Iran and the IAEA

I recall that in the wake of the National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had ceased work on its nuclear weapons program, a certain strain of counterintuitive punditry emerged to argue that this publicizing of accurate information constituted serious wrongdoing on the part of the Intelligence Community because Iran hardly had clean hands with regard to nuclear activities and the NIE might take the international pressure off.

I never really understood the logic there, and it doesn't seem to be happening. Yesterday, we got a new report from the IAEA about Iranian documents they've obtained which "strongly suggest that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons design as recently as four years ago." This is something Iran denied at the time and continues to deny today, because it violates various commitments they've made and they don't want to be punished for it. But the IAEA is evidently keeping up the heat and "the U.N. Security Council is expected to vote tomorrow on a third resolution imposing travel and financial sanctions on Iranian individuals and institutions."

This is all as it should be. What's needed in addition is a new administration that's able to make a new start with these things, say clearly that the United States erred in the past by failing to seize opportunities to improve our relationship with Iran and that we're eager to take steps in that direction now. But as part of that process we're going to need the Iranians to go beyond mothballing their program to actually disarming in a verifiable way. Alternatively we could elect the guy who's been agitating for the overthrow of the Iranian government since 1999 and who likes to joke about bombing their country

Comments

I'm not aware of any evidence that the NIE report took international pressure off. After all, the report did state pretty clearly that Iran appeared to be proceeding with enrichment, which is the issue anyway.

What it did do was take some pressure off sensible people who had to respond to hysterical predictions of imminent unilateral Bush strikes against Iran. Such strikes have been, and continue to be, extraordinarily unlikely as the Iranians certainly know better than most.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 3, 2008 2:14 PM

What Matt fails to understand is that building a bomb is not difficult. Enriching uranium to bomb quality is hard and Iran never stopped enriching uranium. The fact that they stopped building the bomb itself is a red herring, as once they enrich enough uranium, they can easily build the bomb.

Posted by Dave | March 3, 2008 2:19 PM

But as part of that process we're going to need the Iranians to go beyond mothballing their program to actually disarming in a verifiable way.

Really, "we" are going to need that, are we? What "we" are you speaking for? The United States government has made it crystal clear in recent years that it believes it has the right to pick and choose which international laws, treaties and commitments it is bound by and which it isn't. Who are "we" to say that Iran doesn't have the same right? So what if the issue is nuclear weapons and non-proliferation? The U.S. picks and chooses its obligations there, too.

Posted by Ryan | March 3, 2008 2:25 PM

I'll guess this "new administration" must be a Hillary Clinton administration because Obama has made it pretty clear that further enrichment activity by the Iranian government is unacceptable. Obama likes to groups his airstrikes together. Bomb Iran and you have to bomb Pakistan too.

Posted by Gabriel Sutherland | March 3, 2008 2:36 PM

Enriching uranium to bomb quality is hard and Iran never stopped enriching uranium.

Enriching uranium is legal under the NPT. As long as they stop at fuel grade, they are well within their rights.

That's what really pisses me off, our argument so far has been "Stop doing what you're allowed to do, or else."

Posted by daveNYC | March 3, 2008 3:23 PM

I think the Iranians might wants more than an apology and a commitment for better relations in exchange for scrapping their nuclear program.

However, your point still stands, with Obama there's some chance of a deal being worked whereas McCain is just as likely to start a war.

Posted by tg | March 3, 2008 3:41 PM

Note that this "new evidence" obtained by the IAEA is the same old "Laptop of death" that the US has been shopping around for 3 year...and pretty much laughed at by everyone as an obvious plant.

Funny according to the IAEA report itself, the US only provided the info to the IAEA a few days before the IAEA was set to release a report that essentially cleared Iran. And note that that the IAEA report refers to these as "alleged studies" and says that it has "no credible information in this regard."

Posted by hass | March 3, 2008 4:27 PM

Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman, while Obama proposed an amendment saying it did not give Bush the authority to attack Iran.

Posted by Tony | March 3, 2008 4:34 PM

Obama said he wanted to bomb Iran as well.

In the he same article he also says he may want to bomb Pakistan.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage

Posted by Dave | March 3, 2008 4:49 PM

I wonder what our reaction would be if Ahmadinejad had said that "all optios are on the table" in dealing with the US, including bombins and even a nuclear first strike, as Bush has said about Iran.

