More troubling information – letting the Europeans handle negotiations isn’t working, as Iran is just merrily reneging on its promises.
Iran converting nuclear material
Iran has begun converting raw uranium into gas which can be used in the process of making nuclear weapons.
Iran’s atomic energy chief said 37 tons of uranium mineral were converted into fuel used in nuclear centrifuges.
The move defies calls by the UN’s nuclear watchdog for Iran to suspend all enrichment-related activities.
Iran’s president said his country will continue developing nuclear technology, even if it leads to international inspections being cut off.
Tests ‘to continue’
Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, told reporters in Vienna the conversion process will continue.
“Some of the amount of 37 [metric] tons has been used. The tests have been successful but these tests have to be continued using the rest of the material,” he said.
Converted uranium is the fuel used in nuclear centrifuges, machines which enrich uranium.
Enriched uranium can be used for civilian reactors, but also serve as the explosive core for atomic bombs.
Mr Aghazadeh said his country is willing to take measures to increase confidence in Iran and will continue to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
At the weekend, the IAEA passed a resolution urging Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and grant access to IAEA inspectors.
The United States has accused Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, but Iran has insisted its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes.
Speaking at a military parade on Monday, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Iran had made its choice to pursue nuclear energy, even if that meant an end to international supervision.
As is it will come up, here’s a good rationale for why this is bad, from George Will:
Iran’s Nuclear Plan
By GEORGE F. WILL
THE WASHINGTON POST
September 23, 2004
A ten-year-old had awakened his parents in horror, telling them he had been having an “illegal dream.” He had been dreaming that he was at the seaside with some men and women who were kissing, and he did not know what to do.
– Azar Nafisi, “Reading Lolita in Tehran”
WASHINGTON – Ms. Nafisi, who left Iran in 1997 and now teaches at Johns Hopkins, says, unlike other totalitarian revolutions, this revolution “came in the name of the past.” In the name, that is, of a lost religious purity and rigor.
Iran is not a mere literary dystopia. It is perhaps the biggest problem on the horizon of the next U.S. president because it is moving toward development of nuclear weapons, concerning which the Bush administration has two factions. One favors regime change, the other favors negotiations. There is no plausible path to achieving the former and no reason to expect the latter to be productive.
The regime-changers have their hands full next door. Negotiations cannot succeed without one of two things. One is a credible threat of force, which America’s Iraq preoccupation makes unlikely. The second, which is also unlikely, is a mix of incentives, positive and negative, that can overcome this fact: Iran’s regime is mad as a hatter, but its desire for nuclear weapons is not irrational.
Iran lives in a dangerous neighborhood, near four nuclear powers – Russia, India, Pakistan and almost certainly Israel – and the large military presence of another, the infidel United States. Iran has seen how the pursuit of nuclear weapons allows the ramshackle regime of a tin-pot country like North Korea to rivet the world’s attention. Iran knows that if Saddam Hussein had acquired such weapons, he would still be in power – and in Kuwait. Even if the major powers could devise security guarantees sufficient to assuage Iran’s geopolitical worries, there remains the regime’s religious mania.
Until 1994, Ms. Nafisi says, Iran’s chief film censor, who previously had been theater censor, was nearly blind. He would sit in a theater with an assistant who explained what was transpiring on stage and took notes on the cuts the censor required. After the 1979 revolution, the regime lowered the marriageable age of women from 18 to 9. Since 2002 – this is Iranian moderation – a court’s permission is required to marry younger than 13.
It is in the interest of all members of the nuclear club to keep new members out. But a mere aspiration is not a policy. The club will expand over time. U.S. policy can vigorously discourage this, but must discriminate among, and against, nations. It is unlikely, but possible, that China’s weight, properly applied in the context of North Korea’s desperate material needs, can prevent North Korea from crossing the threshold. But Iran is almost certainly going to cross it.
Iran can negotiate in bad faith while it continues its progress toward development of such weapons, as North Korea has done while increasing its supply of plutonium. When that tactic has been exhausted, Iran can come to agreements that it then more or less stealthily disregards, as North Korea has done.
On Tuesday, four days after a U.N. agency told Iran not do it, Iran announced that it has begun processing 37 tons of yellow cake (milled uranium) into a gas as part of a process to produce a compound that can be used in nuclear power plants, but also can be a precursor of highly enriched uranium for weapons. U.S. policy is that the “international community,” whatever that is, “cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon.” It is surreal to cast this as a question of what anyone will “allow” Iran to do.
