Sca

The Situation in Iran

Since August 2002 Iran has been a pressing source of concern for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) following the revelation of two secret nuclear facilities. The revelation of these facilities drew into question the nature of the Iranian nuclear program. While Iran was initially cooperative with the IAEA, that cooperation ended in early 2006 with its announcement of intent to resume all research and development activities. In April 2006, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had “joined the nuclear countries of the world,” and that Iran had no intention of giving up its right to enrich uranium as part of negotiations over its nuclear program. The Security Council agreed in early June 2006 on a set of proposals for Iran, containing both incentives and disincentives with the goal of deterring Iranian uranium enrichment. Iran rejected the proposals, calling them “insulting and humiliating.” Following the rejection of the proposals, the Security Council issued the first (S/RES/1696) of what would become six resolutions between July 2006 and June 2010 banning arms exports, freezing assets, and restricting the travel of individuals, groups, and companies associated with the nuclear program.

During this time, negotiations continued regarding efforts to persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. In 2009, Russia, France, and the United States offered to send a large portion of Iran’s nuclear fuel abroad for further processing. Iran initially refused but later accepted after the proposal was withdrawn following the exposure of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP). Following the initial rejection, Iran and several member nations revealed to the IAEA that Iran was constructing a fuel enrichment plant in a tunnel complex on a Revolutionary Guard base in Fordow, near the city of Qom.

While it has been years since the covert nuclear facilities were exposed the question of a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program remains unanswered. The IAEA has been allowed access to declared Iranian nuclear facilities; however, Iran continues to remain evasive regarding questions raised by the IAEA and Security Council. Iran continually reminds the IAEA of its compliance and findings in Board of Governors’ reports that Iran has not diverted any nuclear material from those sites the IAEA is allowed to access. Western diplomats continue to call into question the validity of Iran’s proposal to domestically supply fuel for its nuclear program as well as the design of its research reactor under construction at Arak. They also question if the Arak reactor is to be a replacement for the Tehran Research Reactor and why the Iranian government proceeded to enrich uranium to 20% against IAEA recommendations and without IAEA safeguards as reported in GOV/2010/10.

There have been repeated statements by Iran regarding the construction of as many as ten new enrichment facilities. The IAEA has not been allowed access to any of these proposed sites, though
reportedly five have been chosen. Iran claims it is not obligated to give access to the sites until six months prior to the introduction of nuclear material under the Safeguards Agreement. Iran has routinely
neglected to inform the IAEA of nuclear sites until they have been publicly exposed via international media or western intelligence agencies.

Issues with possible military dimensions have been continually called into question by the IAEA. Such issues include alleged studies relating to spherical and hemispherical high-explosive lensing testing; long range missile testing; reentry vehicle modification of Shahab-3 payload replacing the conventional high explosives with a spherical payload; uranium metal milling; and highly synchronous explosive triggering. Additionally, issues relating to transparency and cooperation with the IAEA remain outstanding: continued uranium enrichment to 20%; lack of access to companies producing components for nuclear research and development; and refusal of access to heavy water, uranium processing and mining facilities. Iran claims these issues have arisen from forged documents and that these are “politically motivated” and “baseless” accusations. Iran also claims that “alleged studies” have never been considered outstanding issues. Iran continues to call all Security Council resolutions concerning the Iranian nuclear program “illegal,” claiming it is not bound by modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidary Arrangements General Part (which requires states report new facilities to the IAEA 180 days before the facility receives nuclear material for the first time) and that its actions do not violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Efforts have been made by unknown nations or groups to slow Iran’s nuclear progress using cyber-warfare. Following the cyberattack by the Stuxnet virus in 2010 on computers regulating Iranian centrifuges and the Bushehr nuclear reactor, Iranian production of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fell. The virus also resulted in a delay in bringing the Bushehr reactor online. The virus appears to have been designed specifically for systems controlling Iranian centrifuge cascades causing them to spin out of control while indicating false readouts within normal operating parameters. Despite this setback, by early 2011 production of LEU had reached pre-Stuxnet, levels and the Bushehr reactor was loaded and had reached the critical level for sustained nuclear fission by 10 May 2011. Iran has placed blame for the Stuxnet virus on Israel and the United States and has blamed the German company Siemens for introducing the virus to Iranian systems. In addition to overcoming the setbacks caused by the Stuxnet virus, analysis by experts suggests that Iran has reached nuclear breakout capacity and with available known quantities of LEU, Iran could produce enough Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to build a nuclear weapon within 62 days, or 12 days provided 153.2kg of LEU enriched at 19.7%

In addition, negotiations continue to proceed between Iran and the P5+1 (china, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to rectify this issue, with the latest occurring this last April/May.

Questions to consider from your government’s perspective include the following

• How does the presence of the Iranian nuclear program affect the implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

• What are appropriate actions for the international community to take with regard to Iran’s nuclear program?

Bibliography

“Institute for Science and International Security: IAEA Iran Safeguards Report,” 24 May 2011, www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/ISIS_Analysis_IAEA_Report_24May2011_Revised.pdf

“Nuclear Forum at UN Offers Iran Chance to Reassure World Official,” UN News Centre, 29 April 2010, www.un.org/news.

