Is Iran Nearing a Bomb?
That Iran is building a secret underground facility near the holy city of Qom, under custody of the Revolutionary Guard—too small to be a production center for nuclear fuel, but just right for the enrichment of uranium to weapons grade—is grounds for concern, but not panic.
Heretofore, all of Iran's nuclear facilities, even the enrichment plant at Natanz—kept secret before exiles blew the whistle in 2002—have been consistent with a peaceful nuclear program.
Iran has also been on solid ground in claiming that, as signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, she has a right to enrich uranium and operate nuclear plants, as long as she complies with treaty obligations.
Under the Safeguard Agreement to the NPT, these include notification, six months before a nuclear facility goes operational.
According to U.S. officials, construction of this site began in 2006 and is only months from completion. And Tehran did not report it to the International Atomic Energy Agency until a week ago, when they were tipped the Americans were onto it and about to go public.
Iran's explanation: This facility is benign, a backup to Natanz, to enable Iran to continue enriching uranium to fuel grade, should America or Israel bomb Natanz. It is a hedge against attack. And contrary to what Barack Obama implies, the facility is designed to enrich uranium only to the 5 percent needed for nuclear fuel, not the 90 percent needed for nuclear weapons.
Still, the burden of proof is now upon Tehran.
President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei must convince IAEA inspectors this small secret facility that can house only 3,000 centrifuges has the same purpose as Natanz, which can house 58,000. Or they will be exposed as liars—to the West, to the Russians who have served as their defense counsel and to their own people.
For while Iranians are near unanimous in backing their national right to peaceful nuclear power, they do not all want nuclear weapons. And the Ayatollah has declared, ex cathedra, that Iran is not seeking them, and possession or use of such weapons is immoral and contrary to the teachings of Islam.
If Obama is right that the secret facility is "inconsistent with a peaceful program," but compatible with a weapons program, Ayatollah Khamenei has a credibility problem the size of Andrei Gromyko's, when he assured President Kennedy there were no Soviet missiles in Cuba. And President Kennedy had the photos in his desk.
Diplomats have been called honest men sent abroad to lie for their country. But ayatollahs, as holy men, are not supposed to be descending to diplomatic duplicity.
Obama's dramatic announcement represents a coup for U.S. intelligence, but it also raises questions.
Reportedly, we have known of this Qom facility "for several years." Yet, in late 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) said that U.S. agencies had "moderate confidence" that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.
In August, Walter Pincus, in a Washington Post story—"Iran Years From Fuel for Bomb, Report Says"—wrote, "Despite Iran's progress since 2007 toward producing enriched uranium, the State Department intelligence analysts continue to think that Tehran will not be able to produce weapons-grade material before 2013."
This was the judgment of the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, based on "Iran's technical capability."
Query: If State's top intelligence analysts, this year, did not think Iran could enrich to weapons grade until 2013, had they been kept in the dark about the secret facility near Qom?
Two weeks ago, in a Web exclusive, Mark Hosenball wrote, "The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons development program, two counter-proliferation officials tell Newsweek."
The officials told the White House the conclusion of the 2007 NIE—i.e., Iran had halted its weapons program in 2003—stood.
Were these two counter-proliferation officials also out of the loop on the secret site? Or did they know of it, but fail to share the sense of alarm and urgency President Obama showed last week?
Despite last week's revelation, the Obama policy of talking to Tehran makes sense. Whatever the ayatollah's intentions, IAEA inspectors have his lone ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz under observation. To enrich it to weapons grade, it must be moved.
America's twin goals here are correct, compatible and by no means unattainable: no nukes in Iran, no war with Iran.
Bombing would unite that divided country behind a regime whose repressed people detest far more than we, as they have to live under it. Patience and perseverance, as in the Cold War, may be rewarded with the disintegration of a state that is today divided against itself.
We outlasted the Red czars. We will outlast the ayatollahs.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
"America’s twin goals here are correct, compatible and by no means unattainable: no nukes in Iran, no war with Iran."
When did these actually become "America's twin goals"? Why not simply admit that nothing the Iranians do in their own country is any business of ours? Never mind the hyperventilation by treasonous dual citizenship bureaucrats and Israelophilic pundits.
Iran is not a province of the US nor of Israel. Enough, already.
As Benny Morris said, Iran would be crazy not to develop nuclear weapons. The respect North Korea now gets is more than enough reason to have nukes.
No Pat, the burden is not on Iran. It is on us as a nation to stop bombing and killing people for absolutely no damn reason.
Iran is a nation that can't even produce enough gasoline for domestic consumption. Their economy is a mess and they spend one percent of what we do on our so-called "defense." They fire off dinky 1960's missile technology and fox news goes into an apoplectic craze.
Iran is no threat to the United States of America. There is nothing more to be said about it. Allowing the political class to spread lies and fear among the public by agreeing with their premise and letting them frame the terms of debate is a sure way to the next war.