It’s interesting that both Russia and India have been supporting Iran on this. Numerous Indian governments have criticised the US of posessing nuclear weapons while attempting to prevent other countries from posessing them. Indian newspapers are constantly criticising the US for this fact, as well as for helping Saddam during the Iran invasion
Considering that George Bush has labelled Iran as part of the axis of evil, it probably expects to be invaded. Hence, it might want to develop weapons. Regarding the refusal of Iran to listen to a UN agency, let’s not forget that the US invasion of Iraq was disapproved. Besides, the past experience of Iraq (and Iran’s own experiance of its democracy being subverted) has shown that nuclear weapons are an excuse for waging war. Iran has stated that it is not developing nuclear weapons and its word is as reliable if not more reliable than any US goverment’s statements on WMD.
Hmmm. Iran is sitting on huge oil reserves – some of the best in the middle east – more than enough to both export and serve its own needs for the foreseeable future. And yet it’s developing nuclear technology for “peaceful purposes”? Wouldn’t that be akin to Eskimos investing in refrigeration technology?
And it’s in a neighborhood in which some of its neighbors are nuclear powers, and it likes to sponsor terrorism and would love to have a trump card against other countries stopping that. Hmmm…
As to the U.S. invasion of Iraq being illegal according to Mr. Kofi Annan, perhaps he should review his facts.
Here’s Matthew Yglesias, a liberal and Iraq opponent generally, on that subject:
Illegal War?
Jonathon Martin reminds me that I have the unwelcome duty of defending George W. Bush from Kofi Annan’s claim that the Iraq War was illegal. Clearly, the coalition of the willing lacked the second UN resolution that would have made the legal basis of the invasion crystal clear. By the same token, however, Saddam Hussein really was in violation of Resolution 1441 and by the terms of 1441 under the circumstances either no second resolution was necessary to make invasion legal, or else the factual situation obligated the Security Council to pass the necessary second resolution. As there isn’t a great deal of (or necessarily any) precedent existing in this realm, the war had, if not the firmest legal basis imaginable, a pretty darn firm one as far as these things go. The reason no second resolution was passed, of course, is that the Security Council is not really a legal body like a court, but rather a policymaking body, and a majority of the council believed (correctly) that war was a bad policy under the circumstances.
Quibbles aside, two further points. One is that the nature of Kofi Annan’s office is such that this is probably an inappropriate thing for him to be offering his opinion on. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, his remarks on this subject are, unlike mine, not going to be taken as simply one man’s view on a murky subject. At the same time, his office does not, in fact, empower him to make authoritative pronouncements on this question. It’s just a further mucking up of whatever sort of law could be said to govern these things. More important, though, pursuing this whole line of attack against Bush, Blair, et. al. has the unfortunate effect of turning criticism of the war into a vehicle for complaint about unjust treatment of Saddam Hussein since insofar as we’re talking about international law here he and his regime are the prospective wronged parties. Now it’s true, of course, that odious regimes do have their rights under international law just as much as, say, Canada does (though one might think that this is the essence of the problem) but given the full gravity of the circumstances, wrongs done to Saddam and his cronies are hardly the thing to be focused on.
More On Illegal Wars
Some good issues getting raised here. Let’s put it bluntly. Say the US, UK, France, and other major democracies agree on a plan for intervention in Darfur whereby Western funds and a small number of technical personnel along with US airlift, airspace protection, and communications will support a mostly-African force to halt the killing and allow for the entrance of humanitarian supplies. The Security Council has already denounced the Sudanese government’s behavior and called for consequences. So the Western troika submits a resolution to the Security Council, but China vetos it, citing the principle of sovereignty and arguing that events in Sudan do not rise to the level of genocide. The Western powers and their African partners go forward with the intervention.
Some folks here in the states will doubtless think that this is a bad idea. But would anyone think that this is a bad idea because it’s an illegal violation of the UN Charter? My guess is “no,” but I could be wrong (Lord knows I’ve been wrong before). So is there anyone out there who thinks that whether or not going forward with a military intervention in Sudan is a good idea hinges on whether or not China can be pursuaded not to veto a resolution? Now folks who are just generally opposed to humanitarian interventions might want to pretend to subscribe to such a principle and get it made official US policy because they’ll know that Chinese opposition would block most potential interventions, thus cutting down on policies they oppose for other reasons. But does anyone genuinely think that the rightness or wrongness of an intervention under these circumstances hinges on the Chinese veto?
[This is all, again, not by way of defending the Iraq War as a policy, merely an effort to point out that one should be careful which principles one adopts while opposing it]
Of course, that whole point is a straw man, which does not address at all the problem inherent in having another terrorist-sponsoring regime in possession of nuclear weapons – especially in the Middle East.
BTW, you don’t have to trust U.S. statements on WMD when Iran is announcing its progress on nuclear tests and the IAEA is backing them up on it. Where’s the U.S. WMD claim there?
The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is an object lesson for any so called rogue state both present and future.
Nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are their only defence. As such they will race to acquire them. Stopping WMD proliferation by invading Iraq? Mission un-accomplished!
North Korea now has a deterrent:
I don’t believe the spin that “Satellite photographs of the area showed a mushroom-shaped cloud.” was due to dam building.
A nuclear-armed member of the axis of evil would be bad PR in an election year.
Iran to follow
Then who ever else is on the neo-con hit list
The arms race is on in the Middle East and the doctrine of pre-emption and regime change by the US and Israel is driving it forward.
“Iran has warned Israel it will react “most severely” if Israel uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities.”
“According to reports, the US is to sell (paid for by US military aid) Israel 5,000 hi-tech bombs, including 500 one-ton “bunker-busters”, which can penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls.”
The message from the neo-con hawks to the Middle East is simple “develop nuclear weapons of be invaded”. Hell the Middle East is listening and developing nuclear weapons as fast as possible.
BB do you actually believe everybody and everything you quote or is it a partisan thing?
Iran is a terrorist state. It sponsors terrorism by it’s own security apparatus as well as financing others.
It’s goverments stated goal is to destroy Israel and it does not value lives of Infidels. (That’s us)
Fortunately they have an address. That’s a bad thing when you challenge the Great Satan (That’s us). We need to warn them that if they use those precious WMD’s whether they have 1 or 10 they will recieve a shit storm from hell courtesy of the Great Satan. We have more nukes then they possess on 1 of our carriers or submarines. If they think we will not retaliate then you are tempting them to use them.
I don’t think you can leave the issue a gray area. I also think it is better if they do not own them.
I think Israel understands the danger to them. I don’t think Iran will ever get to the point of actually getting one built. The stakes are too high.
You guys really are blind…everyone refuses to admit that Israel is the one rushing us into this war.
They did the EXACT same thing with Iraq, and nobody believed it then. The goofy thing about this whole mess is that Iran actually lets weapons inspectors in, but Israel doesn’t.
Why the big rush? It’s this same countdown thing we did with Iraq. The clock is ticking down…hand over your country or we’re coming in. Do you actually think it’s unreasonable in the 21st century that a country shouldn’t use nuclear power to generate electricity instead of coal?
Of course you want to keep an eye on them but the immense pressure to go in from Israel is just not good for us or anybody else right now.
We are tied to an anchor and world opinion of the US is in the crapper.
EU embarrassed as poll labels Israel world’s biggest threat 03 November 2003
The European Union scrambled Monday to contain the fallout from a public opinion poll that – to Israel’s fury – labelled the Jewish state the biggest threat to world peace.
The United States was just behind Israel in the global danger league, in joint second place with North Korea and Iran, according to the “Eurobarometer” poll requested by the European Commission.
The results were part of a survey last month on Europeans’ attitudes in the aftermath of the Iraq war, which also found that more than two-thirds of EU citizens think that the US-led war was wrong.
The Israeli embassy in Brussels voiced outrage at the findings, which said that 59 percent of Europeans see Israel as a threat to world peace.
U.S. to transfer high-tech arsenal to Israel
[i]Strike against Iranian reactors is feared
Thursday, September 23, 2004
By David Wood
Newhouse News Service[/i]
WASHINGTON – Amid growing concern that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s budding nuclear program, the United States is moving ahead with the transfer to Israel of 5,000 heavy, precision-guided bombs, including 500 “earth-penetrating” 2,000-pound bombs designed for use against underground facilities.
The $319 million arms transfer, proposed by the Bush administration June 1, went ahead after Congress took no action during its 30-day review period, Defense Security Cooperation Agency spokesman Jose Ibarra said Wednesday. The deal is being financed from this year’s $2.16 billion military assistance grant to Israel.
The transfer also includes 2,500 2,000-pound Mark-84 bombs, 500 1,000-pound Mark-83 bombs, 1,500 500-pound Mark-82 bombs and live fuses. All the bombs are being fitted with the Joint Direct Air Munitions kit, which uses inertial guidance and beacons from U.S. military global positioning satellites for deadly accuracy.
“That’s an arsenal for war,” said Joseph Cirincione, senior associate for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He said any attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, clustered in three major complexes and dozens of other sites, “wouldn’t be a pinprick strike; it would have to be a large-scale military air strike that would result in large-scale casualties.”
War games run at the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency to examine the repercussions of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities have consistently reached a chilling conclusion: Iran would unleash a wave of terrorism against Israeli targets worldwide and against U.S. troops in the Middle East. About 140,000 American military personnel are stationed adjacent to Iran in Iraq and Kuwait.
Iranian missiles have the range to hit U.S. bases in the region.
