I'd been optimistic that the release of the newer National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and the apparent ascendancy of a more rational point of view within the Bush administration might lead to a more cooperative attitude from Russia with regard to the continuing concerns about Iran's enrichment activities. That seems to not be the case, as Russia goes through with a nuclear fuel delivery that had been stalled for a bit. The Bush administration is taking a restrained line, presumably because they don't want the Russians to start considering bad behavior on the Iran front an important point of national pride and principle, but this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
« Beyond Backbone | Main | Export Promotion »
Bad News
18 Dec 2007 12:46 pm
Comments (24)
I heard Bush directly link Russian nuclear fuel deliveries to Iran as reason (and enhanced justification for us demanding) that Iran halt domestic production of same.
Wait -- can someone tell me why Russia doing exactly what so many people have recommended, that is, having Iran run its nuclear reactors while being supplied by other nations, why is this "bad"?
I thought that one goal of so many people on this issue was to stop Iran from developing its own nuclear fuel processes.
Are people interpreting this as the Russians sending the Iranians a big truck full of weapons grade plutonium?
Perhaps this is Good News instead of Bad.
Consider: Now is seems way more dangerous and reckless for some rogue nuclear-arms state (like Israel?) that doesn't participate in the non-proliferation treaty to seriously consider a bombing attack on Iran to eliminate their nuclear-energy capabilities (operating reactors) as a preventative strike.
Mushroom clouds of nuclear material drifting out of the skies of neighboring and non-so-neighboring states from an attack on Iran might be so hostile that Pakistan, India, China and who-knows-who might become counter-attack engaged against the country that violated international law by the preventative strike.
Are you listening, Israel or whomever?
So, possibly the best thing is for Iran's reactors to be stoked with fuel, running merrily along making electricity (and even creating nuclear waste and ingredients - plutonium - for a nuclear bomb). Is there any doubt that is what Pakistan and India did (and North Korea achieved, and Libya almost did)?
The nuclear genie is almost completely out of the bottle - Pakistan and India, with the undoubted support in some manner of the US, have set the stage.
Who should be blamed for all of this? Can I nominate the US for having decided that some countries were so friendly to us that we could allow them nuclear enrichment while denying it to others. Except friends do change, don't they?
yeah, why is this bad? I even think that the horror of iran with nuclear weapons is exaggerated. Frickin' Pakistan has nuclear weapons. There's nothing a country (with the exception of the US, Russia, and maybe China if they have enough nukes) can do with nuclear weapons except nuke someone and then get nuked back. Just recognize Iran is run by rational leaders, as thier 2003 halt in nucular weapons research proves) and chill. Let them build reactors, bribe them to not build nukes. Lessen the need for them to have nukes. All this hand wringing and anxiety just makes the situation worse.
Non-delivery strengthened Iran's case, that it needed to enrich its uranium for itself, for energy security. Do you want to argue both (1) that Iran should rely on foreign suppliers for enriched uranium, and (2) that its foreign suppliers should dishonour their contracts?
Frankly, the only effect I'd expect of the NIE--other than keeping us from bombing Iran--is to make sure that George W. Bush is completely ignored by foreign powers for the rest of his presidency. The NIE took the last of Bush's diplomatic capital and blew it to smithereens. Bush is now completely irrelevant to Russia's decision to do anything that isn't a pretty direct attack on the U.S. or an ally.
In most cases this will work out well, in some it arguably won't, but in any event it's the price that's paid for checking Bush's blind and corrupt imperialism. Diplomatic relevance will have to wait for the next President.
One word: Dimona.
the hypocrisy of Matt's position on Iranian nuclear power (and, as a corrollary, Iranian nuclear weapons) never ceases to amaze me.
I also thought that supplying Iran with fuel - as opposed to Iran producing its own - was supposed to be the great compromise the US, EU and Russia were pushing for not too long ago. So, why is this a terrible news, again?
I would also like to note that Iran actually does need lots of energy from nucelar sources since, if memory serves, its oil production peaked in the mid-70s. Even though it produces a lot of oil, in relative terms, it wants to diversify its energy sources, much as the growth of nuclear plants in the US in response to having hit our peak back in 1970.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Newspaper_Irans_oil_production_drying_up_0220.html
What a surprise! You mean Russia might have an idea to develop an axis with China and Iran that challenges US hegemony in the Asia-Pacific? I'm shocked. Shocked.
Iran has a green light to develop nukes with, and without, Russian/Chinese/Pakistani assistance. And they will.
abb1 is correct, Matt missed the point here. Not too surprising, as most accounts I've seen were clearly being delivered by reporters who don't understand the enrichment process/nuclear fuel cycle.
