Mysterious Blast Tears Through Iran’s Nuclear Gambit

A recent explosion at the Parchin military compound has led to fresh speculation about Iran’s nuclear activities and renewed doubt over the country’s willingness to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). At a time when trust between the Iranian government and the West is crucial — and when hardliners are working so hard to undermine it — this latest development could signal trouble for nuclear talks.

On October 9, the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security reported that an explosion had left six of the compound’s buildings either damaged or destroyed. There have been repeated rumors that high explosive tests associated with the production of nuclear weapons have been conducted at the base, leading the IAEA, the international nuclear watchdog, to issue several requests to inspect the site.

Iranian officials denied that the incident was anything out of the ordinary, and said the explosion took place at a conventional ammunition factory within the Parchin compound. The website Nuclear Iran — run by Mehdi Mohammadi, a nuclear negotiator under former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — claimed it happened when explosives were being transported within the compound.

In September, the IAEA again appealed to the Iranian government to allow it access to Parchin, after the agency claimed there had been increased activity at the facility in recent months, particularly in one building on the northeastern area of the site.

Promises and Demands

The head of IAEA, Yukiya Amano, travelled to Tehran on August 17, meeting with Ali Akbar Salehi, the director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency. Salehi told Amano he was frustrated with the agency, which, despite Iran’s cooperation, had yet to bring the issue of nuclear detonators to an end. If authorities do allow the IAEA to inspect Parchin facilities again, he said, it will only be after the “so-called evidence” has been presented, and following the IAEA’s promise that there will be no further allegations of nuclear activities at Parchin if the inspection does go ahead. On September 23, Salehi also said it was up to parliament to decide whether to approve an IAEA protocol that allows it considerable powers to oversee the activities of its member states.

Two months ago, Hashemi Rafsanjani, currently chairman of the influential Expediency Council, said that if sanctions are lifted, there is a good chance that Iran will accept the protocol. Although hardliners dismissed this — agreeing to the protocol amounted to a huge defeat and a weakened position when it came to nuclear talks, they said — Rafsanjani’s comments reveal that moderate politicians are willing to concede long-held stances on the nuclear issue in exchange for sanctions relief.

In September 2012, Science and International Security raised concerns over the Iranian government’s lack of transparency when it came to activities at the military facility, highlighting the possibility that nuclear weapons could be manufactured at Parchin.

In its 2011 and 2012 annual reports, the IAEA announced that the military site included a large explosion test chamber that had been built in 2000 but not identified until 2001. It also reported that between 2005 and 2012 a number of changes have taken place in the compound: liquid tanks have been removed, five buildings have been torn down, and new dirt roads have been introduced. In 2013, the IAEA’s Amano confirmed that large amounts of earth had been removed from the site and areas where buildings had once stood had been paved over. The IAEA has stated that because it made its initial assessment before these changes took place, it was impossible for the agency to compare its previously-collected information with the situation on the ground today. As a result, the agency has requested another inspection.

The Nuclear Iran site claimed that last week’s explosion took place at a considerable distance from the areas the IAEA has raised concern about in the past, perhaps anticipating fresh calls for inspections.

Iran’s defense minister has stated that there is no justification for a repeat inspection, and that information gleaned eight years ago is accurate. Other officials have pointed out that conventional military complexes like Parchin are outside the jurisdiction of the IAEA. “Even lawyers who specialize in IAEA affairs confirm that it has no jurisdiction,” said Behrouz Kamalvandi, international affairs deputy at Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. At the end of September, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told the Council on Foreign Affairs that speculations about Parchin were false and “inspection of military installation lies outside any [nuclear] agreement.”

Hardliners Retaliate

Hardliners were quick to react to recent speculation, citing American author Gareth Porter, who has dismissed claims that Parchin is being used for the production of nuclear weapons. According to Porter, IAEA inspectors base their claims on satellite imagery that suggests the site is operational — but in fact, the images depict a soldiers’ latrine.

Porter has been a favorite among hardliners for some time, admired for his attacks on US policy regarding Iran and his assessment of Iran’s nuclear program. Hardline media often quote him as part of its attempt to discredit IAEA reports and he is frequently interviewed on Iranian state-run television, appearing on a popular news program on Channel 2. Fars News Agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, has published Porter’s book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare in Persian.

The demonization of IAEA officials has also been popular, with several politicians accusing inspectors of acting as spies for Western countries. This has made it easy to cast the agency as untrustworthy and corrupt, an institution without merit.

The 10-Year Mystery and What Parchin Means Today

Initial suspicion over what the Parchin compound was being used for arose in 2003, leading to widespread concern that nuclear weapons were being produced there. After rejecting the agency’s requests, the Iranian government eventually agreed to an inspection in 2005. According to the Christian Science Monitor, officials were allowed to examine two of the four areas of the Parchin compound, plus five satellite buildings, but this was not enough to alleviate suspicions. Rumors as to what Parchin was being used for continued.

Kiumars Amini, the head of counter-intelligence of Parchin military industries from 1974 to 1978, told Bulletin News website that the facility was built in 1930 under Reza Shah, the last shah’s father, with the help of Sweden and France, and was designed for the production of ammunition. Alcohol, thinner, ether, gunpowder and dynamite were among its first products. In 1974, the Shah, Mohammad Reza, secured support from German, French and US companies to expand the site.

The third phase, says Amini, was implemented by US help in 1977, and focused on producing fuel for long-range and ballistic missiles. Future plans included the ability to manufacture ballistic missiles on the site.

After the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the government continued plans to make Parchin a center for manufacturing military equipment. In June 1998, the Supreme Leader’s official website reported  that Khamenei had visited the Parchin military complex, where rockets including Zelzal-2, Naze'at-10 and Shahab-2 were being manufactured.

The Tehran weekly Mosalas has reported that Parchin is one of Iran’s most important defense facilities, and that both nuclear fuels and conventional ammunition are stored there. For hardliners, maintaining control over the facility means not bowing to pressure, whether it be from the IAEA or the West. Rafsanjani’s suggestion that Iran might concede inspections in exchange for eased sanctions may not have the political currency it once did, now that the mystery of Parchin has a new chapter. Any trust between Iran and the P5+1 countries it hopes to hammer out a nuclear deal with may now be even more fragile. The incident also means renewed pressure on the government, from the international community as well as from its fierce and unyielding opponents.