Iran, which insists its efforts are aimed only at developing reliable electric power sources, this week said it has begun a critical step in processing uranium into nuclear reactor fuel or nuclear bomb material: converting uranium ore, or “yellowcake,” into gas. In gas form, uranium can be run through high-speed centrifuges to separate the concentrated or “enriched” uranium.
[i]September 23, 2004
By GERALD NADLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom addresses the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York Thursday, Sept. 23, 2004. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)[/i]
UNITED NATIONS – Intensifying its warnings about Iran, Israel on Thursday said Tehran has replaced Saddam Hussein as the “world’s No. 1 exporter of terror,” threatening the Jewish state and the entire world.
Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom also labeled Syria an “active” supporter of terror and called on the U.N. General Assembly “to address head-on” the activities of both Middle East states.
Shalom said the 191-nation world body “should end its obsession with Israel” and called on it to convene a special session on “the growth of anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and intolerance.”
The foreign minister, who on Wednesday said Iran must be taken before the Security Council over its nuclear program, said Tehran’s missiles can reach London, Paris and southern Russia.
“The international community now realizes that Iran does not only pose a threat to the security of Israel but to the security of the whole world,” Shalom told the General Assembly’s annual ministerial meeting.
Iran on Wednesday similarly accused Israel of being a universal threat and warned that it will react “most severely” to any Israeli action against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.
Israel to US: Now for Iran
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Sunday 29 August 2004
Having succeeded in getting the United States to invade and occupy Iraq, Israel is now making efforts to instigate the Bush administration to deal with the “Iranian threat”.
This week, a high-ranking Israeli official urged the US “and the rest of the free world” to deal with the “Iranian threat before it is too late”.
The remarks - reminiscent of the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion of the Arab country last year - coincided with the publication of an article by a leading Israeli military historian Martin Van-Creveld, suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants.
Writing in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on 21 August, Creveld opined an Israeli or American (or a joint Israeli-American) attack on Iranian nuclear plants might be carried out before the US November elections.
Israel reportedly possess a big arsenal of nuclear weapons - estimates range from 100 to 400 weapons and bombs - along with efficient delivery systems, including a fleet of long-range American-supplied F-15 fighter bombers as well as the medium range ballistic missile Yeriho.
However, according to Abd Al-Sattar Qasim, Professor of Political Science at the Najah University in Nablus, these are only “pretexts”.
“I believe that Israel is the most dangerous state in the world today. Imagine what state the stability and security of the world would be in if the messianic Jewish extremists of Gush Euminim reached power in Israel and suddenly found themselves in control of Israel’s massive nuclear arsenal.”
This, coupled with US brazen support of Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank, would likely bring American credibility in this part of the world to an all-time low. [ie: more terrorists]
In that light, Israel’s most workable approach would be to leave it to the Americans, according to Ira Sharkansky, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
“I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it,” he told Aljazeera.net.
And Israel, directly and through its powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been making strenuous efforts to get Washington to “do something” about Iran.
Well, I imagine my words will be misunderstood, but I’m going to try to find a way to say what I mean anyhow. Let’s see…
Just as the US claims the right to defend itself worldwide against what it perceives as threats, every other nation theoretically will share this same right.
Leaders of these other nations have the responsibility to find the best way to protect itself with respect to the well being of its own populace. This well being will entail financial as well as physical considerations.
The world of politics is not a game for the naive. People don’t have to play fair. While I’m not aware of or claiming any particular plots, there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary with one country tricking, manipulating or convincing another country into doing something beneficial to it.
This may be true of both our allies and our enemies. For example, was Chalabi in cahoots with Iran to help persuade the US to invade Iraq? I certainly don’t know, but it has been suggested.
Is the US interested in getting other countries to look after North Korea and Iran? You bet. Are other countries interested in getting the US to look after North Korea and Iran? You bet. Which country on the planet is the most trigger happy right now? Do other countries know this? You bet. Who do you think the responsibility will fall to if action is to be taken?
I’m guessing we’ll have the US and Israel either working together or trying to convince the other that it is up to the other, since they themselves aren’t in a position to do anything for one reason or another.
Will we get brinksmanship? Will somebody blink? Will the trigger get pulled? Stay tuned, we live during interesting times…
[quote]Just as the US claims the right to defend itself worldwide against what it perceives as threats, every other nation theoretically will share this same right.
Leaders of these other nations have the responsibility to find the best way to protect itself with respect to the well being of its own populace. This well being will entail financial as well as physical considerations.[/quote]
I agree 100%. I’m not sure if you were really talking about Iran protecting itself or Israel but either way.
The thing that gets me about this whole thing and why people need to look closer at what Israel is doing is, why the urgency?