Enriching uranium to reactor levels and enriching it to weapons levels (aka HEU, highly enriched uranium) is the same process, just taken to a higher level (like, exponentially). This means (by the enrichment method in question) you need a LOT more centrifugues spinning and for a longer period of time to get a bomb instead of a generator.
Iran claims the right (which they have under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) to enrich uranium for use in a reactor (nevermind their huge reserves of oil, of course). Nobody actually trusts Iran for a number of reasons, the best being that they had a secret nuclear weapons program for 20 years until, by our most current intelligence estimate, they shut it down in the face of exposure and sanctions. Ergo, the international community, as it were, wants them to give up their statutory right to have any centrifuges spinning at all.
If Iran gets fuel from Russia (an agreed-upon nuclear power under the NPT), they won't have an excuse to build the enrichment infrastructure that would provide* weapons-grade HEU. They use the fuel, ship the spent rods back to Russia, nothing gets enriched by "rogue" regimes, and everybody stops worrying and learns loves the bomb.
*Infrastructure on a reactor-grade scale would take years to produce enough HEU for a weapon, but spread over many reactors (read: decentralized, too many sites to hit in one airstrike) might be just productive enough to be worth the investment. Thus, no one else wants them to have ANY enrichment capacity.
Starting to think you've been living in DC too long, Matt.
It would be great from a non-proliferation perspective if Russia's providing reactor fuel (low enriched uranium) provided a face-saving way for the Iranians to shut down their own enrichment facilities. However, the Iranians have said they have no intention to do so, so scratch that way of making this into good news.
It's true that other countries have nukes. Iran's progress is not worthy of Cheney-level freakout, but is not good news on its own terms and also because it is likely to induce other actors in the area, like Saudi Arabia, to make moves in that direction as well.
Why should Iran not receive nuclear fuel from Russia? We should be making peace with Iran and ending sanctions. Then we could be happily buying their oil, as does China, rather than occupying Iraq hoping to loot Iraqi oil. Iran is no threat to the US. Iran would be no threat to Israel either if Israel would obey international law and return stolen land. Iran occupies no country and has no nuclear bomb program. On the other hand, Israel occupies all of Palestine, parts of Syria and Lebanon, and has hundreds of nuclear bombs, having never signed the Non-proliferation Treaty.
Peak Oil, and Global Warming, are epic no-brainers. Which is why some time you should try using brainpower when looking again at these diabolical scams.
www.gasresources.net
www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com
"Wait -- can someone tell me why Russia doing exactly what so many people have recommended, that is, having Iran run its nuclear reactors while being supplied by other nations, why is this "bad"?"
Bush doesn't think it's bad; Matt does. This was part of several international proposals (by the EU-3, by Saudi Arabia, etc.) to get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium.
"Frankly, the only effect I'd expect of the NIE--other than keeping us from bombing Iran--is to make sure that George W. Bush is completely ignored by foreign powers for the rest of his presidency. The NIE took the last of Bush's diplomatic capital and blew it to smithereens."
Your Bush Derangement Syndrome must have deafened you to the reactions of the EU-3 to the NIE. The NIE's timing undercut their diplomatic efforts on Iran at the UN. Thanks to some permanent government folks in the intelligence agencies who were trying to forestall a military attack on Iran, diplomatic efforts have been sandbagged.
I think that Fred is correct, after a fashion, but Bush was warned in private before NIE was made public, and the "permanent government" would not act if the danger was not dire.
I do not know if Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz, but they (inteligence agencies) do have some data. An attack on Iran would either be laughable, or big enough to give then reason to announce an exlusion zone for commercial traffic for the duration of hostilities.
Given that we do not have any good reason for the attack, and that the entire world (well, not Russia and Venezuela!) would suffer, someone had to play the role of an adult in charge.
Fred is correct, period. No one in their right mind seriously advocated striking Iran beyond the odd casual remark in the media, and people who think Bush or any other president could unilaterally launch a war in the face of clear opposition from Congress, the intelligence community, the public, the uniformed military, and his own Secretary of Defense is very poorly informed about US political realities. There is no, zero, evidence of any such plans, and the only people who believed this farce were blinkered partisans duped by self-interested media hacks.
This story is all about the increasingly politicized nature of intelligence these days, which is bad news for everyone without regard to where they land on the political spectrum.
