Iran Calls 84% Uranium Enrichment Allegation a ‘Conspiracy’

The Iranian flag flutters in front the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria July 10, 2019. (Reuters)
The Iranian flag flutters in front the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria July 10, 2019. (Reuters)
TT
20

Iran Calls 84% Uranium Enrichment Allegation a ‘Conspiracy’

The Iranian flag flutters in front the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria July 10, 2019. (Reuters)
The Iranian flag flutters in front the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna, Austria July 10, 2019. (Reuters)

Iranian state television on Friday offered an extended defense against an accusation attributed to international inspectors that it enriched uranium to 84% purity, with an official calling it part of a “conspiracy” against Tehran amid tensions over its nuclear program.

The comments by Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesman for Iran's civilian nuclear program, sought to portray any detection of uranium particles enriched to that level as a momentary side effect of trying to reach a finished product of 60% purity — which Tehran already has announced producing.

However, uranium at 84% is at nearly weapons-grade levels of 90% — meaning any stockpile of that material could be quickly used to produce an atomic bomb if Iran chooses. Tehran long has insisted its program is for peaceful purposes, though the International Atomic Energy Agency, Western intelligence agencies and nonproliferation experts say Iran pursued a secret nuclear weapons program up until 2003.

The allegation IAEA inspectors found 84% enriched uranium threatens to further escalate tensions between Iran and the West. Already, Israel's recently reinstalled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened military actions against Tehran.

Bloomberg first reported Sunday that inspectors had detected uranium particles enriched up to 84%. The IAEA, a United Nations agency based in Vienna, has not denied the report, saying only “that the IAEA is discussing with Iran the results of recent agency verification activities.”

In an interview with Iranian state television's English-language arm, Press TV highlighted Friday, Kamalvandi dismissed what inspectors may have found as “a particle of an atom that cannot be seen even under a microscope." He described Iran's uranium centrifuge cascades as producing particles at varying purity that later form a final product of 60%.

“It doesn’t matter because the end product is what matters,” Kamalvandi said. “If we really want to enrich 20% more, we will announce it very easily. So it is clear that there is a conspiracy here.”

Iran's 2015 nuclear deal limited Tehran's uranium enrichment to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant. The US unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018. Since then, a shadow war between Israel and Iran has erupted across the wider Middle East.

Iran now produces uranium enriched to 60% purity — a level at which nonproliferation experts already say Tehran has no civilian use. Any accusation of enrichment higher than that further ratchets up tension over the program, something Iran has appeared to acknowledge through a series of comments this week about the allegation attributed to the international inspectors.

While the IAEA’s director-general has warned Iran now has enough uranium to produce “several” nuclear bombs if it chooses, it likely would take months more to build a weapon and potentially miniaturize it to put on a missile. As recently as last March, the US intelligence community assessed Iran “is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities that we judge would be necessary to produce a nuclear device.”

Meanwhile late Thursday night, online videos showed explosions and anti-aircraft fire in Karaj, a city about 40 kilometers (25 miles) northwest of the Iranian capital, Tehran. Tracer rounds lit up the night sky, with the thud of blasts heard in the videos.

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency later attributed the activity to an unannounced drill at a base for the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. In 2021, a suspected Israeli strike drone damaged a centrifuge assembly facility in Karaj.



Nuclear Contamination Risks from Israel's Attacks on Iran

FILE PHOTO: General view of Bushehr nuclear power plant, 1,200 km south of Tehran/Reuters 
FILE PHOTO: General view of Bushehr nuclear power plant, 1,200 km south of Tehran/Reuters 
TT
20

Nuclear Contamination Risks from Israel's Attacks on Iran

FILE PHOTO: General view of Bushehr nuclear power plant, 1,200 km south of Tehran/Reuters 
FILE PHOTO: General view of Bushehr nuclear power plant, 1,200 km south of Tehran/Reuters 

Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear installations so far pose only limited risks of contamination, experts say. But they warn that any attack on the country's nuclear power station at Bushehr could cause a nuclear disaster.

Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil.

Fears of catastrophe rippled through the region on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast - home to Iran's only nuclear power station - only to say later that the announcement was a mistake.

What Has Israel Hit So Far?

Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one.

The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran.

Israel has also attacked Arak, also known as Khondab.

The IAEA said Israeli military strikes hit the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, which was under construction and had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy water. The IAEA said that it was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so there were no radiological effects.

In an update of its assessment on Friday, the IAEA said key buildings at the site were damaged. Heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make an atom bomb.

What Risks Do These Strikes Pose?

Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specializes in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far.

He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported.

“The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that,” he said. “Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments,” he said, according to Reuters.

Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks.

At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. “When UF6 interacts with water vapor in the air, it produces harmful chemicals,” she said.

The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including the weather, she added. “In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely.”

The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities.

Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in the UK, said risks to the environment were minimal if Israel hits subterranean facilities because you are “burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tons of concrete, earth and rock.”

What About Nuclear Reactors?

The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be “mainly a chemical problem” for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors “is a different story.”

Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added.

James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr “could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe,” but that attacks on enrichment facilities were “unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences.”

Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. “The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil,” he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign.

Bennett of the University of Leicester said it would be “foolhardy for the Israelis to attack” Bushehr because they could pierce the reactor, which would mean releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere.