In the wake of a new IAEA report on Iran, the UN Security Council has voted to impose more sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program, restricting the import of more dual-use technologies, and placing additional travel restrictions on people involved in the program.
If you want to read the IAEA report, it’s available here, though it’s pretty incomprehensible. A more accessible summary is provided by Andy Grotto at Arms Control Wonk: in essence, the Iranians have provided plausible explanations for some of the things they did during the 1990s and early 2000s, but they’ve simply denied the most, um, explosive allegations floating around.
So what are those allegations? Essentially, intelligence reports from Western agencies) that state that Iran had in the past conducted work on some key components for nuclear-tipped missiles: re-entry vehicles for its missiles, something called an exploding bridgewire detonator (required for achieving the precise detonation timing to cause most nuclear weapons to work), and a shaft dug for experimental detonations 400 metres deep. Regardless of Iran’s denials, it seems that the UN Security Council has found it all sufficiently suspicious to vote 14-0 to impose the additional sanctions; only Indonesia (a non-permanent member) abstained from the vote.
Eric Martin argues that this is further evidence that the softly-softly approach to dealing with Iran – as evidenced by the USA releasing its “National Intelligence Estimate” that indicates Iran isn’t actively pursuing warheads right now – is actually more effective than beating the drums of war.
In any case, Iran isn’t going to go away as a political issue any time soon. They continue to work on their uranium centrifuge program, including a new model centrifuge, and sooner or later they’re likely to gain sufficient uranium production capacity to churn out weapons fairly quickly if they so choose. And Israelis are likely to be profoundly unhappy about that prospect, and have a track record of acting on such unhappiness.
Interesting post. Makes me think though is attention on Iran’s nuclear ambitions warranted? Have they invaded any other nation in recent memory…compared to the US which has actually used nuclear weapons..?
Well, I’d rather they didn’t have them. And by working on them in secret under the NNPT they really have got no one but themselves to blame.
But I’d also rather the US, France, UK, China and Russia kept up their end of the NNPT and gradually disarmed, along with India, Israel and Pakistan.
Chav: from my read of the public evidence (excluding the stuff being handed to the IAEA from the intelligence agencies) Iran is going about their nuclear program in a way that only makes sense if a weapon – or at least the option to build one on short notice – is their goal.
How to interpret that is the big question. One version says that they’re – quite rationally – scared of the USA, and nuclear weapons means that they no longer risk conventional invasion. The scarier version goes that they’re a country run by fanatical nutters who will contemplate the sacrifice of a large fraction of their population to wipe Israel off the map.
The complicating factor is that even if the real situation is a), a lot of Israelis seem to think b).
Gee, this is pretty thin. Given their record in the not-so-recent past you’d have to be very, very sceptical of this sort of stuff coming out of “Western intelligence agencies”, especially if it happens to coincide with the line-du-jour of the US President. And it is Western, not just US, ones that have that problem because (as we saw in 2002) unlike their governments the spooks all follow US assessments out of spook solidarity (there’s nothing like “prvilieged access” for enhancing a career).
OTOH the vote was 14-0, which means the Russians and Chinese are convinced (either that or they’re pretending to be for reasons of their own).
And yeah, if I was Iran I’d be making sure I can get my hands on a nuke – or at least credibly threaten to – at short notice.
Robert Merkel
please don’t perpetuate the myth that Iran ever said thqt they wanted to “wipe israel off the map”…..that has been debunked repeatedly……
DD: it’s equivocal, but there’s a hell of a lot of straws in the wind. Read Arms Control Wonk if you want some more of the gory details.
For instance, it’s been documented that they did research on plutonium-210 production. It does have the odd legitimate use, but it’s not exactly a high priority for a medium-income country with a decrepit industrial sector to produce. Unless, of course, you want to make initiators for nuclear weapons.
Not to mention their ballistic missile program. Unless you’re the United States and have a bigger military budget than you know what to do with, nobody builds long-range missiles to deliver conventional explosive payloads.
Note: I meant to say polonium-210, not plutonium. Whoops. For what it’s worth, they are also building a plutonium production reactor much bigger than any “research” reactor except those in Israel, Pakistan, and India…
Understanding this SC vote in terms of what Iran’s nuclear program may or may not be up to is probably not the simplest way to do it. The US has been trying to get a UNSC vote for sanctions on Iran for ages for its own geopolitical reasons while China and Russia have been blocking it for just as long. Something must have changed China and Russia’s position. It may be this new evidence but I’m afraid I’m far too cynical to believe that. Condoleezza Rice was just in China. What did she offer in return for China’s vote? And what has changed Russia’s position? Those are the interesting questions.
virtualat… what the?
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, 2001: “this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region.” (He was talking about Israel)
Carl!: but not ‘wiped off the map’ – the idiom doesn’t exist in Farsi. The famous Amadinejad quote was more accurately rendered as: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” which doesn’t have the connotations of violence and force.
The difference between them being the difference between translating Kruschev’s “Miy vas prokhoronim” as ‘We will bury you’ or ‘we will be your undertakers’.
