Nuclear Iran – Moon of Alabama

September 21, 2004

Nuclear Iran

Just as I start to write about Iran and the IAEA, George Monbiot of The Guardian comes up with much better writing in Proliferation treaty .

Here is the world’s most nonsensical job description. Your duty is to work tirelessly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And to work tirelessly to encourage the proliferation of the means of building them. This is the task of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei.
…
His agency’s motto – “Atoms for Peace” – wasn’t always a lie. In 1953, when Eisenhower founded it with his famous speech to the United Nations, people really seemed to believe that nuclear fission could solve the world’s problems.
…
The nuclear powers, he said, “should… make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials” which should then be given to “the power-starved areas of the world”, “to provide abundant electrical energy”. This would give them, he argued, the necessary incentive to forswear the use of nuclear weapons.
…
Now there are about 20 countries which, as a result of foreign help for their civilian nuclear programmes, could, if they choose, become nuclear weapons states within months. When Russia shipped uranium and the technologies required to build a bomb to Iran, it not only had a right to do so: under the non-proliferation treaty, it had a duty to do so.

It’s not yet clear whether Iran has stepped over the brink. It is plainly enriching uranium and producing heavy water, which could enable it to build both uranium- and plutonium-based bombs. But both processes are also legitimate means of developing materials for nuclear power generation.
…
Both the US and the UK have abandoned their own obligations to disarm, and appear to be contemplating a new generation of nuclear weapons. Both governments have also suggested that they would be prepared to use them pre-emptively. Iran is surrounded by American military bases, and is one of the two surviving members of the axis of evil. The other one, North Korea, has been threatening its neighbours with impunity. Why? Because it has the bomb. If Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons programme, it hasn’t understood the drift of global politics.

Let me add some links to further the point. The International Atomic Energy Agency was setup after Eisenhower´s speech to the UN General Assembly. Any sovereign country may sign the IAEA statute and join or leave the organization at its will.

The US pressure on the IAEA and Iran is ridicules, when the US supports Israel not only by harmless giveaways like 5,000 smart bombs but also by not discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons at the IAEA. The US also refrains from pressure on South Korea that has, unlike Iran, broken its IAEA obligation at least twice in recent years.
Other friends of the US suspect of military nuclear ambitions are Japan and Taiwan.

Iran today announced to restart work on machines for enriching uranium. There are legal duties for IAEA members to support this. There is no legal ground to hinder Iran by any means.

When Eisenhower initiated “Atoms for Peace”, the promise was to help countries to develop civil nuclear capacity while the military nuclear powers would diminish their arsenals. Part one of these promises were fulfilled, part two never got traction.

This is the reason why there are Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb. There are no good options until the US restrains itself from the US plan for new nuclear arsenal and gets equal handed and serious about proliferation.

Posted by b on September 21, 2004 at 11:28 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Well, the original officiali list of nuclear power is easy: the 5 permanent members of Security Council, USA, Russia, China, France, UK. Add to that the shadowy member of both clubs (thanks to current US policy for SC and to past French policy for nuclear tech), Israel, and the new members from late 90s, India and Pakistan. Add also the widely suspected N Korea.
We may want to consider the wannabes now, which is apparently made up of up to 20 members that are very close and mostly lack the will and a quick massive funding, and up to 20 more if we add all those who considered it once or are considering it now and have enough to get there in a few years. That make a pretty interesting list (I included those that are known to have seeked nukes, or have/had a nuclear civilian program decent enough to have the stuff and basic knowledge to go quite far; having a decent economy helps, which explains why countries that are quite minor but industrialised are in – in fact I could’ve put every European nation with more than 4-5 mio people).
– Iran (obviously)
– Japan
– S Korea
– S Africa
– Argentina
– Brazil
– Germany
– Italy
– Spain
– Poland
– Ukraine (hosted Soviet nukes but had to give them up)
– Mexico
– Canada
– Algeria
– Netherlands
– Taiwan
– Australia
– Belgium
– Switzerland
– Turkey
– Saudi Arabia
– Egypt
– Nigeria
– Indonesia
Not on the list at the moment (recently withdrawn but able to make a comeback): Libya and Iraq
As I said, I suppose I may consider countries like Hungary, Portugal, Sweden, Kazakhstan. The mess is so big and worsening I wonder if countries like Peru, Sudan and Vietnam shouldn’t be included.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 21 2004 13:06 utc | 1

Well Sweden canceled its nuclear weapons program in the fifties when because it was funnier to use all those money on building the welfare state. And it became clear that Sweden could count on Nato nuclears if invaded by USSR. Since then Sweden has taken the moral high grounds: We chose not to make nuclear weapons for the sake of mankind and so on… 🙂
And I think this points to the way of making the world safer from nuclear proliferation: No more wars, so that nations doesn´t need to feel threathened. Where is that Kellogg when you need him?

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Sep 21 2004 14:36 utc | 2

The unpleasant but seemingly inevitable prospect for the next century is widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons: presumably the technology required for separating the
fissionable isotopes becomes more efficient,
less expensive, and more widely known with each passing year. Furthermore it is not unlikely that we will see instances of
national nuclear arsenals being dispersed as could well have happened with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Motives for such proliferation could be either purely mercenary or ideological solidarity against
a common perceived enemy (most likely the United States). It requires an act of sublime faith to believe that such circumstances can lead to a stable peace rather than nuclear holocaust. Feynman and other physicists foresaw all of this from the beginning. The attempt to pre-emptively destroy budding nuclear programs has already been tried (by Israel), but it’s hard to believe that a policy of pre-emptive air strikes and selective assassination will be successful in the long term. But then, as Keynes put it, and never more aptly than in this case,
“in the long run we are all dead”.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Sep 21 2004 14:41 utc | 3

The connection between the Iran program and the Israel/US bomb deal Eyeing Iran Reactors, Israel Seeks U.S. Bunker Bombs

The United States plans to sell Israel $319 million worth of air-launched bombs, including 500 “bunker busters” able to penetrate Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, Israeli security sources said on Tuesday.

Posted by: b | Sep 21 2004 15:12 utc | 4

an increasingly interesting question as consequence of the many voices which predict the collapse of the US in the near future is, what will happen with the giant ABC arsenal of the US when there are no resources and no organization to secure it ?
one has just to look at the eyeball series at cryptome.org to wonder who and with what resources will be able to secure the giant bases when there is no “us army” there anymore with the capability to keep looters and other criminal elements away from all this dangerous stuff.

Posted by: name | Sep 21 2004 15:24 utc | 5

I copied this list a while back from a book I was reading, and I know it is missing more recent administrations, but I found it quite revealing.
US contracts to build nuclear reactors
=========================
Duration // Administration // Country
1957-1988 // Eisenhower // South Africa
1958-2002 // Eisenhower // Israel
1959-1979 // Eisenhower // Iran
1963-1993 // Kennedy // India
1969-1999 // Nixon // Argentina
1972-2002 // Nixon // Taiwan
1972-2002 // Nixon // Brazil
1973-2002 // Nixon // South Korea
1974-2002 // Nixon // Portugal

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 21 2004 15:57 utc | 6

11:57 post above was me

Posted by: b real | Sep 21 2004 15:59 utc | 7

Opinion piece in the International Herald Tribune Israel’s nukes serve to justify Iran’s

to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons is a laudable objective. But for the United States, Britain and France to insist on it is hypocritical.

Posted by: b | Sep 22 2004 8:53 utc | 8

Back to Main