- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
May 16, 2009
Exclusive: Iran: Plutonium or Uranium? Does It Matter? (Part Three of Three)
Click here for Part One; click here for Part Two.
The U.S. Question Mark
Is Washington allowing Tehran to save face? When two of the most senior members of our military offer widely differing views of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, perhaps we have more to worry about than any one state actor; perhaps we have to wonder what are our leaders thinking, and are they up to the task of protecting us?
Recently Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen was asked on a television interview if Iran had enough nuclear material for the construction of a bomb. He answered, “We think they do, quite frankly.”
This is in stark contrast to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (also a former CIA Director) who, speaking on a different television program, countered, “They’re not close to a stockpile, they’re not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time. The US would continue to pursue additional sanctions, while also leaving an opportunity for Iran to engage with Europe as a means to walk away from that (nuclear) program.”
Let’s see – an admiral who spent his life in harm’s way to protect the U.S. or a political appointee; who would you believe?
Why the polar opposite answers? First, Gates was being a tad disingenuous – “stockpile” or “enough for a bomb” are two different things. The difference is startling – even just one nuclear weapon in the hands of Tehran is the game changer. Anything else just puts an exclamation point on the issue. Second, President Obama is “all in” with the talk strategy. Not that diplomacy isn’t a valuable or worthy effort, but in what language does Tehran have to say we want a nuclear program even though they vehemently deny weapons aspirations? If that were the case, why has there been so much secrecy for two decades? Why the dual use technology? Simple LWR would do the trick to provide energy. Let the U.S. sell them a bunch of Hyperion Power Generation’s mini nuclear fission reactor that will provide electricity and hot water to remote locations. So far there is a wait list; but with a missive from Obama, I’d bet a few would be freed up! To date, the Czechs seem to be first in line. If it is good enough for their energy needs, wouldn’t it be so for Iran? And experts suggest they would not pose a serious security threat. Third, why the missile defense and anti aircraft systems surrounding the nuclear facilities? Who attacks a commercial use only reactor?
The notion that somehow cutting Tehran’s allowance by sanctions, or talking them off the ledge or offering them tickets to Euro Disney will get them to yield the pot when they are holding four aces, it is startling in the logic’s impotence – unless it works. So far, the report card isn’t Ivy League material.
Has Secretary Gates read the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) report that offered “Iran had reached nuclear weapons breakout capability”?
Not surprisingly, the IAEA challenged making conclusions from their (IAEA) data. That’s confidence in one’s work! Well it actually makes sense given the IAEA continue to be caught off guard with underestimates of Iran’s capabilities. They counter ISIS and Mullen with the notion Iran’s LEU would still have to undergo further enrichment. How hard would that be given Iran already has 7,000 centrifuges at Netanz (more than IAEA originally thought Iran had), according to Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the man in charge of Iran’s nuclear program announced? And if they disclose they have 7,000, up from the 6,000 he admitted to in February, the number is or soon will be closer to 8,000. Iran plans to install more than 50,000 centrifuges in five years. Does that sound like Tehran plans to abandon its capabilities? Tell me again why Iran needs to enrich uranium when Russia is only too happy to sell the reactor fuel to them? Oh, right – for weapons they don’t intend to make, aren’t going to put in a warhead or – perish the thought – not use to blackmail the West.
Perhaps reading my mind, Aghazadeh said Iran wants to use the enriched fuel for its first domestically built nuclear reactor planned for Darkhovin, scheduled to open in 2016. Wow, isn’t Tehran the long term planner!
At a current level of 7,000 centrifuges, the number of which is increasingly growing, can provide the ability under the right circumstances to take the LEU of ~1,100 kg Iran has, and process it into 25 kg of HEU – weapons grade; the minimum necessary to produce one U235 bomb.
Discussion
“If you want peace, prepare for war.” – Sun Tzu
The wisdom of Sun Tzu, prophetic for centuries, seems to have eluded the current leadership in Washington.
“Even peace may be purchased at too high a price” – Benjamin Franklin
President Reagan is often quoted as saying “trust, but verify.” Given the relative inability to effectively scrutinize Iran’s nuclear program, even amidst their protestations against a military application of their technology, what viable, sustainable and effective strategy is there to put the genie back in the bottle?
Failing the miraculous, we mere mortals must face some difficult questions.
