The column I wrote yesterday about the Iranian nuclear program, western concerns about that, and the urgent need to preserve the NPT is now up on the Christian Science Monitor website. It’s actually going to be in Thursday’s paper.
It’s titled Work through the NPT to address concerns about Iranian nukes.
In there, I also point out that the Bush administration is currently attempting to drive a ten-ton truck through the NPT by urging Congress to change the US’s own anti-proliferation legislation in order to allow ratification of his recent proposed nuclear deal with India.
I already had one very interesting letter in response, from someone who argued that all nations should indeed be allowed to have nuclear-weapons programs…
But I’m really glad the looming presence of the Indian-nuke deal will force folks in the US to seriously engage with whether we want to keep (and strengthen) the NPT or not.
I say, “Yes!”
Anyway, go read the column, and you can post your (as always, courteous) comments on it here.
46 thoughts on “CSM column on Iranian nuclear program and the NPT”
Comments are closed.
I’m sure the tribe that invented the bow and arrow solemnly vowed not to let any of the other tribes acquire the technology.
You can’t stop the technical know-how from spreading. You can’t really control the raw materials. All you can do is try to keep other nations so economically depressed that they lack the industrial capacity to physically build a bomb. This appears to be our current strategy. It seems obviously doomed to failure, as in North Korea, Pakistan, and probably Iran.
Bush thinks the Iraq war was a success, because he bombed that country into industrial infancy, thereby making sure it could not soon build nuclear weapons. But in doing so, he sacrificed the strategic advantage to Iran and China. It was like trading two rooks for a knight. Iran has thoroughly outmaneuvered him, and now it’s checkmate. They can easily keep our army tied down in Iraq, suffering a steady stream of casualties, as long as we are willing to keep fighting. The longer we fight, the worse the consequences for us.
Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities is simply not a realistic option. It would exhaust the last teaspoon full of good will we have left in the world; it would destroy our own economy for at least a decade; it would be the beginning of the end of Israel’s viability as a nation; and it would not, in the end, stop Iran from acquiring nukes.
I am not a religious person, but I will say that the only thing that can prevent a nuclear holocaust is faith. Faith in each other. Faith that if I don’t bomb you, you won’t bomb me. Faith that enables us to give up our nuclear weapons first – unilaterally, as an example to others. Because if we don’t have that kind of faith, then we’re doomed.
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. India, Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. And none of them are signatories to the NPT. The NPT has not worked. The big nuclear weapons states have not substantially reduced their nuclear arsenals. The NPT also allows countries to pursue peaceful nuclear programs including uranium enrichment but now that is not permissible for Iran as there is legitimate suspicion that they have a clandestine weapons program. Countries with sufficient industrial capability and money and the political can achieve nuclear weapons status. Going nuclear was hugely popular in both Pakistan and India. Both these countries developed nuclear weapons despite sanctions and poverty. And now Bush wants to reward India with nuclear reactor technology transfer.
In any case what is the real threat if Iran acquires nuclear weapons capabilities? They cannot seriously threaten Israel as Israel can retaliate massively and vaporize Iran with their large nuclear arsenal.
Helena
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1752937,00.html
I better run any comments past legal, first.
Can someone please point toward some resources / analyses that explain from Iran’s POV why they are announcing so loudly that they are going to expand their refining program? Talk about cutting out any wiggle room…!
I understand that Ahmedenejad is pursuing his own nationalist policy and catering to his electoral base, but good golly.
BTW, I’m not interested in the “he’s a fanatic” argument. There’s got to be more to it.
Vivion, may I offer an example, of South Africa. We have coal in the north of the country but Cape Town, which has been booming for years, is 2000 kilometres away. Coal-fed power stations supply the “base load” in the north. The Western Cape is the site of the country’s only nuclear power station – Koeberg.
When a rotor was destroyed by a loose bolt some months ago, Koeberg had to shut down and as a consequence Cape Town has been suffering chaotic power cuts ever since. This has caused huge political ructions.
The new rotor has arrived at last but is still not yet fitted.
Iran needs “base load” capacity. Their conclusion is that they need nuclear power.
For a country not to have sufficient power generation (both base load and peak) to cope while it grows its economy is a disaster on the scale of a small war. If you want a case study, go to Cape Town. The Iranians do have a genuine reason for needing this capacity. Any half-good and disinterested researcher would bear this our, I’m sure.
vivion
there is a five year plan that is being discussed by the majlis that includes the power demand curves and megawatt figures.
So far I have been unable to find a version that isn’t in Farsi.
This may be what you are looking for.
“Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities is simply not a realistic option.”
Do you really think that will stop the Bush administration?
Iran needs “base load” capacity. Their conclusion is that they need nuclear power.
They have nuclear power already, and that right is guranteed them by the NPT. The controversial element of their nuclear program is the use of ‘heavy water’ reactors capable of yielding plutonium and the enrichment of uranium. It has nothing to do with their ‘right to nuclear energy.’ No one is contesting that.
Well, Vadim, I have not heard that one before, so I can’t comment. Does anybody else know about this? How many nuclear power stations does Iran have? How old are they? Further and better particulars, please.
Vivion,
It makes perfect economic and practical sense for Iran to develop nuclear energy, and they absolutely do have that right. At one point, in fact, some of the same U.S. officials who are screaming the loudest now were pushing nuclear energy for Iran, with the idea, of course, of selling them the technology.
Vadim talking thru hat… Hullo!!! Earth to Vadim!!!
Iran has one nuclear power plant at Bushehr, started under the Shah and never completed (bombed by Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war). Wikipedia: “As of 2006, nuclear power does not yet contribute significantly to the country’s energy grid.” One main blockage to using the plant has been not having uranium enrichment facilities to provide fuel for it (though Iran has plenty of raw mineral uranium, I think.)
The breakthrough they achieved this week was in showing that they can now enrich their own uranium to 3.5%, the degree of enrichment required to make fuel rods. Far, far short of the 80% enrichment required for weapons. That’s why yesterday’s announcement of 3.5% enrichment did not change the assessments of most experts that today (as in 1982… ) Iran is still “five to ten years” away from weaponization.
What part of my comment do you find confusing, Helena? The Iranians have a functioning light water 100MW nuclear power station at Bushehr. It isn’t capable of producing bomb-grade plutonium which is why Bushehr isn’t the focus of IAEA attention.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf
IAEA: “nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all
the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of the Treaty,”
IAEA objections address the heavy water reactor at Arak & the uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz, as you’d know if you’d read any of their reports.
So the position is that the fuss about the centrifuges is irrelevant, even according to vadim. The centrifuges are not making “weapons-grade plutonium”. The “weapons-grade plutonium” would only come after a “heavy water” reactor was built, commissioned, and run for a while, and the Iranians had also created a facility for refining the spent fuel rods into “weapons-grade plutonium”.
How easily this jargon trips off the tongue! A lot of it is surely no better than bafflegab. But still, it’s obviously more than a five-year job. I would say more than a ten-year job even with all decisions taken and positive right now, which they surely are not.
On a matter of fact, there are no “IAEA objections” to Iran. What there are are US objections to the IAEA because of the lack of IAEA objections.
Because the programme is a nuclear energy programme. That’s what it is.
Dominic,
The objection with respect to Iran’s possession of dangerous weapons is that its leaders are lunatics.
I hope you do not that as a hateful comment as it was not meant to be. It was made with, for example, Hashemi Rafsanjani’s words in December 2001:
Now, Rafsanjani is considered the moderate among the Iranian leadership.
Then we have the leading lunatic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We all know what he had to say. Well, actually, people have not read his speech very carefully. The speech, which advocates Israel’s destruction, views that event as serving a greater cause, namely, the beginning of restoration of Islamic power against Europe.
What can I say?
I must admit that I am confused by your “its leaders are lunatics” comment. You follow that with two relatively tame political quotes that certainly DON’T prove your point.
The second one is particularly confusing if you are trying to prove ‘lunacy’. Are you saying you disagree with it? The Islamic world HAS been withdrawing for the last 300 years, and they DID lose their last defenses in the last 100 years.
It reads to me like the quotes are trying to make the point that countries need to protect themselves from ‘oppressors’.
That would be a position shared by virtually every country in the world.
How does that make them ‘lunatics’?
.
Vivion, I think Iran’s current rhetoric reflects their judgment as to timing. They believe (and I agree) that the U.S. is in a relatively weak position, and Iran is in a relatively strong position, at this point in time. If there is going to be a confrontation over nuclear development, they want to bring it to a head now, rather than later. If they succeed in making all the alarms go off, and the U.S. does nothing in response, then it will be more difficult for the U.S. to sound the alarm again later, when we might be in a better position to actually do something about it.
