Bush Vows to Prevent Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Arms
The main question is what Bush is willing to do in the rest of his presidency to prevent the country ruled by Mullahs from developing nuclear weapons.
President Bush said the Iranian government has “declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people” and vowed that the United States would be “firm” in preventing Tehran’s acquisition of such arms.
In interviews yesterday to mark the Iranian new year, Bush said Iran has a right to build civilian nuclear power plants but that the government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium, according to White House transcripts released today. Different types of enriched uranium can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors or as fissile material for atomic bombs.
“The Iranians should have a civilian nuclear power program. It’s in their right to have it,” Bush told Radio Farda, a U.S.-funded radio station that broadcasts to Iran in Farsi, the Iranian language.
“The problem is the government cannot be trusted to enrich uranium because one, they’ve hidden programs in the past and they may be hiding one now, who knows; and secondly, they’ve declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people — some in the Middle East,” Bush said. “And that’s unacceptable to the United States, and it’s unacceptable to the world.”
One gets the impression that the rhetoric is changing, slightly at least. If one would propose a plan that would make it easier to check what the Iranians are doing, America may agree with it. And, in the end, why not? If the rest of the world can be sure that the uranium isn’t used for weapons, but only for energy, there’s no problem.
How to check that, however? If you truly believe that the Iranians can’t be trusted - and I agree with Bush on this one - can you come up with a system of checks that would make it impossible for the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons? Is such a program bulletproof?
An expert asked by the WaPo about what Bush said, rightfully pointed out, by the way, that the Mullahs never literally said that they want to have nuclear weapons. That’s true. But Bush, obviously, believes that “wipe Israel off the map,” means doing so by using nuclear weapons against the Jewish nation-state. And I think that’s a fair assessment; using conventional weapons alone, Israel can never be destroyed.
Above all though, the West has to be prudent about this issue. The mistakes made with regards to Iraq shouldn’t be repeated.
Compliance with Non-Proliferation Treaty: Iran Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Russia (US threat), China (Russia and US threat), India (Chinese threat) and Pakistan (Indian threat) developed their nuclear bomb to reduce the threat of nuclear bomb by their adversaries. Israel developed nuclear bomb to decrease threats from her Arabic neighbors. To limit further spread of nuclear bombs, the United Nations non-proliferation treaty (NPT), July 1, 1968 was started; 189 nations are member if this treaty. NPT is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technologyThe objective of non-proliferation act is to stop diversion of nuclear materials for making bomb. However; United States, Russia, England, France, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan already have nuclear bombs. India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, have not joined the non-proliferation treaty, thus they are not subject to the requirements. The procedure for non-proliferation management was not intended to interfere with the rights of nations to develop fuel cycle for non-military purposes. IAEA has the authority to inspect fuel cycle activities of each nation to show compliance with the non-proliferation requirements. Iran has been developing nuclear fuel cycle for electric power generation. Israel and the United States had indicated that the knowledge of the nuclear fuel cycle will allow Iran in the future to develop nuclear bomb. They demanded Iran must stop further development of her fuel cycle activities. Iran has already acquired the knowledge. Iran justifiably would not intend to abrogate her rights for development of nuclear fuel cycle. Iran had suggested an international joint operation of her nuclear fuel cycle to allay the fear of Israel and the United States. Iran is open to other nations joining her nuclear fuel cycle program. By participation of other nations and unannounced IAEA inspection, Iran would be unable to divert nuclear materials. It is imperative we accept the invitation start talking with Iran; it is face saving for Iran, the United States and Israel. This consortium mode of nuclear fuel production could be emulated by other aggregate of nations. The Iranian consortium would be a first step to a full international management of all fuel production. This is a practical approach to non-proliferation treaty, stopping further proliferation of nuclear bombs and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
St. Michael, I hope you are not just a drive-by because your analysis is correct. It also, however, begs the following question: How can Iran reassure the world that its intentions are limited to the peaceful use of nuclear technology?
The whole controversy started when Iran was found to be hiding some elements of its nuclear program from the IAEA. Therefore, Iran now has a credibility problem. How do you propose Iran could legitimately alleviate that problem?
Jason,Remember, the United States missed a great opportunity to diffuse the conflict over the Iranian fuel production. President Bush remarked several times over the last 6 years that he did not want Iranians to know anything about nuclear science. But they did! We did not allow them to import simple Geiger counters much less access to the benefits of membership under NPT treaty for useful application of nuclear science for peaceful applications. We don’t allow them ordinary access to civilian aircraft parts for the aircrafts that we had sold them. Would we have been in the Iranian shoes, what would we have done? Please read the following books: "Deception Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons" by Levy and Scott-Clark "Danger and Survival, Choices about the bomb in the first fity years" by McGeorge Bundy. IAEA responsibility is to demonstrate compliance of NPT requirements by unannounced inspection, on site active and remote monitoring of all aspects of the operation. In addition, presence of non-Iranian scientists and engineers participating as members of consortium would deter any IAEA unauthorized fuel associated Iranian activities. At present, countries that developed nuclear bomb were forced to do it, such as Pakistan and Israel. Both nations were assisted by our directly or indirectly by our United States government. IAEA has indicated that Iran is in compliance with the NPT requirements; we want Iran to stay in compliance in the future. We must not create conditions that force Iran to develop nuclear bomb, such as threats from US and Israel. Unless we could develop a better mode of operation for non-proliferation treaty than an international consortium for fuel production, we should support the Iranian invitation and join them.
