Iran Likely to Go Nuclear, Experts Tell Senate Panel

A senior State Department official and international experts gave a Senate panel a pessimistic assessment Thursday of developments in Iran, saying they saw no signs that current disarmament efforts would deter the country’s rulers from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

One expert told senators that the “most probable” outcome of the stalemate would be that Tehran would obtain nuclear weapons.

“We ought to get used to the idea of thinking about what it would be like to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

Iran recently said it would resume enriching uranium -- a key step in producing nuclear arms -- after agreeing to freeze such work two years ago. The regime in Tehran insists that its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes, but its statement has increased tensions with the U.S.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns told the Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. saw “no sign Iran has made the necessary strategic decision to abandon its nuclear ambitions.”

Burns called on Iran to “maintain suspension of all nuclear-related activities and negotiate in good faith the eventual cessation and dismantling of all sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities.”

Otherwise, he said, European nations -- some of which are trying to persuade Iran to abandon any effort to produce nuclear weapons -- would insist that the issue be referred to the United Nations Security Council.

But Burns spurned the Europeans’ suggestion that the U.S. offer more support for their negotiations. “There is no reason to believe that extra incentives offered by the United States at this point would make a difference,” he said.

“We don’t have any reason to think that if the U.S. were at the [negotiating] table, the Iranians would be any more open.”

Geoffrey Kemp, a former National Security Council official now affiliated with the Nixon Center in Washington, said that “there is no way” U.S. or European efforts would prevent a “proud country of 70 million people with abundant resources” from acquiring an atomic bomb if it wants one.

Without “fundamental change in the Iranian leadership, combined with a willingness on the part of the Bush administration to take big risks, the United States is on course for a serious crisis with Iran at some point in the coming months,” Kemp said.

If Iran were to develop atomic weapons, the United States would be forced to consider persuading Egypt, Saudi Arabia and possibly other nations in the region to not also develop nuclear weapons, Milhollin said.

At the urging of European leaders, President Bush agreed this year to offer incentives to Tehran that include selling civilian aircraft parts and dropping a long-standing objection to Iran’s applying for membership in the World Trade Organization.

Senior U.S. officials have since been cool to the idea -- floated by Europeans and some analysts -- of offering Tehran economic benefits for a commitment to refrain from enriching uranium. In that scenario, sanctions could be imposed if Iran refused the deal.

The Europeans and Iranians are scheduled to meet again next week.

Burns repeatedly praised the European negotiators and said he was in daily contact with them. “They have been very faithful partners to us,” he said. “They have been, we think, very tough -- as they should be.”

Some diplomats and analysts have suggested that Iranian officials could not advocate compromise with the West before Iran’s presidential election, scheduled for June 17.

However, Burns and others held out no hope that the election would produce a representative government. About 1,100 people registered to run in the election, but the theocratic Guardian Council, a powerful watchdog group, is expected to approve only a dozen or so candidates, Burns said.