“Out of the Spotlight Iran’s Rate of Enriched Uranium Production Continues to Increase: Centrifuge Enrichment and the IAEA May 24, 2011 Update,” Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center, 2 June 2011. www.npolicy.org/article_file/Iran_Enrichment_Update-Greg_Jones.pdf

Sanger, David, “Agencies Suspect Iran Is Plotting Atomic Sites” New York Times, 27 March 2010.

UN Documents

GOV/2011/29
GOV/2011/7
GOV/2010/10
GOV/2009/8
GOV/2003/40
INFCIRC/817
INFCIRC/786
INFCIRC/724
INFCIRC/214
S/RES/1929 (9 June 2010)
S/RES/1835 (27 September 2008)
S/RES/1803 (3 March 2008)
S/RES/1747 (24 March 2007)
S/RES/1737 (23 December 2006)
S/RES/1696 (31 July 2006)
 

docX

Scb

The Situation in The Middle East

The Palestinian Question remains one of the most discussed topics in the Security Council since Israel declared its independence in 1948. The Six-Day and October War and the Israeli invasions of Lebanon have only further complicated the process of resolving the Palestinian question both in terms of displaced persons and defining Palestinian territory. In 1987 Jordan ceded its rights to the West Bank to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. As part of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority replaced the PLO in 1994 and became the governing body of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While progress towards resolution of the Palestinian question was at first promising, the peace process broke down due to attacks by Palestinian groups and the ever expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

After the breakdown of the peace process and the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000, work towards peace in the Middle East has been a difficult process. The most recent progress occurred in 2003 with the Quartet, composed of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, backing what is known as the Road Map. The Road Map suggested a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinian refugee problem. Israel rejected some portions of the Road Map, while the Palestinian Authority pledged its support. Direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians held by US President Barak Obama in September 2010 met their demise only weeks after beginning due to Israel failing to renew a settlement freeze in the West Bank.

The situation in Gaza has been tense since the establishment of a blockade in 2007 when Hamas gained control of the Gaza Strip following parliamentary elections. The ensuing humanitarian and economic crisis precipitated a conflict in Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009. This conflict was originally sparked by rocket attacks from within Gaza and led to the deaths of 1,010 Palestinians and the destruction of 1,008 buildings in Gaza. A United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) investigation resulted in a 575 page report which found both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants guilty of committing war crimes. The report found the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) directly targeted and arbitrarily killed Palestinian civilians and directly targeted industrial and water installations while using Palestinians civilians as human shields. It also found Palestinian militants affiliated with Hamas to be guilty of deliberately targeting civilian populations. Several UN facilities were damaged during the conflict.

Following the conflict, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called for the blockade on Gaza to be lifted in light of the humanitarian situation. The UN has estimated that nearly 80% of all imports to Gaza come through smuggling tunnels due to the blockade. An attempt to break the blockade on 31 May 2010 by a flotilla originating in Turkey ended with Israeli Defense Forces raiding and boarding multiple ships and nine attempted blockade breakers dead.

Efforts at restarting the peace process and moving toward a two-state solution, originally envisioned in General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947, have reached a stumbling block due to Hamas control of Gaza and the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has stated that expansion of Israeli settlements is illegal and acts against international law. Frustrated by a lack of progress in recent years the Palestinians are set to seek recognition from the UN General Assembly in September 2011. It is not yet clear if the Palestinians will seek membership as a sovereign state or a non-binding resolution recognizing Palestine as a state. Palestinian Observer Riyad Mansor argued in front of the Security Council 26 July 2011 that recognition of Palestine as a state would not hurt the peace process but instead would strengthen efforts toward establishing a two state solution. Israel views the Palestinian appeal for state recognition as an effort to by-pass direct peace talks. Palestine is unlikely to gain UN membership as a state at this time due to the threat of a US veto. The question of how to establish and maintain a lasting peace in Israel, Palestine, and neighboring states remains.

Questions to consider from your government’s perspective include the following

• What steps can be taken to persuade Israel, Palestine, and surrounding nations to adhere to the Road Map? Is the Road Map still a viable solution?

• Is a two-state solution a viable way to resolve conflict and bring about the changes envisioned in Resolution 242 and subsequent documents?

Bibliography

Charbonneau, Louis, “Israel, Palestine Lock Horns Over UN Recognition,” Reuters, 27 July 2011.

Donnison, Jon. ‚“Gazans cut through Egypt’s border barrier,” BBC News, 6 May 2010.

Hass, Amira, “Norwegian Doctor: Israel Used New Kind of Weapon in Gaza,” Haaretz, 20 January 2010.

Snow, Anita, “UN: Israel-Palestine Deadlock Slows Peace,” Associated Press, 27 July 2011.

“UN Chief Says Israeli Settlement Activities Illegal,” Xinhua, 27 March 2010.

UN Documents

S/RES/1994 (30 June 2011)
A/HRC/12/48 (29 September 2009) Report of the United Nations
Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
S/PRST/2009/14 (11 May 2009)
S/RES/1860 (8 January 2009)
S/RES/1850 (16 December 2008)
S/RES/1515 (19 November 2003)
S/2003/529 (7 May 2003) The Road-Map
S/RES/338 (22 October 1973)
S/RES/242 (22 November 1967)
A/RES/194 (11 December 1948)
A/RES/181 (29 November 1947)