him to "listen to the West" and remind him that the IAEA is merely in charge of the "technical side" rather than the "political side" of the issue.^[149] A senior IAEA official denied the reports of internal disagreements and accused Western powers of using the same "hype" tactics employed against Iraq before the 2003 US-led invasion to justify imposing further sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.^[150]

On 22 February 2008, the IAEA issued its report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran.^[151] ElBaradei stated that "We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran's enrichment programme" with the exception of a single issue, "and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past."^[152]

According to the report, the IAEA shared intelligence with Iran recently provided by the US regarding "alleged studies" on a nuclear weaponization program. The information was allegedly obtained from a laptop computer smuggled out of Iran and provided to the US in mid-2004.^[153] The laptop was reportedly received from a "longtime contact" in Iran who obtained it from someone else now believed to be dead.^[154] A senior European diplomat warned "I can fabricate that data," and argued that the documents look "beautiful, but is open to doubt."^[154] The United States has relied on the laptop to prove that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons.^[154] In November 2007, the United States National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) believed that Iran halted an alleged active nuclear weapons program in 2003.^[4] Iran has dismissed the laptop information as a fabrication, and other diplomats have dismissed the information as relatively insignificant and coming too late.^[155]

The February 2008 IAEA report states that the IAEA has "not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard."^[151]

May 2008 report

On 26 May 2008, the IAEA issued another regular report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran,^[156] in which the IAEA has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and Iran has provided the IAEA with access to declared nuclear material and accountancy reports, as required by its safeguards agreement. Iran had installed several new centrifuges, including more advanced models, and environmental samples showed the centrifuges "continued to operate as declared", making low-enriched uranium. The report also noted that other elements of Iran's nuclear program continued to be subject to IAEA monitoring and safeguards as well, including the construction of the heavy water facility in Arak, the construction and use of hot cells associated with the Tehran Research Reactor, the uranium conversion efforts, and the Russian nuclear fuel delivered for the Bushehr reactor.

The report stated that the IAEA had requested, as a voluntary "transparency measure", to be allowed access to centrifuge manufacturing sites, but that Iran had refused the request. The IAEA report stated that Iran had also submitted replies to questions regarding "possible military dimensions" to its nuclear program, which include "alleged studies" on a so-called Green Salt Project, high-explosive testing and missile re-entry vehicles. According to the report, Iran's answers were still under review by the IAEA at the time the report was published. However, as part of its earlier "overall assessment" of the allegations, Iran had responded that the documents making the allegations were forged, not authentic, or referred to conventional applications. The report stated that Iran may have more information on the alleged studies, which "remain a matter of serious concern", but that the IAEA itself had not detected evidence of actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear weapons or components. The IAEA also stated that it was not itself in possession of certain documents containing the allegations against Iran, and so was not able to share the documents with Iran.

September 2008 report

According to 15 September 2008 IAEA report on the implementation of safeguards in Iran,^[157] Iran continued to provide the IAEA with access to declared nuclear material and activities, which continued to be operated under safeguards and with no evidence of any diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses. Nevertheless, the report reiterated that the IAEA would not be able to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program unless Iran adopted "transparency measures" which exceeded its safeguards agreement with the IAEA, since the IAEA does not verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in any country unless the Additional Protocol is in force.

ElBaradei stated that "we have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran's enrichment programme" with the exception of a single issue, "and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past."^[158] According to the report, Iran had increased the number of operating centrifuges at its Fuel Enrichment Plant in Isfahan, and continued to enrich uranium. Contrary to some media reports which claimed that Iran had diverted uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) for a renewed nuclear weapons program,^[159] the IAEA emphasized that all of the UF₆ was under IAEA safeguards. Iran was also asked to clarify information about foreign assistance it may have received in connection with a high explosive charge suitable for an implosion type nuclear device. Iran stated that there had been no such activities in Iran.^[157]

The IAEA also reported that it had held a series of meetings with Iranian officials to resolve the outstanding issues including the "alleged studies" into nuclear weaponization which were listed in the May 2008 IAEA report. During the course of these meetings, the Iranians filed a series of written responses including a 117-page presentation which confirmed the partial veracity of some of the allegations, but which asserted that the allegations as a whole were based on "forged" documents and "fabricated" data, and that Iran had not actually received the documentation substantiating the allegations. According to the August 2007 "Modalities Agreement" between Iran and the IAEA, Iran had agreed to review and assess the "alleged studies" claims, as good faith gesture, "upon receiving all related documents."^[160]

While once again expressing "regret" that the IAEA was not able to provide Iran with copies of the documentation concerning the alleged studies, the report also urged Iran to provide the IAEA with "substantive information to support its statements and provide access to relevant documentation and individuals" regarding the alleged studies, as a "matter of transparency".^[157] The IAEA submitted a number of proposals to Iran to help resolve the allegations and expressed a willingness to discuss modalities that could enable Iran to demonstrate credibly that the activities referred to in the documentation were not nuclear-related, as Iran asserted, while protecting sensitive information related to its conventional military activities. The report does not indicate whether Iran accepted or rejected these proposals.^[157]

