The US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran -- released in December -- said Tehran had been working on the development of nuclear weapons, but abandoned the programme in 2003.

But Britain's ambassador to the IAEA, Simon Smith, said the material presented to the board of governors on Monday contained information about possible weapons work beyond that date.

"Certainly some of the dates that we were talking about, or that the secretariat was presenting in there, went beyond 2003," Smith said.

He was talking after being briefed by the International Atomic Energy Agency's head of safeguards, Olli Heinonen, about its latest report on Iran's disputed nuclear programme.

The briefing focused on allegations of Iran's involvement in weaponisation studies.

Diplomats attending the briefing said the material presented to the board of governors had infuriated Iranian ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

"He seemed angry," one western diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The diplomat added that Soltanieh was so enraged and went on at such length that IAEA deputy director general Heinonen, who chaired the meeting, had to intervene twice to ask him to make his point.

Tehran has refused to address the weaponisation studies issue, dismissing such allegations as "baseless" and saying the intelligence used to back them up was "fabricated."

Nevertheless, the IAEA insists the allegations have to be cleared up and explained fully if it is to be able to determine the full nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

In the IAEA report released on Friday, the watchdog described the issue as "a matter of serious concern and critical to an assessment of a possible military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme."

The board was presented with material "from multiple sources" suggesting "detailed work put into the designing of the warhead, studying how that warhead would perform, how it would be detonated and how it would be fitted to a Shahab-3 missile," Smith said.

The material was "serious and substantial," the ambassador continued.

And it underlined the IAEA secretariat's concern that the deficit of confidence in Iran, rather than being reduced, "if anything, is getting deeper," he said.

In an interview with AFP on Sunday, Soltanieh complained that Tehran was not given enough time to respond to the new material, since it was based on intelligence the IAEA had only been authorised to show to Iran on February 15.

But Smith dismissed such claims.

"These are not new questions that Iran has been given half an hour to answer. They've been around a very long time," the ambassador said.

And Iran's answers remain "incomplete, inadequate and evasive," he said.

Quizzed by reporters as he left the meeting, Soltanieh acknowledged he was "upset" and had "forcefully" warned the other board members that the allegations -- because they were connected with activities not directly of a nuclear nature -- were outside the mandate of the IAEA.

Soltanieh dismissed the documents and slides shown to the meeting as amateurish and the intelligence as "lousy", saying the whole thing could easily have been drawn up "by any undergraduate."

Iran angry by nuclear accusations at key briefing: diplomats
Key intelligence purportedly showing Iran was involved in nuclear weapons work had the Iranian ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, hopping mad at a key IAEA briefing on Monday, diplomats said.

"He seemed angry ... He seemed rather exercised to me," one western diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity, given the closed-doors nature of the briefing.

Tehran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency was so enraged and went on at such length, that the IAEA's deputy director general Olli Heinonen, who was chairing the meeting, intervened twice to ask him to make his point, the diplomat added.

The IAEA's board of directors had been briefed by Heinonen, head of safeguards, following the release last Friday of the UN atomic watchdog's latest report on its long-running probe into Iran's disputed nuclear programme.

The report concluded that while Tehran had made some progress in divulging information about some of its nuclear activities in the past, the IAEA was "not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran's nuclear programme".

That was primarily because Tehran had refused outright to address allegations it was involved in weaponisation studies, simply dismissing them as "baseless" and the intelligence used to back them up as "fabricated".

The studies covered a so-called green salt project, where uranium dioxide is converted into uranium tetrafluoride (an intermediate product for manufacturing uranium hexafluoride, the material used to make both nuclear fuel and fissile bomb material); high explosives testing; and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle.

The IAEA described them as "a matter of serious concern and critical to an assessment of a possible military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme."

Speaking to reporters as he came out of the meeting, British ambassador Simon Smith said "it was quite an impact-making presentation."

The board had been presented with a lot more detailed information with illustrative examples "of those parts of the Iranian programme which give particular concern," he said.

The material shown suggested that there was "detailed work put into the designing of the warhead, studying how that warhead would perform, how it would be detonated and how it would be fitted to a Shahab-3 missile," Smith said.

And it showed that the deficit of confidence in Iran, "if anything, is getting deeper," he said.

In an interview with AFP on Sunday, Iranian ambassador Soltanieh had complained that Tehran was not given enough time to respond to the new material, since it was based on intelligence which the IAEA had only been authorised to show to Iran on February 15, shortly before its report was scheduled to be completed.

But Smith dismissed such claims.

The IAEA secretariat had expressly pointed out that the material and the questions "have been known since, in some cases, 2003.

"These are not new questions that Iran has been given half an hour to answer. They've been around a very long time," the ambassador said.

And Iran's answers remained "incomplete, inadequate and evasive," he added.

Quizzed by reporters, Iranian ambassador Soltanieh denied having been angry during the meeting.

But he did acknowledge that he was "upset" and had "forcefully" warned the other board members that the allegations, because they were connected with activities not directly of a nuclear nature, were outside the mandate of the IAEA.

Soltanieh dismissed the documents and slides shown to the meeting as amateurish, saying they could easily have been drawn up "by any undergraduate".

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com
Learn about missile defense at SpaceWar.com
All about missiles at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News