Zbigniew Brzezinski

I’ve been thinking a lot about the “inevitability assumption” lately.  There is a fundamental problem associated with the assumption that Iran is inevitably going to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Back in December, Jim Walsh, Thomas Pickering, and William Luers hit the problem on the head:

This “inevitability assumption” has been a common belief in the nuclear age, and yet, it has repeatedly turned out to be wrong. The examples include Egypt, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. The assumption is tantamount to relying on a worst-case scenario, which in turn has the effect of truncating the list of potential policy options. Worse yet, an assumption that Iran is going nuclear can lead decision-makers to miss the signals and signs when a negotiated settlement is actually possible.

Today, U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency Glyn Davies told Christiane Amanpour that “the world's patience with Iran is running out. ‘It's becoming quite clear that they're preserving at least the option of developing a nuclear program. And we want all nations of the world to take note of this and draw the right conclusion.’”

I can only assume the conclusion he speaks of is that Iran is working to build, and will one day acquire, a nuclear weapon. As a result of this conclusion, the U.S. is once again focusing narrowly on sanctions, while others push for more decisive action. Ultimately, though, any and all of these tactics are aimed at preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. Not the option of a weapon; not the desire for a weapon; but a fully capable nuclear arsenal able to wipe out… well, anyone at all.

Iran does not currently have this ability…

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

I'm more important than nuclear security

With President Ahmadinijad last week boasting of the production of Iran's first batch of highly enriched uranium and its "capability to enrich at over 20 percent and at over 80 percent," the need to accurately account for and safeguard Iran’s nuclear material is of ever-pressing importance.  

Most observers agree that any weapons program in Iran is more likely to follow a clandestine path, since Tehran is unlikely to risk diverting materials from IAEA monitored facilities.  Yet just how satisfied can we be that Iran can’t actually misuse the stocks of uranium currently safeguarded by the IAEA?

Given the scope of the IAEA's worldwide responsibilities, it must rely on remote nuclear monitoring equipment to ensure that the nuclear fuel under its watch is not diverted for military use.  Many people fail to realize that this system is not fool proof.  However, the steps required to fill in these gaps and strengthen the IAEA require additional resources that the international community has to date been unwilling to provide…  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Iran Watch, IAEA (all tags)

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano

The IAEA released its latest Safeguards Report on Iran’s nuclear program today, following up a shorter statement released last week. The report confirms that Iran has begun to enrich uranium at a level of 20 percent at its Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) at Natanz.

On 14 February 2010, Iran, in the presence of Agency inspectors, moved approximately 1950 kg of low enriched UF6 from [its Fuel Enrichment Plant] to the PFEP feed station. The Agency inspectors sealed the cylinder containing the material to the feed station. Iran provided the Agency with mass spectrometry results which indicate that enrichment levels of up to 19.8% U-235 were obtained at PFEP between 9 and 11 February 2010.

To explain why it is much faster and easier for Iran to go from 20 percent to 90 percent enriched uranium, which would be required to produce a bomb, than from 5 percent to 20 percent, I defer to a true Arms Control Wonk.

Essentially, though, Iran has moved nearly its entire stock of LEU to PFEP, where a single cascade is currently producing 20 percent enriched uranium for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR).  “‘This is way more than the TRR needs and raises concerns about why Iran would be planning to convert so much’ of its low enriched uranium stockpile to higher enriched uranium,” says Jacqueline Shire of ISIS to Laura Rozen at POLITICO.

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

I ran off to the Bahamas for a week and all hell broke loose!

… okay, well, not exactly (unless you count SnOMG).

There was some bad news.  Iran will move forward with its plans to produce 20 percent Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), and has already produced its first “consignment” of the material.  At the least, this likely means an end to the already-doomed fuel swap and a big push for further sanctions, “smart” or not.

February 11, though, also marked a great disappointment for Iran’s Green Movement, which had designed what they called a “Trojan Horse” strategy in advance. In the culmination of their months of protest, backers of opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi planned to attend the official regime-backed rally commemorating the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, assemble in front of the cameras of the foreign news media, and denounce the brutality of the Iranian government for the entire world to see.

Rather, President Ahmadinejad stood in Azadi Square and informed the public, once again, that the Islamic Republic had become a “nuclear state.” I’m not sure how many times this official “announcement” can be made with the same bone-chilling affect on the media, but for now it does still seem to be working.

It has certainly sent a chill down the spine of those supporting the Iranian opposition. Foreign Policy reports that Mohammad Sadeghi, who administers Mousavi's official Facebook page, admits now “that he doesn't know what comes next” and is “at a loss.”

Since the protest movement had not previously planned its activities beyond February 11, they must now take a step back to re-evaluate, or fade into obscurity.  

As Cameron Abadi notes, “Cynicism and despair may be the order of the day among Iranian activists. They would do well, though, to remember that social movements on this scale are not a sprint, but a marathon.”

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Ahmadinejad tours Natanz

Less than a week after declaring to the international community that Iran was increasing its uranium enrichment from 3.5 to 20 percent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that the efforts were successful and that Iran should be considered among the nuclear countries of the world.  

Making his declaration at an event in Azadi Square in Tehran to commemorate the thirty-first anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad insisted that the uranium enriched to 20% was for peaceful purposes.  “The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to build nuclear bombs, we would announce it publicly without being afraid of you,” he told the crowd assembled for the observation of the anniversary.  

Uranium enriched to 20% U235 is considered highly enriched uranium that could be further enriched with relative ease to make a nuclear weapon.  Iran claims that the enriched uranium will be used in a research reactor to produce medical isotopes.  Tehran backed away from an earlier international offer to further enrich its low-enriched uranium outside the country, raising concerns that Iran’s intentions may not be as benign as it is making them out to be...

