Nuclear September

Sat, 08/29/2009 - 10:38pm

One of the big stories over the next few days, and, indeed, for the rest of this month, is going to be the (largely) Western drive to bring Iran's nuclear program to heel. Along with the war in Afghanistan, this issue could come to define Barack Obama's presidency, especially if Iran does weaponize or if the United States or Israel decides to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Last week, the IAEA teed up a fresh round of debate by circulating a new report outlining Iran's technical progress since June 5 and its compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and various U.N. resolutions. You can read it here, though don't ask me to explain it all...

Commenting on the report, nuke wonk Jeffrey Lewis says, "Iran is not slowing its nuclear program, ok?" He then goes on to analyze Iran's recent expansion of centrifuges, which are grouped in "cascades" to enrich uranium.

"I continue to believe that Iran will install between 3-5 cascades a month for the next five years, barring some external intervention, until Natanz houses its complete set of 54,000 centrifuges," he adds.

The big news making headlines in Israel is the report's mention of "possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program, a murky subject the agency wants Tehran to clarify. This is important because to be in compliance with the NPT, Iran has to prove that its nuclear activities are peaceful. Israel's Foreign Ministry is hammering the IAEA for allegedly withholding information on the militarization issue, which presumably means that Israel has supplied the IAEA with intelligence that the agency didn't discuss in the report.

(It also sounds like the IAEA is trying to get member states to let the agency share some of the documents they've given it directly with Iran, so that the Islamic Republic can respond to whatever it is being accused of.)

Asked Friday about the report, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said, "As the IAEA's report makes clear, the recent limited and overdue steps Iran has taken fall well short of Iran's obligations and do not constitute the full and comprehensive cooperation required of Iran."

"Absent Iranian compliance with its international nuclear obligations and full transparency with the IAEA," he continued, "the international community cannot have confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear program."

On Wednesday, the P5+1, the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, are going to meet to talk over the report and figure out what to do next. Then, IAEA member countries will hold their annual meeting in Vienna, where Iran will top the agenda. Meanwhile, Obama has said that unless Iran takes him up on his offer of talks ahead of the U.N. General Assembly's opening session next month, he'll push for new sanctions that his secretary of state has said should be "crippling."

Then what? Stay tuned.

Photo by the Office of the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran via Getty Images

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

"don't ask me to explain it all"

by Don Bacon on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 3:03am

Blake, there are only two things you have to know.

1. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) encourages the peaceful development of nuclear power but places safeguards on the diversion of nuclear materials for weapons. "Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

Note that IAEA safeguards are for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons. That is, any witch hunts by the IAEA involving mysterious laptops or heavy water reactors, or other matters not involving diversion, are legally outside IAEA jurisdiction.

2. The IAEA has consistently found that there is no diversion of nuclear materials in Iran, most recently in the IAEA report of 28 August 2009: "The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."

It's more complicated than that, Don

by Blake Hounshell on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 11:00am

It's clear the IAEA isn't satisfied that Iran has answered all its questions, and it's also clear Iran "has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council," per the report.

Also noted, "Contrary to the requests of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has neither
implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to engage Iran in any substantive discussions about these outstanding issues for over a year."

Well, yes, Blake,

by Don Bacon on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 3:11pm

I do tend to simplify, but I believe it's valid to do so in this case because the NPT is clear in its requirements and the IAEA has been clear in its findings.

The UN Security Council, for political reasons dictated by the US, has subverted the IAEA and used it to act outside of its charter with regard to Iran, and only Iran. The IAEA "questions" are illegal because the IAEA is legally limited EXCLUSIVELY to verifying the prevention of diversion. Nothing else. No examination of laptops, missile programs, reactors, etc. Nothing else.

The UNSC, under US direction, either disregards the IAEA (as with Iraq) or misuses it, as in this case.

When is Israel, who is behind much of this Iran warmongering, going to be asked some "questions" by the IAEA? Never.

Iran is not legally required to implement any Additional Protocol. It did so a few years ago, but ended its voluntary implementation when Bush named them a part of his Axis of Evil and threatened military action. Iran also is not legally required to prove a negative (remember Iraq?), that is to prove there are no military dimensions to its nuclear program.

Why are people having difficulty recognizing Iraq redux, and that the current "crisis" is simply an extension of a long-running political quarrel that the US (now with heavy Israeli/AIPAC influence) has had with Iran? It has little to do with nuclear matters and everything to do with politics.

Let me see if I have this right...

by Curious observer on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 6:49am

Israel has complained for years that Iran's nuke program is military in nature. But this is the first time to my knowledge that Israel is complaining about another nation's compliance with a treaty Israel itself refuses to sign. That's chutzpah!

paradox

by deconstructor on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 1:04am

it is a bizzare picture that Israel which enjoys advanced nuclear weapons and refuses to sing the NNP Treaty complains about the non-compliance of other memeber state to the Treaty. It is really funny!

Nuclear September

by Harvey---------... on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 1:45pm

Israel has chutzpah indeed while continuing to blocade Gaza.

The Crusade agaist Islam seemingly engineered by neocons and Israel has the US and UK not looking for the best interests of the World or their own countries.