Latest news with #DaryaDolzikova
The National
2 hours ago
- Business
- The National
Has Europe given Iran an impossible nuclear ultimatum?
European negotiators have insisted Iran must accept that it cannot enrich uranium as part of its nuclear programme, so that peace can return to the Middle East, experts told The National. It is understood that Iran has been agreeable to limiting enrichment to 3.67 per cent, which is the standard level required for civilian nuclear reactors and was part of the previous nuclear agreement. But even this amount is unacceptable to the three European countries, Britain, France and Germany, currently holding talks with Iran in Geneva. 'The Europeans have now started insisting on zero as well, which the Iranians have said is going to be a non-starter,' said Darya Dolzikova, an expert on nuclear proliferation at the Rusi think tank. Iran has engaged in years of brinkmanship by defying international inspectors to enrich uranium to near weapons-grade level. Until the Israeli attacks of the last week, the threat of an assault on its installations seemed to have 'lacked some credibility for the Iranians'. In recent days the regime has appeared to accept the 3.67 per cent figure as a negotiating position, the same amount agreed under the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement. For any deal to last it will have to be signed off by US President Donald Trump who has also insisted on zero enrichment, said Richard Pater, director of Bicom, the Anglo-Israeli think tank. 'It all depends on whether 3.67 is acceptable to Trump or whether he's insisting on no enrichment whatsoever,' he said. 'But it's also this question of whether Trump will accept that [3.67 per cent] to get the big peace deal that he wants. Israel will then have no choice but to acquiesce to the American position.' Ms Dolzikova also argued that the Iranians would not agree to a deal that 'doesn't involve the United States as they are the critical players'. But Israel itself has insisted that it will not back down until Iran completely ends its nuclear programme and has made clear that any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is something that it will not accept. Hasan Al Hasan, a nuclear expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggested that the 3.67 per cent figure was now redundant as 'there is no indication that Israel is in a mood to negotiate'. Having achieved near total freedom of action in the skies, Israel was likely to 'press ahead with its maximalist war objectives of eliminating Iran's nuclear and missile programmes and perhaps even regime change'. He added that Mr Trump's announcement that he would make no decision on joining the attacks - that would benefit from America's massive bunker-busting bombs - for the next two weeks was a signal for Israel to 'get the job done' in that period. But there is also a question whether within that fortnight window Israel, without US bombs, has the capability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. 'Israel is obviously probably more bullish right now and looking for the removal of the whole nuclear project in its entirety, but it remains to be seen whether that's in their gift,' said Ms Dolzikova. There is also a fear that if 3.67 per cent is agreed by Iran then it might in secret enrich uranium, and conduct a nuclear weaponisation programme viewing it as the only effective deterrent. 'If the regime survives this, then 3.67 per cent gives them another basis with which to start again,' said Mr Pater. 'Israel is under no illusion the Iranians given the chance, will do it all over again.'
Sky News
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Israel-Iran live: UK says it will get Britons out of Tel Aviv; Iran 'captures spy'; Trump's attack decision timeline
Israel's stated goal in its fight with Iran is to dismantle its potential to build a nuclear weapon. It isn't clear if Israel has the military might to do it alone, with some of the key sites Iran is using to store and process nuclear material protected deep underground. So far, Israel has conducted strikes on nuclear sites like Natanz, Khondab, Isfahan and Fordow. Yesterday, Israel said it had struck the Bushehr site, Iran's only active nuclear plant, before seemingly rowing back the comments. But what are the risks from such attacks, and could they lead to a nuclear fallout of some kind in a region home to tens of millions of people? Underground safety Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool who specialises in radiation protection science, said he was not too concerned about the risks so far. While there had been strikes on the likes of Khondab, a lot of the damage reported so far is external, and such facilities are designed to contain internal issues. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Nuclear material could end up buried Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London thinktank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the enrichment stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. Sites like Natanz and Isfahan are enrichment sites. Such chemicals could be dispersed, but such a risk is again lower with underground facilities. Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in the UK, said Israeli strikes were likely to end up "burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tonnes of concrete, earth and rock". Risk of 'absolute catastrophe' at nuclear power plant The major concern would be if the Israelis attacked the Bushehr nuclear reactor. Richard Wakeford, honorary professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while enrichment facilities would remain a chemical issue, a reactor strike would be a "different story". This could lead to the release of radioactive elements either in a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe". Gulf State water supply could be vulnerable For the Gulf States, any potential impact on Bushehr threatens to contaminate Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In a number of Gulf countries like the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain, desalinated water accounts for a huge amount of drinking water. Nidal Hilal, professor of engineering and director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Centre, said: "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination."
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Explained: What are nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear installations so far pose only limited risks of contamination, experts say. But they warn that any attack on the country's nuclear power station at Bushehr could cause a nuclear disaster. Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast - home to Iran's only nuclear power station - only to say later that the announcement was a mistake. What has Israel hit so far ? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel has also attacked Arak, also known as Khondab. The IAEA said Israeli military strikes hit the Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, which was under construction and had not begun operating, and damaged the nearby plant that makes heavy water. The IAEA said that it was not operational and contained no nuclear material, so there were no radiological effects. In an update of its assessment on Friday, the IAEA said key buildings at the site were damaged. Heavy-water reactors can be used to produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make an atom bomb. What risks do these strikes pose ? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including the weather, she added. 'In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely.' The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. Simon Bennett, who leads the civil safety and security unit at the University of Leicester in the UK, said risks to the environment were minimal if Israel hits subterranean facilities because you are "burying nuclear material in possibly thousands of tonnes of concrete, earth and rock". The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Bennett of the University of Leicester said it would be "foolhardy for the Israelis to attack" Bushehr because they could pierce the reactor, which would mean releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere. Why are Gulf states especially worried ? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardizing a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
AsiaOne
16 hours ago
- Politics
- AsiaOne
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?, World News
Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday (June 19) when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. [[nid:719286]] He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle — the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor — pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". [[nid:719289]] Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80 per cent of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100 per cent of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100 per cent dependant on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50 per cent of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Centre. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said. [[nid:719283]]
Straits Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Explainer: What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
Explainer: What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran? Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast - home to Iran's only nuclear power station - only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. WHAT HAS ISRAEL HIT SO FAR? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. WHAT FALLOUT RISKS DO THESE STRIKES POSE? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. WHAT ABOUT NUCLEAR REACTORS? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. WHY ARE GULF STATES ESPECIALLY WORRIED? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardizing a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