1. Do we believe Tehran? Is their nuclear program strictly peaceful and Ahmadinejad merely using the potential for weapons as enough of a bargaining chip to throw the West off balance? Or as a way of not being the only country among countries in the area without nuclear?
2. Just because Pakistan, Israel, Russia and India have nukes, is that justification for Iran to also possess them? Where do we draw the line? Can we?
3. Do we think sanctions and global pressure will work? When you consider we are entering what round of sanctions against Iran, with Congress and the UN trying to figure out how to draft the language in the next series of sanctions – in spite of these global efforts Iran is making great progress in their nuclear program. Given that Russia and a number of Euro and Asian nations are more than willing to do business with Iran, locking the front door, but leaving the back door open doesn’t appear to be a great approach. I could be wrong.
4. What if Iran already has at least one or two nuclear weapons? Regardless if they are in warheads or not, the million dollar questions – where are they, do we allow Israel to conduct a widespread air strike or surgical one, and should we consider going to war over this? Russia rolled the tanks into Georgia last August for a lot less. But they also faced near zero resistance. As an aside, Georgia is one of the cross roads country for smuggling; including glow in the dark stuff. While it is unlikely Russia would stand up to us militarily if either Israel or the US took that route; there are other wild cards at play. Iran would not roll over and play dead. They could also exacerbate problems in the Gulf region.
5. At what point does the West decide a nuclear Iran is unacceptable? Is a nuclear Iran unacceptable?
6. When will we get serious about limiting membership in the nuclear club? The following are just a few issues that continue to hamstring our efforts:
a. For too long our approaches have failed. Largely because we cannot control China or Russia or Pakistan or scientists for hire or smugglers or the North Koreans or…... Technology, especially nuclear technology is BIG business.
b. The UN and the world are only too eager to accept folks at face value that they only want these materials for peaceful purposes. Why? Oil, gas, money, fear of radical violence. As long as countries like Iran have a few nations willing to give them political cover and the benefit of the doubt, our ability to limit dual use nuclear technology will be markedly limited.
c. And with the veto power of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, putting teeth into IAEA or any other approach that would limit Moscow or Beijing or others who have supplied nuclear technology become untenable.
d. World borders, shipping and cargo are too porous. Even with radiation detectors. Oh wait, DHS has not yet decided if we will have total radiation detection at our ports. It’s only 8 years post 9/11. OK so much for limiting the import of this stuff.
e. Too many cartels willing to look the other way. The U.S. cannot go it alone even if our leaders had the courage and stomach to take a strong stand. Where is Margaret Thatcher when we need her to stop the world’s leaders from being so wobbly about this issue?
Ironically, the U.S. is the biggest question mark in the game. Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria – they are known quantities with a well defined mission statement. Putin has never wavered from his goal of Russian geopolitical influence (dominance), energy hegemony, and countering the influence of the United States. It would seem POTUS 44 is handing Putin what he has worked tirelessly to achieve – enough cards in the big game to win. President Obama has put both Iran and Russia in the driver’s seats. Which leaves us with something worth examining: U.S. foreign policy – is that an oxymoron? Still a work in progress; we’ll get back to you on this one.
So the real question – do we get it? Do we understand every action for the last 10 years between Russia and Iran, the Stan nations and hostiles worldwide has been carefully orchestrated to position Russia as the new sheriff? Russia has the luxury of giving minor concessions – but not lasting ones – at a time when the US needs a friend. Team Putin comes out the hero. While our support for Israel grows tepid, and our leadership even among some of the more moderate Muslim nations is under scrutiny, Russia, not fearing US opinion, continues to forge strong ties in the Middle East, especially among the more radical nations; recall Russia sent it’s Navy to Syria and has committed to refurbish the Port of Tartus – not surprisingly it will become an important base, in the process countering Israeli and U.S. Navy influence in the region.
What is most worrisome, instead of acknowledging Iran is following a Putin playbook, President Obama actually thinks Ahmadinejad can be dissuaded from his nuclear aspirations. No way; the Iranian leader is having far too much fun at our expense. POTUS compounds this weak approach by believing Russia has an interest in preventing Ahmadinejad from becoming nuclear. Iran has Russian nuclear technology, scientists, and advisors for sale. In what language does that sound like the Kremlin is distancing itself from or trying to restrict Tehran’s nuclear ambitions? Russia is committed to Iran; the former will sell the latter nuclear fuel for reactors; albeit Tehran is rapidly working on self sufficiency.