The strategy seems sound enough to me, although it appears to be mostly a bluff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/world/middleeast/13cnd-iran.html?hp&ex=1144987200&en=44bb292a8e2dfbaa&ei=5094&partner=homepage
As usual, the Bush administration is catching on too late. I am reminded of the way our neighbor’s cat used to torment our German Shepherd by parading up and down just outside the fence. The dog had terrible hip dysplasia and eventually had to be put down. The cat is doing fine.
Vadim is mostly right on the facts. Iran has a light-water reactor (at Bushehr), but was not previously able to independently produce the enriched uranium fuel needed to run it. It has at least done some work toward building a heavy-water reactor (at Arak). There are two concerns – first, the same uranium enrichment processes used to make reactor fuel can also potentially be used to make more highly enriched “weapons grade” uranium; and second, the spent fuel from heavy-water reactors can be reprocessed into plutonium, which is also suitable for nuclear weapons. We might as well get the facts straight so we can have a good argument about the policy, eh?
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/04/10/1557045.htm
John C., no. Iran is not provoking you. Iran is not like your neighbour’s cat, or any other folksy metaphor of that sort.
Iran is building a base-load nuclear power-generating capacity. There are no general “concerns” of the kind you state.
The way to deal with any concerns in your own mind is with institutions like the IAEA, which you government has been second-guessing and undermining for years. The problem is on your side of the fence. The stick is in your eye.
John C.,
I agree with Dominic. This is a manufactured crisis just as the Iraq/WMD/terrorism thing was a manufactured crisis. Iran is nowhere near being able to produce nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence that they intend to. There is certainly no consensus in the Iranian government on the issue of nuclear weapons, and it appears the majority and the most powerful members of the government do not want them.
At present they apparently have the capability to produce enriched uranium only at 3% – the very low end of what is required to use it for fuel. From what I understand, crude nuclear weapon requires 80%, and for an efficient one they need 90%. Right now, as I recall, they have about 160 cascaded cetrifuges. In order to produce weapons grade material they will need to have at least ten times that many.
And from what I understand they are operating under the supervision of the IAEA.
Even if they did develop a weapons program, and actually produce nuclear weapons, I am not in the least worried about Iran. Despite all the propaganda, they do not have a history of aggression, and even if Ahmadinejad were as loony as some people insist he is (which I seriously doubt), his power is very limited. In any case. the likelihood of any Iranian government being suicidal enough to make a nuclear attack on anyone, especially Israel or the US (and let’s admit that to the extent that there is a real concern here, that is it)is virtually nil. Any sensible person would be far more concerned about the U.S.
The way to deal with any concerns in your own mind is with institutions like the IAEA
Yes Dominic, and the scientists of the IAEA are the ones voicing concern. Some IAEA officials estimate an Iranian nuclear weapon can be built within three years. The way to deal with your paralyzing terror of the US and its citizens is to listen to the IAEA. It’s clear you havent done that, b/c until a short time ago you didn’t know the difference between uranium and plutonium, or that Iran has several functioning nuclear reactors already.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran25mar25,0,2988505.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The three-year time frame for Iran to produce a bomb cited by diplomats is the same as an estimate by former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright.
HC: One main blockage to using the plant has been not having uranium enrichment facilities to provide fuel for it
False- only a small percentage of nuclear-capable nations produce their own fuel, for which there’s a well developed international market. The Russian government has offered to supply the Iranians with nuclear fuel (as it does for most of Eastern Europe’s reactors- and many of those in the US!)
And from what I understand they are operating under the supervision of the IAEA.
You understand wrong!
Warren,
You claim that what I quote is tame? Really?
Read Rafsanjani’s comment more carefully. He is saying that if his country attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, Israel would be destroy while his country can survive the inevitable counterattack. You consider that tame? I do not.
His comment reminds me of General Turgison in Doctor Strangelove. Do you remember the scene where Turgison discusses what to do in view of General Jack Ripper’s launching of an attack of the USSR? Turgison says we could wipe out the USSR while only suffering “acceptable losess,” “20 million deaths tops.” That, frankly, is exactly what Rafsanjani is saying. It is the comment of a lunatic.