I did not quote Amadinejad; rather, the speech he was referring to.
And if “removing a cancerous state” does not suggest violence, then I guess we should just learn to accept that Iran only has peaceful intentions, and nuclear weapons are not even on the agenda
Carl!: they were reffering to it actually
But it’s true, stop press: Iranian Govt. Hates Israel, Wants It Gone. The question is do they have the motive or the means. I tend to think they don’t, and aren’t likely to in the medium-term, and the history of Iran and Israeli is characterised by rhetorical bluster over a strong core of pragmatism, and the eschatological stuff is a tool for domestic and international consumption not a reliable policy indicator.
Leind seems to have it about right. Whatever the rhetoric, Iran has usually foud th pulls of pragmatism stronger.
It is a great pity that the US (through Cheney-Bush) has tried to turn the Middle East, and with it The War On Terrorism, into the New Cold War. I assume it is something to do with keeping up the arms race and the powers of the Pentagon.
There is no evidence that Iran, as a Shiite bunch, is behind the destabilisation of Iraq. Yet the US continues to feed such propaganda, ignoring the catastrophe of their own incredibly incompetent invasion and occupation.
Bush, still under the delusion that he is destined for history ss a ‘wartime leader’, would love an excuse to bomb or invade Iran before he finished his term. With any luck, neither the Pentagon nor Congress will support him. Then again the man who cracked the whip in the past, Cheney, is almost as crazy.
Let’s hope Leinad is right about Israel’s pragmatism. The crazies amongst their supporters would love to see Iran destroyed.
We’re still living in dangerous times, not least because if there is a serious terrorist threat, it can bubble long very nicely in the shambles of Iraq, and protected by key US allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
I hate saying this,because most of the Jews I have met wether just that or maybe labeling themselves as Zionists are OK by me,but over at the Wonk site in Comments there is what a Iranian Minister offered the U.S.A….no takers there after all the UNO has always cost the U.S.A. money.As maybe a Israeli technology just gave me the shits.
Roll up, roll up! Watch The Amazing Wigan, as he reads a man’s mind and sees into his very heart from across the oceans.
One version says that they’re – quite rationally – scared of the USA, and nuclear weapons means that they no longer risk conventional invasion. The scarier version goes that they’re a country run by fanatical nutters who will contemplate the sacrifice of a large fraction of their population to wipe Israel off the map.
The complicating factor is that even if the real situation is a), a lot of Israelis seem to think b).
An extra complicating factor is that its in Israel’s and the United States interest for b) to be widely perceived as the case.
It aint rocket science, steve. Even our very own expert at The Oz, Greg Sheridan, has suggested that history will judge Dubya much more kindly as a wartime leader.
I don’t profess to knowing what’s going on in his mind,( not a lot most likely,if we can judge from the maximum 20 minutes he devoted to ‘thorough reviews’ of to execution pleas when Texas Governor) but it is a bit worrying to hear him spouting on about God’s calling etc.
Of course they have reason to want a nuclear deterrent. Would you rather be among North Korea and Pakistan or Iraq and Afghanistan? The basic lesson of the last decade is that if you irritate the US you better have a functioning nuclear weapon. It is also rather easy to irritate the US…
As to whether they are in the process of developing one, I will bow to greater knowledge. Having said that the Bush regime’s hysterical propagation of the idea gives me pause. There is a strong reason for them to hold a false belief and a well proven capacity.
I also wonder whether there is any recent incident of invasion by the Iranians. My memory of the regional conflicts has them more sinned against than sinning, despite the ever present anti-Israeli rhetoric.
Chav says:
Well, Iran seems to be more or less in control of Southern Lebanon and Gaza. But you’re right, it’s not like Iran is wartime Imperial Japan and murdered 15 million Chinese civilians or anything. Or shot everyone in Manila in a pique of anger because Macarthur is coming. Or bombed Darwin. But there’s time still.
And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad keeps dropping big hints about Israel being “wiped from the pages of history” and the like. But his having so much oil, no wonder he’s investing in nuclear energy as a clean, safe alternative.
So, nope. No problems there.
Anyway, Bob Ellis is predicting that George W Bush is going to bomb Iran on the evening of 6 December.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2054790.htm
Oh, wait. That was 6 December 2007 …
Always on the ball, Bob.
Hear, hear lanied @ [2]
Yes: any nation that breaks the NNPT (in secret) had better watch out ‘cos that’s playing in the biggest damn league on the planet. Working on nuclear weaponry is NOT the stuff of latte-sipping speculation and day-dreaming, it’s the stuff of seriously unhealthy warfare at the extreme end of the bomb scales. It makes training suicide bombers look like a tea party, makes demolishing an inhabited skyscraper look like an afternoon nap.
Posters, please don’t make excuses for homicidal maniacs.
I agree wholeheartedly lanied, the “major” nuclear powers should be REDUCING their nuclear weaponry, under the NNPT. It’s their part of the international bargain, and they’re dragging their feet.