Even if Iran now had a nuclear arsenal, what good does it do them? Theoretically they could do considerable damage and destruction to neighboring countries but it would be lights out forever for them, once and done. Israel and the US tries to demonize these countries as terrorist nations but Iran is a thriving country but we talk about them like the nation itself was a terrorist. They aren’t suicidal, and like I said, what is so suprising about wanting nuclear power to produce electricity in a thriving country in the 21st century?
Obviously things aren’t so simple but common sense makes you ask why would a small country use a banned weapon and risk annihilation? Unlike what we’re doing now, that would give us practically free reign from the UN and the world.
Considering the US has a bigger weapons arsenal than the rest of the world combined, I don’t completely buy the “imminent” danger scenerio Israel is trying to hype…especially after they already did it with Iraq.
I see it this way. Israel is going to start something no matter what and there is nothing Iran could do to appease them short of throwing up their hands, that will never happen. The only thing to stop Israel from going in is the US. Already it looks like we aren’t going to do that and you can see it coming and when it does, we will be right in there.
People argue with me because I say a draft is coming. All you have to do is see the way Israel is escalating this “code red” alert. If we don’t do something about Iran NOW, the fate of the world is at stake. Of course after Iran…
It seems we are at war with a 3000 year old religion…I can tell you we won’t win.
I watched that whole thing with Iraq develop and the whole time on the internet much of the world was doubting the talk of WMD’s while OUR news was shouting WMD’s! Then there was Israel, we gotta go in, we gotta go in. Lo and behold. It’s amazing that the president claimed bad intelligence at the time when I could read right on the internet things were looking shady.
Obviously I have a slightly more radical viewpoint than most people on here but all I can say is, watch it play out. The best that happens is I’m wrong.
Like I said, the only thing that would stop Israel from going into Iran is if we said, “Your on your own.” (when was the last time we said that)
BB the weekly standard out of print this week LOL[/quote]
bluey –
He’s a liberal, not a neocon. And yeah, he’s a youngster. I generally don’t agree with him, but he usually puts together his arguments well, and occasionally he makes some good points (see above).
[quote]bluey wrote:
The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is an object lesson for any so called rogue state both present and future.
Nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are their only defence. As such they will race to acquire them. Stopping WMD proliferation by invading Iraq? Mission un-accomplished!
North Korea now has a deterrent:
I don’t believe the spin that “Satellite photographs of the area showed a mushroom-shaped cloud.” was due to dam building.
A nuclear-armed member of the axis of evil would be bad PR in an election year.
Iran to follow
Then who ever else is on the neo-con hit list
The arms race is on in the Middle East and the doctrine of pre-emption and regime change by the US and Israel is driving it forward.
“Iran has warned Israel it will react “most severely” if Israel uses force to try to destroy its nuclear facilities.”
“According to reports, the US is to sell (paid for by US military aid) Israel 5,000 hi-tech bombs, including 500 one-ton “bunker-busters”, which can penetrate two metre (6.5ft) thick walls.”
The message from the neo-con hawks to the Middle East is simple “develop nuclear weapons of be invaded”. Hell the Middle East is listening and developing nuclear weapons as fast as possible.
BB do you actually believe everybody and everything you quote or is it a partisan thing?
[/quote]
bluey –
I don’t agree with every word of everything I link or paste – usually the things serve to illustrate points, or they make particular arguments well.
At any rate, I take issue with your theory, which you’ve advanced previously, that all the rogue nations are just now discovering that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to conventional invasions. The USSR figured that out darn quickly back in the 50s, as did the Chinese. The Israelis also, back in the 60s, if I’m not mistaken. I think most of the leaders of the world have grasped that rudimentary concept for quite awhile.
Given that, your theory could lead to several conclusions. One, that we should never threaten force, because that would just induce the threatened regimes to build nukes (assuming they have the capacity). And that leads to the idea that either you cannot use force, or you don’t threaten, only strike. I’m curious if you agree with that assessment?
vroom:
Iran does have the sovereign ability to defend itself. However, it is a terrorism-exporting country. It does not play to our interests, European interests, or the interest of stability in the middle east for a country that exports terrorism to possess nuclear weapons – and, let’s be serious, this is about nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. The Iranians aren’t worried about the peak oil theory or air pollution.
We’ll see how this plays out. The Europeans are not keen on having Iran become a nuclear power, so they might back action should such action become necessary to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.
I would like to point out that, WE - the US, happen to be the one’s violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, not Iran.
Israel is the one pushing us into this under the guise of threat from Iran. The irony is that Iran has signed and has been in full compliance with the treaty, also it’s nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Israel is only one of 3 countries that has never signed the treaty and therefore does not allow inspectors in. Israel does not confirm or deny it has nuclear weapons but it is universally known that they do.
