IEEJ：April 2021©IEEJ 2021
Special Bulletin
A Japanese Perspective on the International Energy Landscape (528)

April 15, 2021

Iran Raises Uranium Enrichment to 60% Confusing Middle East Situation
Ken Koyama, PhD
Chief Economist, Managing Director
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
New tensions over Iran have grown in the Middle East. On April 13, Iran said that it would
add 1,000 centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear facility to raise the uranium enrichment to 60%. The
2015 Iran nuclear deal has become dysfunctional as Iran has strengthened its uranium enrichment tocounter the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the deal and its enhancement of sanctions on
Iran under the previous Trump administration. While the deal has limited Iran’s uranium enrichment
to 3.67%, Iran has gradually raised the uranium enrichment level in reaction to U.S. economicsanctions. In early January, Iran vowed to increase the uranium enrichment level to 20% as seen
before the deal. The latest announcement to raise the level further to 60% is a significant step
towards the grave decision to reach the 90% enrichment level suitable for a nuclear weapon.
As the Biden administration has indicated the United States’ potential return to the Irannuclear deal, how the two countries would negotiate the return and what such negotiations wouldproduce have attracted global attention. In Vienna on April 6, the European Union convened ameeting of relevant countries including the United States to reconstruct the deal, although U.S. andIranian representatives refrained from holding direct talks. Iran has asked the United States to lift
economic sanctions before negotiating the reconstruction, while the United States has demanded thatIran return to compliance with the deal. Given their wide differences, how their negotiations would
go ahead remains unpredictable.
On April 11, an electric system accident occurred at the Natanz nuclear facility. Media
reports stated that an explosion damaged an electricity supply system required for uranium
enrichment. Tehran then attributed the trouble to a terrorist attack and announced a plan to take aretaliatory action. On April 12, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif blamed Israel forthe terrorist attack and vowed retaliation. Irrespective of the accident, Tehran indicated plans toreplace centrifuges and enhance uranium enrichment.
The announcement of the plan to raise its uranium enrichment to 60% can be interpreted asdemonstrating internally and externally that Iran is strongly determined and able to enhance uranium
enrichment in response to the attack on the Natanz nuclear facility. It might have been designed tocheck Israel by indicating that Iran can promote nuclear activities irrespective of attacks on thefacility and to increase pressure on the United States by implying that nuclear deal reconstruction
would be required to prevent Iran from enhancing its uranium enrichment.
Behind the series of actions and developments regarding Iran has been a complicatedinternational situation involving Iran. Progress in U.S.-Iran talks on the nuclear deal reconstruction isviewed as extremely important for checking Iran’s nuclear development and stabilizing the Middle
East from the viewpoint of the entire international community. At the same time, however, somecountries are wary of seeing Iran returning to the nuclear deal and normalizing relations with theinternational community. They include Israel that sees Iran as its enemy.
1

IEEJ：April 2021©IEEJ 2021
Under the Trump administration that toughened sanctions on and contained Iran, U.S. andIsraeli leaders had been in a honeymoon phase. Since Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump as U.S.
president, however, the situation has turned around. The United States’ return to the Iran nuclear deal
or Iran’s escape from isolation from the international community is not favorable for Israel. The
addition of complicated and difficult factors for nuclear deal reconstruction talks meets Israeliinterests. We must watch how the Iranian decision to raise its uranium enrichment to 60% wouldimpact nuclear deal talks. As noted above, Iran might have attempted to take advantage of theuranium enrichment enhancement plan as a kind of brinkmanship to exert pressure on the UnitedStates. Whether the attempt would be successful is still unknown.
The brinkmanship strategy indicates that Iran might have been prepared to see the uranium
enrichment enhancement plan becoming a double-edged sword in a sense. Iran might havestrategically sought to demonstrate that it has a legitimate right to promote nuclear activities without
succumbing to any attack on the Natanz nuclear facility. At the same time, Iran might have tried tostep up pressure on the United States by threatening to substantially raise the uranium enrichmentlevel. It is extremely important for the current Rouhani administration to demonstrate its unrelenting
attitude toward the United States and Israel and promote nuclear deal talks to its advantage toward
the June 18 presidential election. If the administration fails to achieve a breakthrough in thestalemate on nuclear deal talks, it may encourage conservative hardliners to call for tougher
approaches in a run-up to the presidential election.
However, the plan to raise its uranium enrichment to 60% could lead Iran to come underfire from the international community. In fact, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and other
European countries mediating between the United States and Iran expressed their grave concern on
the Iranian plan, criticizing the plan as complicating the nuclear deal reconstruction talks. The plan
could also lead Israel, which is wary of Iran coming closer to nuclear weapon development, to takefurther provocative actions only to trigger an Iranian retaliation. Tensions over Iran could thus beescalated.
In the United States, the Biden administration is agonizing over how to manage the Iranissue while exploring the return to the Iran nuclear deal. It is expected to retain its basic stance offavoring diplomatic efforts rather than the maximum pressure under the Trump administration. At
the beginning of the diplomatic efforts, however, Washington’s talks with Tehran have hit a snag.
Even if Biden attempts to differentiate himself from Trump, he might be reluctant to see his Iranpolicy as being viewed as too conciliatory within his country and would have to consider theinterests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the Middle East. If talks with Tehran remain
in a stalemate or go in the direction of deterioration, however, it would lead a conservative hardliner
to win the presidential election, making the Iran issue even more difficult for Washington. The Biden
administration may also have to consider the Iran issue’s linkage to the China issue, now the biggest
foreign policy challenge for the United States. As Iran’s relations with the United States growdifficult, its ties with China become stronger. China is expected to approach not only Iran but also
other Middle Eastern countries that are facing challenges over how to establish and enhance relations
with the Biden administration that gives priority to human rights. Washington may be required tomake fine-tuned diplomatic efforts to maintain U.S. influence over the entire Middle East.
The Iranian decision to raise the uranium enrichment level has made the situation moredifficult in Iran and the Middle East plagued with such complicated geopolitical conditions. As thenational interests of the relevant countries are complicatedly entangled in the Middle East, we must
2

IEEJ：April 2021©IEEJ 2021
closely watch how the growing geopolitical tensions over the Iranian situation would affect theentire Middle East as the gravity center of global energy supply and international energy markets.

Contact: report@tky.ieej.or.jp
The back issues are available at the following URL
http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/special_bulletin.html

3