The report also reiterated that IAEA inspectors had found "no evidence on the actual design or manufacture by Iran of nuclear material components of a nuclear weapon or of certain other key components, such as initiators, or on related nuclear physics studies ... Nor has the Agency detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies" but insisted that the IAEA would not be able to formally verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program unless Iran had agreed to adopt the requested "transparency measures."^[157]

February 2009 report

In a report on 19 February 2009 to the Board of Governors,^[161] ElBaradei reported that Iran continued to enrich uranium contrary to the decisions of the Security Council and had produced over a ton of low enriched uranium. Results of environmental samples taken by the IAEA at the FEP and PFEP5 indicated that the plants have been operating at levels declared by Tehran, "within the measurement uncertainties normally associated with enrichment plants of a similar throughput." The IAEA was also able to confirm there was no ongoing reprocessing related activities at Iran's Tehran Research Reactor and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility.

According to the report, Iran also continued to refuse to provide design information or access to verify design information for its IR-40 heavy water research reactor. Iran and the IAEA in February 2003 agreed to modify a provision in the Subsidiary Arrangement to its safeguards agreement (Code 3.1) to require such access.^[162] Iran told the IAEA in March 2007 that it "suspended" the implementation of the modified Code 3.1, which had been "accepted in 2003, but not yet ratified by the parliament", and that it would "revert" to the implementation of the 1976 version of Code 3.1.^[163] The subsidiary arrangement may only be modified by mutual agreement.^[164] Iran says that since the reactor is not in a position to receive nuclear material the IAEA's request for access was not justified, and requested that the IAEA not schedule an inspection to verify design information.^[161] The IAEA says its right to verify design information provided to it is a "continuing right, which is not dependent on the stage of construction of, or the presence of nuclear material at, a facility."^[163]

Regarding the "alleged studies" into nuclear weaponization, the IAEA said that "as a result of the continued lack of cooperation by Iran in connection with the remaining issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme, the Agency has not made any substantive progress on these issues" and called on member states which had provided information about the alleged programs to allow the information to be shared with Iran. IAEA said Iran's continued refusal to implement the Additional Protocol was contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council and that it was able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.^[165] Iran said that for the six years the Agency had been considering its case, the IAEA had not found any evidence to prove that Tehran is seeking a nuclear weapon.^[166]

Regarding the IAEA report, several news reports suggested that Iran had failed to properly report the amount of LEU it possessed because Iranian estimates did not match the IAEA inspector's findings, and that Iran now had enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb.^[167][168] The reporting was widely criticized as unjustifiably provocative and hyped.^{[169][170][171]} In response to the controversy, IAEA spokesman Melissa Fleming asserted that the IAEA had no reason at all to believe that the estimates of low-enriched uranium produced by Iran were an intentional error, and that no nuclear material could be removed from the facility for further enrichment to make nuclear weapons without the agency's knowledge since the facility is subject to video surveillance and the nuclear material is kept under seal.^[172]

Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, Iran's Ambassador to the IAEA, said the February report failed to "provide any new insight into Iran's nuclear program."^[173] He asserted the report was written in a way which clearly causes misunderstanding in public opinion. He suggested the reports should be written to have a section about whether Iran has fulfilled its NPT obligations and a separate section for whether "fulfillment of Additional Protocol or sub-arrangements 1 and 3 are beyond the commitment or not."^{[citation needed]}

In a February 2009 press interview, ElBaradei said Iran has low enriched uranium, but "that doesn't mean that they are going tomorrow to have nuclear weapons, because as long as they are under IAEA verification, as long as they are not weaponizing, you know." ElBaradei continued that there is a confidence deficit with Iran, but that the concern should not be hyped and that "many other countries are enriching uranium without the world making any fuss about it."^[174]

In February 2009 ElBaradei reportedly said that he believed the possibility of a military attack on Iran's nuclear installations had been ruled out. "Force can only be used as a last option ... when all other political possibilities have been exhausted," he told Radio France International.^[166][175] Former Director General Hans Blix criticized Western governments for the years lost by their "ineffective approaches" to Iran's nuclear program. Blix suggested the West offer "guarantees against attacks from the outside and subversive activities inside" and also suggested US involvement in regional diplomacy "would offer Iran a greater incentive to reach a nuclear agreement than the Bush team's statements that 'Iran must behave itself'."^[176]

August 2009 report

In July 2009, the incoming head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, said: "I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents" that Iran is trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.^[177]

In September 2009, ElBaradei said that Iran had broken the law by not disclosing the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, its second uranium enrichment site near Qom sooner. Nevertheless, he said, the United Nations did not have credible evidence that Iran had an operational nuclear program.^[178]

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Nuclear_programme_of_Iran
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---