Posted by hass | March 3, 2008 8:06 PM

What Matt fails to understand is that building a bomb is not difficult...they can easily build the bomb.
Posted by Dave

Dave, building a basic gun-type weapon is not difficult. What IS difficult is building a bomb deliverable by missile that would deter a "take-out" if anyone ever determined Iran was an imminent threat.
As a (slightly bent) teen, I built guns from scratch. A file, a drill press, a hydraulic press, basic tools, some hardware store items, and a tac welder and I had deadly weapons that fired .22s, 9mm, shotgun shells and even 30 caliber. Even a semi-auto that fired 10 rounds half the time without jamming.
But my basic stuff was no threat against any group armed with modern weaponry.
Same with Iran until they get a credible military threat out af the basic ability to make uranium go boom. And we apparantly - along with the Euros - even some Democrats - have a willingness to strangle Iran's ability to advance nukes while still in the crib stage.

***************************
Enriching uranium is legal under the NPT. As long as they stop at fuel grade, they are well within their rights.
That's what really pisses me off, our argument so far has been "Stop doing what you're allowed to do, or else."
Posted by daveNYC

Why the emotional basis to defend any enemy of the US as a friend of yours? The US, the Euros, the IAEA, even Russia have concluded that the Iranians have lied about their program, violated IAEA protocols. and with held vital obligatory information about their activities as required under the NPT. That is why Iran is about to be slapped with major sanctions -not- as you protest, that they are doing only what they are allowed to do.

Posted by chris ford | March 3, 2008 9:00 PM

Actually, according to the IAEA, Iran has NOT been lying about their nuclear program, and in fact Iran's nuclear program started under the Shah, with support and participation of the united States.
Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/2raf7o

Posted by david | March 3, 2008 9:56 PM

Matt again demonstrates his utter lack of knowledge of what is going on relative to Iran.

Makes him the classic wannabe pundit. Seriously, this is a pathetically ignorant post.

Matt: "But as part of that process we're going to need the Iranians to go beyond mothballing their program to actually disarming in a verifiable way."

Get a fucking clue, Matt. There is NOTHING TO DISARM! Read my lips: Nothing.

There are no nuclear weapons at all in Iran. There at best might be or might have been a military program to find out how nukes are built.

This would be an obvious program for any military of any large nation which is ostensibly threatened by nuclear weapons of another country (in this case, Israel) to do. Obviously your military would like to know how nukes are built, armed and detonated, and the effects of those weapons. Since you're unlikely to get an Israeli or an American to give you their weapons designs (unless of course, you're a member of the American Turkish Council, then you can bribe Marc Grossman at State to get you whatever you need), you get such designs from other people. And you burrow through the open source literature on nuclear weapons.

None of which means you have a program to actually divert nuclear materials to a bomb program, or actually have a bomb program. It means you have the ability to create such a program should your leadership decide to do so.

This is not a "nuclear weapons program", it is not a program that can be controlled by the IAEA, it's not even a program that any country would be willing to reveal to the IAEA - nor should they be required to do so, as long as their NPT operations are properly certified by the IAEA as being benign.

As for "mothballing" their program, I can't tell if Matt is dumb enough to be referring to the enrichment program, which is both legal and absolutely necessary for Iran's nuclear energy program and therefore cannot be and does not need to be "mothballed", or whether he is referring to the military database program I reference above.

If it's the latter, how do you "mothball" such a program? Stick your design documents in a shredder? What good does that do? You can always get them again if you need them. It's as stupid as Bush complaining about Iran having the KNOWLEDGE to enrich uranium.

As for "verifiably disarming" such a program, how do you do that? Prove that no such design documents are hidden under someone's bed or on a laptop nobody can find?

The entire "evidence" for this "military program" is a bunch of crap forged by the Mossad, stuck on a laptop, then handed over to the M.E.K. to be passed on to the CIA.

See here:

Iran Nuke Laptop Data Came from Terror Group
by Gareth Porter
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12443

Get a goddamn clue, Matt.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 3, 2008 10:17 PM

How do you go about proving you do not have something you have denied ever having?

This is classical guilty until proven innocent... and all based on hunches, supposition and the "smoking laptop" provided by an organization listed as a terror group by the State Department and the EU.

Posted by Chris Gelken | March 3, 2008 10:53 PM

How do you go about proving you do not have something you have denied ever having?

This is classical guilty until proven innocent... and all based on hunches, supposition and the "smoking laptop" provided by an organization listed as a terror group by the State Department and the EU.

Posted by Chris Gelken | March 3, 2008 10:54 PM

How do you go about proving you do not have something you have denied ever having?

This is classical guilty until proven innocent... and all based on hunches, supposition and the "smoking laptop" provided by an organization listed as a terror group by the State Department and the EU.

Posted by Chris Gelken | March 3, 2008 10:54 PM