Contrary to what PJB states, all the news reports I have read state that the facility is 18 months to two years from completion. Iran is obliged under the NPT to report the existence of the site 6 months prior to going on line and to allow IAEC inspection before going on line. Iran has done the former and states it will do the latter. So what's the problem?
Obama is upset because he was going to report the existence of the "secret" site as the latest example of Iranian perfidy only to have the Iranians beat him to the punch by reporting the site in accord with their treaty obligations. Of course, the site was not at all secret from the US government, just another secret that the US rulers kept from their subjects - no surprise there.
Netanyahu and the neo-cons, of course, are anxious for any excuse to start a war with Iran, so more peaceful and legal Iranian nuclear activities will do as well as anything else. Obama has already backed down from Netanyahu on the subject of the settlements which continue to be constructed at US taxpayer expense. So is Obama likely to stand up to Netanyahu when he demands an attack on Iran? Is any US president ever likely to stand up to the Israelis on any demand?
It is impossible for Iran to prove it does not have a nuclear weapons programme. You can't prove a negative. These are the same lies that Bush was selling. Pat I'm disappointed. Oldest trick in the book. Gin up a war to detract attention from other problems.
This article aside, one doesn't have to buy into neocon war propaganda about "benevolent global hegemony" to see the problem with a country such as Iran gaining more geopolitical power. Still, the neocons are foolish: the best way to destroy Iran is to make it an ally. Then it will meet the fate of all other U.S. allies.
Mr. Buchanan, I have to admit that I have a problem with the thrust of this piece. The main problem with this article is that, like some other recent articles you've written, it goes right out front in conceding the main point the neocons need to make.
In this piece, you're simply legitimizing the lies and insinuations of the Beltway pundits about Iran. They already have the entire spectrum of mainstream media outlets with which to push their lies and rush us into another aggressive war, as they did with Iraq. They really don't deserve the kind of help this column gives them.
You should at least try to point out the fallacies in their propaganda push, since you are one of the premier columnists online and your views are so well considered by so many readers.
I don't mean any disrespect by making these comments. Forgive my bluntness, please.
6, 7, Can I pose a question based on your comments?
With all neocon foolishness and lies aside, what should be our posture towards Iran or our general posture to any country with a somewhat nasty government looking to gain nukes so as to belly up to the international bar? Befriend them, really? Not interfere with them, really? Are we willing to let a nuclear weapon go off somewhere in the world? It is difficult to say yes to that question.
I am wondering if we have entered a new age where the cost of making a mistake is bigger than ever, and the rules that may have guided us through the cold war aren't appropriate anymore.
The legal particulars of international law or the precise understanding of the scientific state of Iran are not that interesting to me if we do not have a solid foundation first.
"what should be our posture towards Iran or our general posture to any country with a somewhat nasty government looking to gain nukes so as to belly up to the international bar?"
Mr. McCabe, you're also conceding the neocons' main point. Our own intelligence services state that there's no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has no missile systems capable of delivering a nuke, either. The neocons keep claiming that Iran is building nuclear weapons. You seem to agree with them.
Where is the proof? Israel is the middle eastern country most likely to set off a nuke. Israel has hundreds of nukes and refuses to submit to the same inspections Iran allows. Is that interesting to you?
Mr. Roberts, let's be fair to each other. I'm not conceding anything other than my own ambivalence towards Iran (or country X). Why should I believe the neocons? Why should I believe you, PJB, or PCR? Why should I put my trust in minutia like section 3.1 of some law I've never heard of or a panel called IAEA. (As some commenter here pointed out awhile ago, quoting Sarkozy, "treaties are like women's looks, they last as long as they last.") And the words of politicians mean little in advance.
So let us not argue intent, it is like debating the viability of hate crime legislation. Capability is a better argument, but as I think most people have pointed out, Iran does not yet possess such rocket and/or munitions capability.
But some are arguing that Iran is some benign entity. I think that is silly (why is the world posturing against them with all these laws and inspections then?). If that were actually true, then we should be selling them the material rather than letting the Russians or anyone else profit from it.
My question is more of a general one. If a country desires a path to nuclear proficiency, both in energy and weaponry, what should be our stance? Although I believe Iran is trying to move in that direction regardless of how far away they are from it, let us put that aside.
The understandings of the Cold War may not apply anymore. The threat of mutual destruction should be enough to deter first actions, but accidents happen, and we were apparently very close to war during the Cuban missile crisis. Should we let things get that far again?
There is also a new alternative which is difficult to know about fully. That is, forget about regional rockets reaching Europe and Israel. How about backpacks that could touch coordinates around the world and undermine the ability to honestly retaliate?
The ineffectiveness, inefficiency, and danger of our current foreign policy is fairly clear, but what is a better one to replace it?