This would assume a complete and accurate Iranian disclosure of the location of ALL of its nuclear research and fuel processing sites. But this is PRECISELY the area where Iran has hidden things in the past.
So my question remains: How can Iran convince the world that it is opening ALL of its nuclear sites to unannounced IAEA inspections?
I agree that negotiations are a better route at this time, but we have to have some idea of what we are insisting upon in those negotiations. Iran should not be allowed to insist that we just trust them without verification.
Jason, we are both on the same track. We do not want any further development of nuclear bombs by any other nation. Any fuel production activity which could lead to developing bomb would not be small scale. To produce enough highly enriched U-235 that could be used in making several nuclear bombs, would require diversion of large amount of uranium milled and converted prior to enrichment. It would demand large amount of electricity. The enrichment facility would be large and comparable to our own facilities. None of these activities can be hidden from our remote space monitoring and IAEA inspections. No one would accept anyone’s statement; it has to verifiable. However; the fundamental question is what would be the rationale for Iranian people to want to develop nuclear bomb. As I had said earlier, we must stop pushing the nation to edge of survival instincts! Please scan the blogs today and the news for Iran. One of the often reported items is that we are planning to coordinate an attack on Iran, sometimes indicated using nuclear bombs! Are these reports and news out of reality of the world today? Truman said: ?Starting an atomic war is totally unthinkable for rational men.? I do not consider the Iranian people to be irrational! This nation has been subjected to harsh treatments over the last 150 years by the same nations that together are accusing Iran; these including US, England and France. In spite of the colonialist treatments, Iranian people are one of the friendliest people to the United States. We should accept that our president and the Iranian president are both anomalies in the international landscape. Both may be treated unkindly by the history. We must trust the Iranian people and their self-interests to survive. A nuclear bomb would not increase their survival. Japan and Germany are both highly respected nations with advance nuclear knowledge. But neither one of these nations has a desire to develop nuclear bomb. It is often said: "Iran wants to be the Japan of the Middle East."
Presumption of "rationality" is a thin reed upon which to rely exclusively. Much research has shown that what is "rational" is often perceived very differently by different sides or even different individuals. We require verification to be SURE that all sides continue to operate on a shared understanding of what is "rational" self-interest.
So while I agree with you that the Iranian people have no interest as I understand it in developing a nuclear warhead, I cannot make the same assumption regarding Iranian leadership. I cannot overlook the political incentives that Iranian politicians have to pursue policies that are aggressive in order to produce a diversion for their people from domestic political problems. The international relations literature on "diversionary war" is too extensive and too well-supported by empirical examples to just ignore.
So we’re back AGAIN to my ongoing question: How can we be reassured that Iran doesn’t hide a nuclear weapons program within a civilian program? You posit that a large facility would be required, I disagree. Iran could split the work among 100 smaller facilities, putting small amounts of nuclear material together only at the end.
To me, the key issue is purity, not reprocessing itself. Civilian nuclear power requires relatively low levels of purity in uranium while military applications require very high levels of purity. So if Iran could be persuaded to make a FULL and COMPLETE disclosure of its nuclear facilities AND if that could be monitored by tracking the COMPLETE fuel cycle from mining through utilization, it would THEN be possible to detect any cheating and provide a high-confidence assurance that Iran is keeping its promise not to weaponize.
But Iran has to be willing to be that open. So far, it has not been so.
Jason
we are in full agreement on this issue. But where do we start?
Iranians have offered a consortium mode of operation and we are invited. Let us accept their invitation and start talking on the basis of complete transparency from mining to the final fuel fabrication. Unless we talk together, we are not going to remove the mutual distrust! Without a bridge, we can not cross the "mistrust" river.
We talked with the Soviet Russia. We are partners in trade with the Communist China. Iran wants an invitation to the calm waters of international trades and exchanges; that is the biggest bargaining chips we have.
Democracy in Iran only would flourish if we remove the stain of our ill advised labeling of the nation (the axis of evil) and open an all none exclusive dialogue. I think majority of our Americans, and those who are knowledgeable about Iran are suggesting that our government to take the route of diplomacy and remove the threat of aggression. We desire the Iranian friendly population to stay friendly.
Jason, I thank you for your responses.
PRNK kicked out inspectors and used extracted Pu from civialian/research reactors. All modern nuclear weapons prograns use Pu, not U-235. Iran is playing "cat and mouse", but does allow AIEA to inspect sites. When Iran starts to extract Pu is the time to bomb, not now, not even close.
Rudi66, Iran does not have any reactor that produces Pu-239. Israeli reactor, a French design, is a perfect Pu breeder. Israel bombs were made using the Pu extracted from this reactor. Iranian civilian reactor, designed by Russia, was not designed for Pu-239 production; it is intended for production of electricity. The spent fuels from this reactor are to be sent back to Russian for disposal. Therefore, there will be no Pu-239 extraction on the Iranian soil. Allow IAEA to do the job. They are very competent. Please join me to demand elemination of all nuclear bombs.