For myself, the fewer nations that have these infernal weapons, the better.
cheerio
I’ve paid attention to this exchange for the past couple of years now and I’m inclined to believe Iran and that they do not have any hostile intention.
Vee
Obviously you are neither an Israeli or Lebanese
Dr. S: “Would you rather be among North Korea and Pakistan or Iraq and Afghanistan? The basic lesson of the last decade is that if you irritate the US you better have a functioning nuclear weapon. It is also rather easy to irritate the US…”
Yes, all you have to do to irritate the US is either aid and abet people who blow up downtown Manhattan (Afghanistan) or invade your geostrategically important neighbors and threaten US allies (Iraq). Pretty easy, think I’ll try it today.
Bailiff, tag this as Exhibit Z-23-Million in the “lefties genuinely can’t hear themselves” pile…
j_p_z
To be fair on Iraq, at the time of the first Gulf war they appear to have thought THEY were “geostrategically important” to the US. In any case, that was the early 90s. The second Gulf war had nothing to do with the invasion of Kuwait. Exactly what it was for is still unclear, especially given the stated reasons prior have all evaporated.
I would have thought the radical doctrine of pre-emptive war propagated by the current administration qualified as “easy to irritate”. You do not need to act against the US, you merely need to be deemed likely to do so in the future by the US intelligence agencies. Witness the current Republican candidates and their favourite child Joe Lieberman harp on pre-emptive war on Iran. The massive and un-restrained exercise of Imperial power is not without consequence. That statement contains no moral judgement and, flippancy aside, neither did my original post.
Neither of your objections invalidate the original point that pre-emptive and aggressive war produces a rational desire for deterrent. You may feel that aggression is warranted but to deny it’s predictable outcome in terms of nuclear proliferation is ridiculous.
Dr S
I have a fair idea the actual personal psychology of George W Bush and Saddam Hussein itself played a part significantly greater than most would credit. Pontificating and lecturing the Americans after September 11 probably sealed Saddam’s fate. Especially since a Bush was in the White House at the time. As I recall, Saddam gave George W and the Yanks a sermon about how they “lacked wisdom”.
I wonder if Saddam recalled that while he was standing on the gallows.
No I’m not Israeli or Lebanese and if I was from those areas and moved to Australia, I would no longer consider myself to be Israeli or Lebanese.
The political rhetoric Iran uses in wiping them from the map, I believe they will do it (That would make it not rhetoric) but only if whatever country they are using that rhetoric against does not back down or moderate their actions. Until such a time that that does not occur, it remains rhetoric.
“I have a fair idea the actual personal psychology of George W Bush and Saddam Hussein itself played a part significantly greater than most would credit.”
Yes, I can see some light and merit in that observation. Dubya wanting to show Daddy he could do it better.
“Pontificating and lecturing the Americans after September 11 probably sealed Saddam’s fate.”
So you’re saying the Bush administration was goaded into a pointless multibillion dollar adventure by the taunts of some tinpot third world dictator? In that case, going after Castro would have been cheaper and easier. And more mediagenic. On the other hand Cuba’s not sitting on top of around a trillion dollars worth of a keystone resource for modern civilisation is it?
I’m also willing to hazard a suspicion that Eliot Ramsay has appeared regularly here before under another name, oh say about 18 months to two years ago.
Why don’t you start a Rolling Stones thread and see who pops their opinions up? Especially about the much neglected Mick Taylor years.
Vee says:
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supports Hamas, doesn’t he? So, presumably he shares Hamas’s assesssment of todays massacre of Jewish school students in Jerusalem as “heroic”?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/07/2182729.htm
It’s great stuff, isn’t it?
Nabakov asks;
Stranger things have happened. Going after the Castro boys would be a mistake from a conservative viewpoint, I’d say. The longer those senile incompetents and their imbecilic protege Hugo Chavez are spearheading the Revolution, capitalism is safe.
Nabakov asks;
Actually, I’d never heard of this blog until the other day when it was recommended on Tim Blair’s blog.
So you’d admit that GWB is an irrational decision-maker? That he would wage war and bankrupt the most power country on earth simply on matters of personal pride? I seem to recall one Christopher Hitchens mounting an argument that Saddam’s lack of rationality necessitated military action because an irrational leader cannot be contained realpolitik style.
That does encourage nation states to develop their own deterrent capabilities, exacerbating the issue. And people wonder why there’s so much anti-Americanism in the world today…
There are better options that the NNPT for controlling nuclear technology – selling nuclear deterrence insurance to any and all takers (even individuals if they can afford it), is one example. Technology suppression (like we’re doing) fails in the long run, as does technology obsolescence (why build nukes when you can build and actually use something like a kinetic harpoon dropped from orbit? Leads to the same problem down the track).
Tony D says:
So, you’d “admit” that Hamas is “heroic”?
Wtf Eliot? HAMAS heroic? I don’t personally agreed with that but I can see how some people would think so. You haven’t read much Vonnegut have you?
Heroism is a relative concept, whereas rational decision making is the concept that underpins most modern theories of governance and economics.