Behrouz Bayat: The Institute for Science and International Security Opposes the Nuclear Agreement

The Institute for Science and International Security has recommended in a detailed report to the U.S. government that if a final nuclear agreement is reached with Iran, the issue of low-enriched uranium should be taken more seriously in the final agreement, even if it has been oxidized. In an interview with Radio Farda, nuclear expert Behrouz Bayat, residing in Vienna, was initially asked what key points this report addresses. Bayat stated that the report focuses on uranium enriched to about 20 percent, arguing that half of this, according to the interim Geneva agreement, was diluted and the other half was converted to oxide. The report suggests that the oxidized portion can be reverted back to gas and further enriched. This is essentially a deviation from the agreement made in Geneva, where the world was aware that oxidized uranium could be reverted back to gas, specifically hexafluoride, although it is more challenging. This does not mean that the claims made are incorrect; the figures presented are indeed accurate. However, these cannot be renegotiated. The agreement was made a year and a half ago to proceed in this manner. The report emphasizes that given the existence of such reserves, the breakout time could potentially shorten. When asked to elaborate on the term 'breakout time', which is referred to in Iranian sources as 'nuclear breakout', Bayat explained that this is an artificial timeframe. Firstly, it is unclear what calculations are being made regarding Iran. Secondly, having enriched uranium does not equate to having a bomb; it is merely enriched and does not yet involve bomb-making. These figures are politically motivated. As you know, this report was authored by David Albright, a senior American nuclear expert. Can you elaborate on his inclinations and the approach the U.S. has towards nuclear policy? In this report, the ISIS is primarily focused on creating an obstacle for the nuclear agreement. Albright has long joined the ranks of those trying to prevent any nuclear agreement by any means necessary. The report from the Institute for Science and International Security states that the figures mentioned are based on information provided in the International Atomic Energy Agency's quarterly reports and compliance reports with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Do you believe these sources are sufficiently accurate? If a source is to be considered reliable, it should logically be from the Agency. While there is always potential for misuse globally, the reality is that if we have a source we wish to rely on, especially regarding these statistics, given that the Agency's inspectors are specialists and have the necessary tools to address these issues, the figures should be taken seriously.