As for Ahmadinejad quote, I note that the gist of his position is that destroying Israel would send a message to the Europeans, namely, that Muslims will fight to rebuild their empire, including in places like Spain, Poland, Austria, etc., etc.
Now, people who want to start wars to re-claim lost land – lost hundreds of years ago after then, having been conquered – for religious glory are lunatics. As are people who would destroy a country – one that really does not seek to destroy Iran – many, many hundreds of miles away while claiming to be willing to accept millions of casualties in reply. They are lunatics.
2006-04-14 Kiriyenko on Iranian nuclear program
Now, people who want to start wars to re-claim lost land – lost hundreds of years ago after then, having been conquered – for religious glory are lunatics. Posted by Neal at April 14, 2006 10:03 AM
Do you deny Israel’s right to exist?! 😉
Vadim,
Maybe YOU are the one who understands wrong. I heard from two different sources that the uranium enrichment they are doing is under IAEA supervision. In any case, they are perfectly within their rights to enrich uranium for fuel use.
Vadim,
Maybe YOU are the one who understands wrong. I heard from two different sources that the uranium enrichment they are doing is under IAEA supervision. In any case, they are perfectly within their rights to enrich uranium for fuel use.
Vadim,
Maybe YOU are the one who understands wrong. I heard from two different sources that the uranium enrichment they are doing is under IAEA supervision. In any case, they are perfectly within their rights to enrich uranium for fuel use.
“only a small percentage of nuclear-capable nations produce their own fuel, for which there’s a well developed international market. The Russian government has offered to supply the Iranians with nuclear fuel…”
And the Iranians are under no obligation whatsoever to purchase nuclear fuel from someone else, and have every right to produce their own.
Shirin,
Only fools trust lunatics. The leadership of the Iranians is hip deep in lunacy.
And the Iranians are under no obligation whatsoever to purchase nuclear fuel from someone else, and have every right to produce their own.
Helena’s remark didn’t address what was within their rights. She claimed that absence of fuel explained why she thinks Bushehr isn’t operational. Which in light of Russia’s offers of long-term guaranteed low-priced supply makes no sense. Especially since fuel costs are so minor compared to the capital costs involved with uranium enrichment.
I heard from two different sources that the uranium enrichment they are doing is under IAEA supervision.
Two different sources, you say!? Got any links? You’ll excuse me if I say that the unattributed say-so of an anonymous commenter and her two unnamed sources doesn’t meet much of an informational standard. I’ll remind you that Arak and Natanz were completely secret until 2003, as was Iran’s p2 centrifuges, research into uranium metallurgy , polonium-210, etc.
Neal et al, historical perspective always helps. As much as one might deplore Rafsanjani’s or other statements of Ahmadinejad’s, the world has heard similar things before and lived through them. Mao Tse-tung said much the same when China was the popular “rogue state.” But the all-time lunacy prize clearly still belongs jointly to the superpowers, the US and the USSR in the Cuban Missile Crisis – it has only become clearer that a major factor in avoiding a nuclear war then was sheer dumb luck. Seen a couple of good articles recently, one comparing the old Chinese nuclear threat and rhetoric with Iran’s now, in the American Conservative, and another comparing the old China lobby with the Israel lobby. I’ll dig up the URLs later.
The threat to Israel is of course greatly exaggerated; 40 years ago one had the entire Arab League agreeing on the aim of eradicating Israel, now only one nation at most does, while the Arab League gives Israel peace offers it rejects. Some seem to feel nostalgia for the earlier situation.
Vadim, I know this will come as a shock to you, but not every source comes with a link, and having a link does not guarantee the credibility and reliability of a source, or the validity of the information.
As for the capital involved argument, so what? The Iranians are still perfectly within their rights to produce their own nuclear fuel.
It is also hardly surprising that they would like eventually to have the capability of producing nuclear weapons, surrounded as they are by countries, some openly hostile, who have them. Interesting double standard, isn’t it, when Israel can use the “I’m living in a rough neighborhood” excuse for its ill deeds (including its “secret” nuclear weapons program).
Interesting double standard, isn’t it
Israel didn’t sign the NPT and Iran did, so there’s no double standard. Still you might take it up with the French government, who midwifed Israel’s nuclear capability.