As part of his strategy to bring Russia back to global dominance, Putin through a variety of alliances clearly considers Iran a valued partner if not pure proxy; he’s committed resources – military and technological (nuclear, energy, weapons, industrial). Even when Iran and Russia dispute some Caspian rights, the partnership remains. As part of his strategy to remedy the humiliation the West imposed upon his nation, Putin has set his eyes on virtually every region – from South America to Central Asia, Europe and the Middle East. By identifying nations ruled by leaders aligned with his own philosophy – Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Cuba for example, or assisting nations that undermine our efforts – he is able to gain a foothold worldwide. Through the use of military might, economic influence or energy extortion, he is unwavering in his goals. We should take Putin at his word. Russia is also building, shielding or enabling nuclear proxies that can be an extension of his doctrines.
Conclusion
“Tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world: now could I drink hot blood,
And do such bitter business, as the day
Would quake to look on.” – Hamlet
When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world: now could I drink hot blood,
And do such bitter business, as the day
Would quake to look on.” – Hamlet
Few threats evoke images of horror and raise as much concern as nuclear weapons or radiation events. The proliferation of nuclear and radiological materials globally, and the technology to create radiation-based weapons is evolving and spreading. Consider the growing group of nations in possession of nuclear weapons and others pursuing dual-use programmes – for energy and weapons. Numerous suitcase-sized one kilotonne thermonuclear weapons reportedly are missing and unaccounted for from the former Soviet Union. Concerns persist that they will appear on the black market and in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as Chechnyan extremists have expressed interest in obtaining, or have tested and attempted to deploy various types of radiological weapons.
Although the possession of nuclear weapons, even improvised ones, can dramatically alter the balance of power in a region (think North Korea, or India and Pakistan, or the potential for Iran to become a nuclear weapons nation) one of the primary reasons terrorists may elect to use radiological weapons is not necessarily to cause immense physical damage or loss of life, but to create widespread panic, psychological fear and undermine civilian authorities. The mere mention of a potential radiological release could cause significant and immediate public concern. Fortunately, to date, most intentional radiation related incidents have involved murder and assassination.
In the December 2008 report to the United States President and Congress World At Risk by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, “unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.” The Commission further believes that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon. But they hasten to caution, nuclear materials are increasingly unaccounted for worldwide; worrisome since certain terror groups have expressed interest in deploying a radiological or nuclear weapon.
The WAR report suggests unsecured materials, weapons trafficking and the ability for “dual use” of nuclear materials – items that can be used in civilian energy or weapons - is an increasing threat worldwide.
The future stability of Pakistan is a significant source of concern as a nuclear nation; their ability to secure those weapons in an unstable and dangerous region remains unknown. In a 2007 poll sponsored by the well-respected magazine Foreign Policy, among 117 terrorism experts queried about nuclear threats, 74% considered Pakistan the country most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists in the next three to five years.
According to the National Nuclear Security Administration, Russia is a great concern as a source for radioactive materials. Then President, Vladimir Putin, admitted there were several suitcase thermonuclear weapons unaccounted for after the fall of the Soviet Union and international inspectors have raised concerns that some fissile and radioactive materials remain poorly secured in certain regions of Russia.
The availability of radioactive and nuclear materials to terrorist organizations is widely considered both a grave international threat and realistic exigency. It is well recognized that instructions on how to make a crude radiological or nuclear weapon are available on the Internet. The expertise is also available. The “x” factor – and final, lethal step to successfully developing a viable weapon, is acquiring the appropriate radioactive materials.
Is Iran becoming “most favored nation” in the current administration?
President Obama is banking on his ability to win the hearts and minds of Iran and its radical allies. He has agreed to send delegations to Iran without condition. He is under the impression that he can someone dissuade Ahmadinejad from his nuclear ambitions – peaceful or military, and goals to be a major player in Middle East, perhaps even global affairs. So far Tehran is outplaying Washington.
In response to the news Iran opened a nuclear fuel facility that some suggest could produce weapons grade plutonium, Secretary of State Clinton offered “we don’t know what to believe about the Iranian program.” At least we get a glimpse of our progress, insight and acumen in this matter.
