The conflict between Israel and Iran is explosive in itself. He gets further tension from the Iranian nuclear program. Tehran is apparently working on a nuclear bomb. But when is it ready for use? And could it still be prevented?
Iran’s first direct attack on Israel has fueled fears of a further escalation of the conflict. Israel has intercepted the vast majority of the more than 500 missiles fired by Iran and its allies. But the country is threatening a counterattack. According to Israeli television, there are a number of possible targets: Iranian oil fields and military bases, Revolutionary Guard facilities – or nuclear facilities.
Iran’s nuclear program, which has been running for decades, gives the conflict a particularly explosive nature because it opens up the possibility of the country becoming nuclear – and of a conflict between nuclear powers. Because Israel has nuclear bombs, even if it has never officially confirmed this. But can Iran catch up? And when is the time?
Ulrich Schlie, Professor of Security and Strategy Research at the University of Bonn sees Iran “immediately” before the bomb. The situation is “extremely dangerous,” he told Ippen-Media. Nuclear expert Behrooz Bayat, senior fellow at the Center for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG), explains this in more nuanced terms: “The Islamic Republic is close to having enough radioactive material for the to produce an atomic bomb,” he tells ntv.de. But that doesn’t make a bomb; after all, other parts are needed. This includes a delivery system such as a rocket – according to Bayat, the ballistic missiles that the country has are not sufficient for this. In his opinion, Iran is “still relatively far away from having a finished bomb; I estimate two to three years, provided development can progress unhindered.”
Iran expert Azadeh Zamirirad from the Science and Politics Foundation sees it similarly. Opposite the ZDF She called Iran a “nuclear threshold state” because it meets almost all the technical requirements to be able to build a nuclear bomb. But the country is “still a long way away from having a finished weapon,” she said, citing estimates of six to eighteen months. According to a report, it could go faster “Washington Post” the construction of a simple nuclear device that would be ready within about six months, the newspaper reported, citing U.S. officials and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Uranium enrichment is gaining pace
Iran can easily obtain uranium – the country has natural reserves and also enriches the radioactive element itself. For years, the international community has tried to prevent the enrichment of 80 to 90 percent purity required for weapons. With moderate success. The Vienna Nuclear Agreement was concluded in 2015 and Iran wanted to limit its uranium enrichment. But since then US President Donald Trump canceled the agreement in 2018, it has effectively come to an end.
Since then, uranium enrichment has accelerated. At the end of February, the IAEA reported that the country had sharply increased production of highly enriched uranium. In total, the country has 121.5 kilograms of 60 percent uranium. An atomic bomb requires around 50 kilograms of at least 80 to 90 percent uranium. But it only takes a few weeks to get the material to this value.
The West is correspondingly concerned. He has long accused Iran of wanting to develop nuclear bombs, something Tehran has always denied. “The argument of the government of the Islamic Republic that it wants to use the nuclear program peacefully is a pretext. The regime in Iran wanted to build a bomb, but whether it can and still wants to do that is uncertain,” says expert Bayat. According to him, the nuclear program has two goals: deterrence, to build up threat potential and to extort political-economic concessions from the West. And secondly, to build an atomic bomb when a good opportunity presents itself.
Expert Zamirirad sees both goals in a close connection: status as a nuclear emerging state is sufficient to provide deterrence. “If the conflict with Israel escalates further, then the risk increases significantly that Iran will try to compensate for lost deterrent potential with its own nuclear bombs.”
Military strike with great risks
Iran has what it takes to build its own nuclear bombs. The former Iranian nuclear chief recently said very clearly that his country had the technical capabilities to develop nuclear bombs. “Iran is now developing its nuclear program independently,” says Bayat. Centrifuges and machines with higher performance would be produced. “If a country at the level of technological development like Iran has a free hand and spares no expense, then it can build a bomb.” However, he refers to international controls because Iran has joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In order to end this, he would first have to withdraw from the treaty – like North Korea.
The question remains whether Israel would actually bomb nuclear facilities in order to at least delay the development of corresponding weapons. This is not easy given the massive security precautions. “On the one hand, there are nuclear facilities that are deep underground,” explains Bayat. “There are now bunker-busting missiles that could hit them, but in order to use them, the USA would have to take part in the attack.” That is unlikely, as US President Joe Biden is trying to prevent Israel from launching a serious counterattack.
What remains are those nuclear facilities that are open and therefore relatively easy to reach. “However, such an attack could release nuclear material into the surrounding area and trigger an environmental catastrophe,” warns Bayat. Winds could scatter the radioactive material into the surrounding area. “I hope that Israel does not embark on such an adventure, and I believe that the Israelis would and must think very carefully about such an attack.”
In any case, in Zamirirad’s words, the nuclear program “cannot be rolled back with military attacks.” She sees the best prospects in a political agreement and recalls the nuclear agreement of 2015. Thanks to technical restrictions and comprehensive international controls, Tehran was “far from building a bomb” at the time. Their conclusion: “What we need is a new framework agreement.”
Bayat sees it differently: “The best way would be to weaken and overcome the regime from within.” He sees the conditions for this as being there, “but the Western countries apparently have different interests.” He still believes this is the only viable and sustainable way. “A war would be a catastrophe. And a new nuclear agreement would give the regime of the Islamic Republic a certain legitimacy. Instead, the protest movements in Iran should be supported politically and diplomatically,” he says. An overwhelming majority of people in Iran reject the Islamic regime anyway.