I’m glad we agree that Iran “would like eventually to have the capability of producing nuclear weapons” even though this would violate the terms of the NPT.
Anonymous testimony cited anonymously isn’t terribly credible. You might have at least cited IRNA, which on April 12 claimed “that from now onward Iran will have all its nuclear activities under the IAEA supervision.” Of course they also claimed that Iran has had no clandestine or non-transparent work thus far which we know to be completely false. [note: it’s helpful to cite public, primary sources whenever possible.]
There is no sense pretending that the Iranians are any more peace-loving or warlike than anyone else. They are simply pursuing their own interests, which may or may not at some point include nuclear weapons. As Vivion noted, some of their recent statements (not the ones quoted by Neal) are obviously intended to be provocative.
“Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: ‘Be angry at us and die of this anger,'” Ahmadinejad said.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1840970
Just like my little cat and dog story.
Pardon me, Neal, if I do not accept your judgment as to who is a lunatic and who is not, although I suppose your ever-shifting area of expertise is now Islamic lunacy.
In any case, it is not a matter of trust. It is, instead, a judgment based on historical and present day reality. Pakistan is actually and potentially far more dangerous than Iran, and Israel has historically been the greatest threat to peace in the region. But it should be obvious that the U.S.A. is now, has been for some time, and will continue to be the greatest threat to world peace.
“I’m glad we agree that Iran “would like eventually to have the capability of producing nuclear weapons” even though this would violate the terms of the NPT.”
And producing miniscule amounts of enriched uranium that barely qualifies as fuel grade does not violate the terms of the NPT, as far as I know.
John R,
I did not say that Iran’s leadership had a monopoly on lunacy. And I was not making a comparison.
As for the peace offer from the Arab League… If they removed the demand that Israel take in the offspring of refugees, I would take the proposal seriously. Otherwise, it is not a peace offer but an offer to eliminate Israel by immigration.
Shirin,
Israel is not a threat to the “region.” Israel may be a threat to Syria and Lebanon – but only since people shoot at Israel who happen to be on the payroll of Syria -.
Israel is not a threat to the “region.” Israel may be a threat to Syria and Lebanon – but only since people shoot at Israel who happen to be on the payroll of Syria -. Posted by Neal at April 15, 2006 09:06 AM
You forgot about Hamasist PA, Baathist Iraq and Khomeinist Iran 😉
Revised…
2006-04-14 Kiriyenko’s “good news” on Iran
Neal,
1) Try responding to what I actually wrote instead of making it easier for yourself by altering my statement. I did not say Israel was a threat to the region, I said it was the greatest threat to peace in the region, as it demonstrably is and has been throughout its history.
2) Your claim that Israel is only a threat to Lebanon and Syria flies in the face of easily observably reality.
Shirin,
I do not see how Israel is a threat to the region in any way. Please explain it to me.
Shirin,
Let me revise.
I do not see how Israel is a threat to peace in the region. I see how some of Israel’s neighbors would prefer Israel would disapear but that is the view of Israel’s not so nice neighbors – and Iran -, not Israel’s view. It is, after all, Iran which says that it wants to wipe Israel off the map. That makes Iran a threat to peace in the region.
So that I might understand your position, please explain it to me. I do not understand your view at all.
In my view, Israel is, by far, the best thing to occur in that region for centuries. Call me Emir Faisel. So, you will have your work cut out for you.
Neal,
For the second time, I did not say Israel is a threat to the region. I said something quite different from that.
Let me revise…. I do not see how Israel is a threat to peace in the region. I see how some of Israel’s neighbors would prefer Israel would disapear but that is the view of Israel’s not so nice neighbors – and Iran -, not Israel’s view. Posted by Neal at April 15, 2006 05:35 PM
One good practice is to include a fragment of opponent’s argument in the post – like I ‘m doing. Then everything becomes pretty clear, no semantic manipulations whatsoever 🙂
Helena,
(though Iran has plenty of raw mineral uranium, I think.)
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
This is true story, believe it or not.
I heard this early 1980 during Iraq/Iran War…
Are 500,000 Keys to Paradise Enough?: Germany “Confronts” Ahmadinejad
BY Matthias Küntzel
“In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields. Before every mission, a plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.”
Sorry the link
BY Matthias Küntzel
“Salah” is posting war propaganda.