The government and the media like to feed off people’s ignorance of the issues. They would have you believe that any country who possess nuclear technology is a clear and present threat, but in actuality the US is the one in violation of the treaty by backing Israel (who never signed the treaty) on it’s stance against Iran.
Article IV of the Treaty states:
[i]1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right 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 this Treaty.
All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.[/i]
Not only are we in violation for saying Iran can’t pursue development, the treaty clearly advocates the advancement of nuclear power.
A second violation of the treaty involves the development of a new class of nuclear weapons by the US called “mini-nukes” and “bunker busters”
Under Article II of the Treaty, the U.S. agreed:
not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
“Not only are we in violation for saying Iran can’t pursue development, the treaty clearly advocates the advancement of nuclear power.”
The treaty advocates the advancement of nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It prohibits developing it for war powers.
And you believe Iran is just looking to augment its power production, despite sitting on a big portion of the world’s oil reserves? Then why all the cloak and dagger regarding its program? Why the failure to report some of its facilities to international watchdogs?
Of course Iran is going to say that its nuclear development is peaceful. They’re not going to admit aspirations fo nuclear weapons. You have to look at the evidence, because it’s not as though you’re going to get a good faith answer out of the mullahs. Those failures to report are red flags.
Face facts: Iran has no interest in cleaner energy or supplementing oil that is drying up. The world takes Iran at its word at its own peril.
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
It’s Almost Too Late to Stop Iran
By HENRY SOKOLSKI
September 27, 2004; Page A18
Have nations a right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to acquire ostensibly civilian nuclear technology if it brings them within weeks of a bomb? Iran – backed by Brazil, South Africa, Germany, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Mohammed El Baradei and, recently, John Edwards – says yes.
President Khatami was succinct when he reiterated Iran’s position last week: “We clearly demand that our right to [uranium] enrichment be recognized by the international community because it is our legal right and in accordance with the NPT. If it does so, it will open the way for greater cooperation.”
Call it a legal loophole or, as Iranian officials insist, an inalienable right, the only way either Iran or the supporters of this view can imagine getting Iranians to stop their nuclear brinkmanship is to sit down with them, treat them as equals, and cut a deal that addresses their concerns. Iran wants a larger voice to set oil prices (Iran’s oil minister last week insisted that Iran deserved to chair OPEC). Iran also has numerous security and cultural concerns about how Iraq will be ruled and even clearer economic requirements that its neighbors increase investment in Iran. All of these concerns, and presumably more, would have to be addressed.
What restraints would Iran offer in return on it nuclear program? If its outbursts of the last few weeks are any indication, not much. As Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator said earlier this month, “Iran will not accept any obligation regarding the suspension of uranium enrichment.” Moreover, if the U.N. mistakenly tried to impose such an obligation with sanctions, Iran, he insisted, would withdraw from the NPT. “No international body,” he explained, “can force Iran” legally to drop its “peaceful” nuclear activities. Instead, Iran might choose voluntarily to suspend such efforts, but would only do so if it retained its right and ability to resume these activities. Any suspension could only come after direct talks with those nations most worried about its nuclear activities. Whatever deal Tehran might agree to, then, Iran would retain its option to make bombs.
What should we do? First, recognize that Iran is already too close to making bombs for us ever to rest easy. It would be nice if we could precision-bomb or appease Iran out of its nuclear capabilities but, short of overthrowing the regime, neither is likely to produce lasting results. Iran has too much invested and hidden and too many scientists salted away for mere bombing or bribing to cap their nuclear ambitions.
Second, and both despite and because of this, we must challenge Iran’s arguments about the NPT. If we don’t, even worse awaits us. The Saudis are interested in importing nuclear arms from China or Pakistan. Syria has begun serious nuclear research. Iraq retains most of its nuclear scientists. Egypt is planning to build reactors to desalinate and Algeria has just upgraded a very large research reactor in a remote location, surrounding it with air defenses. If we don’t want them to follow in Iran’s footsteps, we will have to tackle what we’ve avoided for decades – clarifying which activities are protected under the NPT and which ones are too close to bomb-making to be regarded as being peaceful.
Luckily, the NPT recommends an answer. Its first two articles prohibit nuclear weapons states that are signatories from helping other states acquire the bomb directly or indirectly and bans states that lack these weapons from trying to acquire them. Nuclear safeguards, which non-weapons states must submit to under the treaty, are supposed to prevent “the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons.” This, and the NPT’s other prohibitions, are important since the “inalienable right” of all treaty members to develop nuclear energy for “peaceful” purposes must be exercised “in conformity” with them. This more than suggests that nuclear activities that can be quickly diverted to make bombs – such as Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing capabilities – are activities that the treaty meant to be kept at bay.
