The development of transparency and confidence-building measures for Iran’s nuclear
programme (Phase II) (2012-13)
Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT)
In 2006 and 2007, VERTIC was engaged in a Track-2 exercise with senior Iranian officials as well as officials from the so-called EU-3. This project has since been on hold, with funding held in place. We now have agreement from the funder to use the remaining funds with a view of closing the project.
The 2007 proposal read, in part, ‘the Iranian nuclear programme continues to cause controversy. Yet, at this time of diplomatic impasse and provoking political rhetoric, few concrete policy options aimed at resolving the issue have been placed on the table. Few studies, with the exception of VERTIC’s two Verification Matters reports (see below), have proposed mechanisms which have the potential to satisfy the concerns of all sides. Yet, a solution not involving the use of force is likely to be forged in the middle, allowing for some Iranian fuel cycle activities to continue. It therefore remains essential to continue to search for acceptable solutions, and to keep engaging in dialogue’. All of this remains true.
The project will therefore conclude with the publishing of one concluding ‘think piece’. This product will, for the first time, sketch out all product and materials flows inside Iran, and highlight where safeguards are likely applied. It will make concrete recommendations for safeguards and verification beyond those.
- Paper on Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, which will include material flows analysis and an overview of safeguards application in the country (Q3-4 2012);
- Small-scale review seminar to be held at Development House (Q3-4 2012);
- See the debate at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists website, which also contains the following articles by Dan Joyner and Chris Ford:
- 'What are the standards that the IAEA uses to investigate and assess Iran’s compliance with its safeguards agreements, and are they the legally correct standards?' (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), debate essay, 5 November 2012;
- 'What are the standards that the IAEA uses to investigate and assess Iran’s compliance with its safeguards agreements, and are they the legally correct standards?' (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), debate essay, 26 November 2012;
'What are the standards that the IAEA uses to investigate and assess Iran’s compliance with its safeguards agreements, and are they the legally correct standards?', debate essay, 17 December 2012.
- James Acton with Joanna Little, ‘Use of voluntary transparency measures to increase trust in States' nuclear programmes: the case of Iran’, Verification Matters no. 8, May 2007
- Andreas Persbo, ‘Thinking inside the box: exploring legal approaches to build confidence in Iran's nuclear programme’, Verification Matters no. 7, May 2007
- Andreas Persbo, ‘A reflection on the current state of nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards’, Non-Proliferation Paper No. 8, February 2012
From the VERTIC blog
- David Cliff, 'Iran, the IAEA and the Parchin problem', 7 June 2012
- David Cliff, 'The Iranian nuclear crisis: growing stockpiles and rising stakes', 4 April 2012
- David Cliff, 'Nuclear verification issues and priorities in Iran', 3 February 2012
- Hugh Chalmers, 'Iran and the Board of Governors', 16 November 2011
- Mikael Shirazi, 'Centrifuge disclosure illustrates value of Additional Protocol', 4 May 2011