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)

Nice knowing you, Navy surface combatant

According to Reuters, the forthcoming Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 defense budget “foresees spending about $4 billion over the next five years to maintain the U.S. bomber industrial base, study plans for a possible new bomber, and upgrade existing B-2 and B-52 bombers.” Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Ashton Carter said yesterday that when it comes to details about the new bomber, "We will provide an answer on what comes next on that within the next year." Secretary Gates said previously that the new bomber would likely get around $1 billion in FY 2011.

At a HASC subcommittee hearing yesterday, CBO analyst Eric Labs said that building 12 new SSBN(X) ballistic missile submarines to replace the 14 Ohio-class subs could cost around $85 billion, with the lead ship costing $11 billion and subsequent ships costing $7 billion apiece. More modern construction techniques could help hold down costs; however, increased labor and material costs, the enhanced capabilities of all Navy subs, and the current low rate of ship construction (i.e. fixed overhead costs spread over fewer ships) might push costs upward.

At the same hearing, CRS analyst Ronald O’Rourke made the point that if the Navy pays for the new SSBN(X) out of its regular shipbuilding budget, it would have to steal money from other programs. This could reduce the total number of ships the Navy is able to procure by 56 (20 percent) and “make a substantial consolidation of some kind of the surface ship construction industrial base a distinct possibility, if not a likelihood,” according to O’Rourke. To deal with this problem, the Navy has started asking whether or not an individual service like the Navy should be responsible for spending so much of its own budget on “force structure elements that serve a national mission of strategic nuclear deterrence,” as O’Rourke put it. Loren Thompson suggested to HASC the creation of a “separate, strategic funding” category for the SSBN(X) that would keep it separate from other shipbuilding programs, a model similar to how the Department of Energy pays for U.S. nuclear warheads even though they are fielded aboard DOD-financed delivery vehicles.

One last thing covered at the hearing was the issue of ship requirements for the Obama administration's rejiggered plan for U.S. missile defense in Europe (yeah, we might consider Aegis missile defense a "strategic" budget priority now). For more detail, read what both Labs and O'Rourke said.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Table Scraps, Iran Watch, Missile Defense, Defense Spending, Posture Review, Acquisition, Navy, Air Force (all tags)

In the most recent issue of Newsweek, Sharon Begley argues that Iran’s nuclear program has become an issue of national pride akin to Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. According to Begley, for many Iranians the nuclear program now constitutes a “sacred value” and trumps rational cost-benefit analysis, creating a barrier to further diplomatic engagement.

Begley’s argument is based on a new experiment by Morteza Dehghani, Douglas Medin and colleagues in the December issue of the journal Judgment and Decision Making. The study asked 72 young (average age, 28), Iranian, college graduates if Iran should give up its nuclear program. Twenty-two percent chose “I think this definitely needs to happen,” while 15 percent chose “I do not object to this,” and 52 percent chose “this is acceptable only if the benefits of stopping the program are great enough.” Good news, right? Not according to Begley.

Begley focuses on the 11 percent who chose “this shouldn't be done no matter how great the benefits are.” This is the group for whom, according to the study, the nuclear program seems to constitute a sacred value.

Though the percentage seems small, Begley argues that “it is likely that more ordinary Iranians than educated, English-speaking Iranians—those surveyed for the study—view the nukes as a sacred value, suggesting that the 11 percent is an underestimate.”

Assuming this hypothesis is correct; it suggests a bleak outlook for current nuclear negotiations. But do they draw the rights conclusions from their experiment? Or are they overplaying the views of a fringe population that often exists at the margins of survery experiments?

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

I have an op-ed on Iran sanctions in the East Texas Review today – I’m sure you will agree with me when I say that the website’s version only adds to its charm.

Some highlights are below:

Unfortunately, the Iranian government isn’t that vulnerable to gasoline sanctions. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has both increased its refining capacity and enacted a more effective rationing program. These moves have significantly decreased its need to import petroleum products.

Instead, gasoline sanctions would inflict widespread economic hardship on the Iranian people, including those who took to the streets last year to protest what they said was Ahmadinejad’s rigged re-election. If our country forces regular Iranians to pay more for the gasoline they use every day, it won’t, as some suggest, cause a further rift between the people and their government. Rather, gasoline sanctions would inflame anti-Americanism that the regime can then exploit to further its own anti-democratic interests.

[snip]

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a powerful wing of the Iranian military that supports terrorists abroad, should be a primary target for any sanctions. Yet the Guard Corps may actually benefit from the proposed sanctions, since they could give its smuggling activities a boost. Even the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that supports these sanctions, acknowledged that the Guard Corps “is least likely to be affected” by this type of effort.

[snip]

If Congress ultimately passes unilateral gasoline sanctions this year, Ahmadinejad would have a convenient excuse for delaying negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program and continuing to stifle dissent. Are these counterproductive outcomes worth it just so a few members of Congress can go home and brag to their constituents that they are “doing something” about Iran?

Leadership isn’t about doing something. It’s about doing the right thing.

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)

Aww...

This summer, NOH’s Madeleine “MadFo” Foley called attention to rampant U.S. alarmism concerning the relationship between two men that never fail to raise hackles: Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  

Yesterday, Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal suggested that a new document, detailing an agreement “to cooperate in the field of nuclear technology,” may shed some light on the supposedly threatening Venezuela-Iran relationship. Stephens’ editorial, though, missed some key factors in the association…

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)

Though no one really thinks sanctions will work and there were other legislative options, the House voted 412 to 12 this evening to impose new petroleum sanctions on Iran.

Here's the Center's statement...

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)