Nor should they be seen as being peaceful on some economic ground. If Iran solicited proposals from international electrical power contractors to build it power-generating capacity, all of the non-nuclear bids would have come in at a fraction of the cost of the nuclear infrastructure Iran is now building. Nearly all of these bids could secure legitimate, private financing – something Iran’s nuclear efforts clearly could not.
This suggests a set of market tests for “peacefulness.” These might not be foolproof, but would be better than what we now have – effectively nothing. Yes, they’d flag our own nuclear subsidies (Export-Import Bank loans for reactor sales to China, government subsidized nuclear insurance, reactor construction loan guarantee proposals, federal nuclear commercialization projects etc.). They also would spotlight uneconomical subsidized projects in friendly countries including South Africa, Japan, India and Pakistan. Still, adopting such tests would enjoy broad support (from Reagan conservatives to anticorporatist liberals) and be neutral. As the NPT is to be formally reviewed in May, the best time to start raising these points is now.
Finally, the U.S. and its allies should build on recent European proposals to enforce the NPT. These should specify that countries that reject inspections or withdraw from the NPT (as Iran has threatened) without first addressing infractions must surrender or dismantle their nuclear capabilities to come back into compliance.
They also should stipulate that nations which the IAEA cannot find to be in full compliance should no longer receive nuclear assistance from others until the IAEA Board of Governors unanimously gives them a clean bill of health. This would include Russia’s help to complete the power reactor at Busheir, which has been Iran’s “peaceful” justification for its other nuclear activities. France is already backing these rules. Presumably, Europe can too along with the U.S., and its allies. If these nations are unified, Russia should have difficulty resisting, isolating China. A U.N. resolution, in short, may be possible.
All this will be difficult to pull off. If we are serious about isolating Iran, though, we may no longer have a choice. The alternative, after all, is listening to Iran dictate what the rules mean.
Mr. Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and co-editor of “Checking Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions” (U.S. Army War College, 2004).
More interesting stuff, from London’s Daily Telegraph:
Syria brokers secret deal to send atomic weapons scientists to Iran
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 26/09/2004)
Syria’s President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year’s war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism.
The issue of moving the Iraqi scientists to Iran was raised when President Asad made a visit to Teheran in July. Intelligence officials understand that the Iranians have still to respond to the Syrian leader’s request.
A group of about 12 middle-ranking Iraqi nuclear technicians and their families were transported to Syria before the collapse of Saddam’s regime. The transfer was arranged under a combined operation by Saddam’s now defunct Special Security Organisation and Syrian Military Security, which is headed by Arif Shawqat, the Syrian president’s brother-in-law.
The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam’s nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts.
Growing political concern in Washington about Syria’s undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis.
American intelligence officials are concerned that Syria is secretly working on a number of WMD programmes.
They have also uncovered evidence that Damascus has acquired a number of gas centrifuges - probably from North Korea - that can be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb.
Relations between Washington and Damascus have been strained since last year’s war in Iraq, with American commanders accusing the Syrians of allowing foreign fighters to cross the border into Iraq, where they carry out terrorist attacks against coalition forces.
“The Syrians are playing a very dangerous game,” a senior Western intelligence official told The Sunday Telegraph.
“The Americans already have them in their sights because they are doing next to nothing to stop foreign fighters entering Iraq. If Washington finds concrete evidence that Syria is engaged in an illegal WMD programme then it will quickly find itself targeted as part of the war on terror.”
Under the terms of the deal President Asad offered the Iranians, the Iraqi scientists and their families would be transferred to Teheran together with a small amount of essential materials. The Iraqi team would then assist Iranian scientists to develop a nuclear weapon.
Apart from paying the relocation expenses, President Asad also wants the Iranians to agree to share the results of their atomic weapons research with Damascus.
The Syrian offer comes at a time when Iran is under close scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is investigating claims that Iran is maintaining a secret nuclear bomb programme.
The Iranians, who possess one of the world’s largest oil reserves, insist that their nuclear programme is aimed solely at developing nuclear energy. Last week relations between Teheran and the IAEA deteriorated further after the Iranians reneged on a commitment to suspend their nuclear programme.
In a move that will raise suspicions in Washington that Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, Teheran announced that it was to press ahead with plans to enrich 37 tons of uranium into the gas needed to turn the radioactive element into nuclear fuel. Nuclear experts estimate that when the process is complete the Iranians will have enough enriched uranium for five nuclear bombs.
The IAEA responded by passing a resolution setting a November 25 deadline for Iran to clear up suspicions over its nuclear activities or risk having the issue referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. The resolution also demanded that Iran halt all activities related to uranium enrichment, a part of the nuclear fuel cycle that can be used for both energy and weapons purposes.
In a further gesture of defiance, Ali Shamkhani, the Iranian defence minister, announced that the Iranian army has taken delivery of a new “strategic missile”.