Robert Powell -
I think you're underestimating the tenacity of Cheney and his crew. They're singleminded in pursuit of their goals, and they know how to maneuver the pieces to get what they want. Now, if you're arguing that everyone's onto their game, that their water carriers are gone, that their key allies in the DoD are gone, that they've been marginalized enough that Bush is less swayed by them, then you might have a point. But don't think for a second that means that they've given up the ghost on Iran. They haven't, and they never will.
And as far as politicizing intelligence goes, it may be bad for everyone, but let's not forget who got that ball rolling. We didn't get in Iraq because Saddam was about to nuke Miami.
I think that Fred is correct, after a fashion, but Bush was warned in private before NIE was made public, and the "permanent government" would not act if the danger was not dire.
I do not know if Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz, but they (inteligence agencies) do have some data. An attack on Iran would either be laughable, or big enough to give then reason to announce an exlusion zone for commercial traffic for the duration of hostilities.
Given that we do not have any good reason for the attack, and that the entire world (well, not Russia and Venezuela!) would suffer, someone had to play the role of an adult in charge.
Kurzbein--I know that Darth Cheney has created an aura of vast power that plays like crazy among dedicated phobics, but be reasonable. You can't seriously believe that a tiny clique of increasingly marginalized people in the Executive Branch can all by their lonesome launch a war that could make Iraq look like Grenada. Can you?
Since you bring it up, no we didn't invade Iraq because it was about to nuke Miami. We did it because Iraq dragged us into a war in 1991 with behavior unmatched in the history of the United Nations in terms of defiance of Chapter VII Resolutions, stemming from the invasion, rape, and annexation of a charter member of the General Assembly and US ally, Kuwait. Subsequent to the comprehensively violated ceasefire Iraq made us complicit by watching from the sidelines as it slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people we had urged to stage an uprising; and in the deaths of perhaps a million of the most vulnerable and innocent Iraqis via the sanctions regime that had the perverse additional effect of tightening Saddam's grip on power and enriching his collaborators. Even given this history, Saddam could have aborted the invasion almost up to the last minute by simply going along with the careful instructions and hand-holding by Hans Blix to comply with Iraq's obligations, which Blix made manifestly clear in his final report Iraq had failed to do. We had at least the diplomatic support of most of the world's important democracies to enforce the sanctions against Iraq. We don't even have the agreement of our own government and military to strike Iran.
Iran hasn't invaded anyone in centuries, does not have any outstanding issues with Chapter VII Resolutions that can't be resolved by negotiations, and has been at times helpful to the US as it was in Afghanistan. Moreover, a strike against Iran would instantly rally the population to the flag, and to the regime which most of them don't seem to like very much at the moment. This fantasy strike was never about to happen, with or without the NIE perfidy.
this is silly, knee-jerk hawkishness. all totally legal under the nonproliferation treaty and IAEA standards. Iran is legally free to manufacture and use nuclear power. and seeing as there had been a gas embargo which was certainly costing the poor and middle class there far more than they could afford anyways, I'd say it was good if they're able to step up their production capability.
Matt goes utterly clueless on Iran again.
I mean, really, does Matt maintain any consistent opinion from one day to the next?
What "reward for bad behavior"? What "bad behavior"? The Iranians have done NOTHING - ZERO - to be considered "bad behavior". There was ONE "material breach" of the NPT - an introduction of nuclear material into a facility before announcing it to the IAEA - which has been cleared up and the IAEA couldn't care less about it.
The only reason the Russians held up the fuel delivery is because of pressure from the US - and Putin finally got tired of that crap once the US started trying to put US radars in his back yard.
As for Powell, here he comes again with bland assertions of completely revisionist history as if we are to believe that nobody reads the papers but him and he is the purveyor of all facts and everyone else in the world is ignorant of all history.
It is well known that Bush and Cheney had - and HAVE, nothing has changed - full-scale plans to attack Iran. Not to mention Israel. And they and the neocons have been screaming for war with Iran for years. Does Powell remember "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" from that OTHER moron, McCain?
What a moron.
As for Iran shutting down their enrichment because they are getting fuel from Russia, the facts are that Iran intends to build a second 350MW reactor and have stated that the present level of Natanz enrichment, while provisionally adequate for a 100MW reactor like Bushehr, will not be sufficient for the new reactor.
And as has been pointed out before, Iran cannot trust any other country to give it fuel - especially since Russia held up deliveries under pressure from the US. So Iranian enrichment will continue and increase until they have their stated 50,000 centrifuges.
All of which is completely legal under the NPT.
Comments closed January 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Can't someone peer into these guys' souls and get a read on them? Sheesh.
Posted by Woody Bombay | December 18, 2007 12:56 PM