The missile, unnamed for security reasons, was successfully tested last week, Shamkhani was quoted as saying by state television. It was unclear if the weapon in question was the Shahab-3 medium-range missile, acquired by the Revolutionary Guards in July last year. An improved version was successfully tested in August.
The Shahab-3 is based on a North Korean design and is thought to be capable of carrying a one-ton warhead at least 800 miles, which puts Israel well within its range.
The Iranians yesterday also accused America of “lawless militarism” in Iraq and called Israel the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. “The attack against Iraq was illegal,” Kamal Kharrazi, Iran’s foreign minister told the UN General Assembly. He thanked Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, for stating the same in a television interview last week.
For the most part, very good articles BB -
I agree it would be foolish to assume Iran only intends to use it’s nuclear capabilities solely for the purpose of generating electricity. At the same time I can’t see military action as a viable alternative to stop them without creating a WHOLE LOT of other problems.
While I have no problem with what the articles had to say, I do have a slight problem with what they didn’t say. It does at first seem subtle, but it changes the entire picture dramatically.
The following from the first article:
[i]“Luckily, the NPT recommends an answer. Its first two articles prohibit nuclear weapons states that are signatories from helping other states acquire the bomb directly or indirectly and bans states that lack these weapons from trying to acquire them. Nuclear safeguards, which non-weapons states must submit to under the treaty, are supposed to prevent “the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons.” This, and the NPT’s other prohibitions, are important since the “inalienable right” of all treaty members to develop nuclear energy for “peaceful” purposes must be exercised “in conformity” with them. This more than suggests that nuclear activities that can be quickly diverted to make bombs – such as Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing capabilities – are activities that the treaty meant to be kept at bay.”[i/]
It refers to Iran as a “treaty member”, who is allowed to develop nuclear power under the treaty, but who “could” also easily divert said substance to make nuclear weapons, which would be in violation.
The big omission in the broader picture is of course, Israel. The article never mentions Israel, but continues to talk about “treaty members” in violation of the treaty. As I stated before, Israel has never signed and is not part of the treaty, therefore, technically, you can say they aren’t “in violation”.
Add to that : Article 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991 at the conclusion of the Gulf War, has “the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons.”
Neither the UN nor the US has been successful in moving Israel in this direction. It’s also no secret that Israel has at least 200 to 400 nuclear weapons.
Given that, it soon becomes clear why 60% of all Europeans consider Israel and the US as the biggest threats to world peace.
Poll controversy as Israel and US labelled biggest threats to World peace
30.10.2003 - By Andrew Beatty
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.
Without that big part of the puzzle it would appear Iran is entirely up to no good. The reality is it’s a complete double standard to suggest or force Iran to comply to ever letter of the treaty while Israel sits there with a stockpile of nuclear weapons and 100% US backing.
[quote]As bluey stated earlier:
“The arms race is on in the Middle East and the doctrine of pre-emption and regime change by the US and Israel is driving it forward.”[/quote]
That’s entirely true. We’re announcing to the world “Here we come” starting with Iraq…what would you expect everyone to do? Even worse, we happen to be in a position now with Iraq that exposes our vulnerability and allows these other countries to start taking a much more aggressive stance and threatening preemption themselves.
They may see this as their only window of opportunity.
No Sign of Nuke Work at Suspect Iran Site-Diplomats Tue Sep 28, 2004
VIENNA (Reuters) - The analysis of soil samples taken by U.N. inspectors at Lavizan, a site in Tehran that U.S. officials suspect may be linked to an atomic weapons program, shows no sign of nuclear activity, Western diplomats said.
Satellite photos of Lavizan taken between August 2003 and May 2004 showed that Iran had completely razed Lavizan, a site which Iran said was a former military research laboratory, but which it said had nothing to do with atomic-related activities.
“The environmental samples taken at Lavizan have come back negative so far,” a Vienna-based diplomat who follows the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told Reuters. Negative means the samples contained no traces of nuclear materials.
Washington accused Iran of removing a substantial amount of topsoil and rubble from the site and replacing it with a new layer of soil, in what U.S. officials said might have been an attempt to cover clandestine nuclear activity at Lavizan.
Former U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Kenneth Brill, accused Iran in June of using “the wrecking ball and bulldozer” to sanitize Lavizan prior to the arrival of U.N. inspectors.
But another diplomat close to the IAEA told Reuters that on-site inspections of Lavizan produced no proof that any soil had been removed at all.
The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program, a charge Tehran has repeatedly denied.
The IAEA has been inspecting Iran’s nuclear program for two years. Although it has uncovered many previously concealed activities that could be linked to weapons activity, it has found no “smoking gun” to prove Washington’s case.