One has to be concerned about the current foreign policy and defense team we are fielding. One has to wonder what Secretary of Defense Gates is all about. Will the real Gates please stand up? On the one hand he is quoted as saying “every senior leader, when you’re asked what keeps you awake at night, it’s the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear.” Last I checked, the U.S. government also stated Iran is the biggest terrorism exporter. On the other hand he blows off assertions Iran is close to having critical mass. Why one wonders? Is it because down deep POTUS and his team believe the US can coexist with a nuclear Iran?
Gates said at a Senate panel that a military option would only delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions and drive the program further underground, making it more difficult to monitor. He further asserts “their (Iran) security interests are actually badly served by trying to have nuclear weapons. They will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and they will be less secure at the end then they are now.” Okay, let’s see who would want and go after the bomb in this “arms race”....Syria for one. Aren’t they pals of Iran? Turkey? Egypt? Perhaps.
Is the current administration throwing Israel under the bus?
Gates also asserts any attack by Israel could lead to catastrophic consequences in the Middle East and beyond. It would have been nice if he told that to Israel’s chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi. However the general was denied an interview with Secretary Gates and Joint Chief Adm. Mullen. To his credit, Mullen wanted to keep a close relationship between the respective military teams. Obama apparently disagreed and has folded up at least part of the welcome mat with Tel Aviv.
Even generals have to be messengers. President Obama and his administration made it clear it wants Iran as its key military and intelligence partner to help with the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation. According to reports in Debka and other sources, several somewhat “quiet” meetings between the US and Iran are in progress. The key question – how far will Tehran reach out to meet Obama?
But in the process of thawing some of the frigid relations between Iran and the U.S., Israel seems to be an early casualty. Obama has made it clear he will not think kindly of Israel taking unilateral action; such possible IAF strikes could seriously jeopardize the Obama doctrine with Iran.
That leaves us with one question – will President Obama put Israel in the corner or invite them to participate and coordinate with the US in Middle East deliberations or activities?
To President Obama’s credit if not folly, he is engaged in trying to change Tehran’s direction. It is probably too little too late. Countries that have spent 50 years developing programs, billions in investments and undertaking the massive effort to build alliances and obtain support from a wide variety of nuclear nations and players – from AQ Khan and Pakistan to India, North Korea and China – to obtain the ultimate weapon and guarantee of serious player on the world stage, if not one of the de facto leaders in the Middle East and radical Muslim world, well this is not a program, goal or quest readily abandoned.
BUT....President Obama needs to recognize sometimes diplomacy fails and should rrealize no one spends the money, time and effort to build something that has such enormous upside in terms of unnerving an adversary, forcing concessions that prior to the nuclear threat would be unachievable, all the while getting to keep powerful friends like China and Russia, and then readily abandons it.
Iran – her successes continue in nuclear programs, energy, weapons, satellite launch capability and inciting terrorism – all in spite of our best efforts to the contrary. There’s nothing sadder than when an upstart kicks sand in the face of a super power. And as China and Russia continue to invest in or collaborate with Iran, it emboldens the Tehran regime; further weakening any likelihood the U.S. will be able to counter Ahmadinejad’s ambitions. The downstream ramifications to the U.S., Israel and Eurasia should not be overlooked.
We seem starkly unable to manage multiple threats while our adversaries or global competitors are all too capable of creating them!
Putin is an amazing spymaster; critical to his tradecraft is the magician’s misdirection. While the West remains preoccupied with what to do with Iran, and Russia publicly offers concern about a nuclear Iran, the fact remains the technology to join the ultimate “kaboom club” is within Iran’s reach, and largely from technologies “made in Russia.” These items were not the “off the back of the truck” sales. But that is not out of the realm of possibility, either. Consider Iran’s proximity to nuclear nations and uranium sources – Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. Let’s not forget the weapons black market of Georgia – so worried is the threat for diversion of nuclear materials that the United States has sent advanced arms length detection technology, and trained advisors to help this tiny nation on the weapons caravan trail. Then, of course, there is North Korea; only too happy to supply their comrades in arms with assistance and equipment.
The IAEA: Is it up to the job of protecting the world?
On October 28, 2008, Dr Mohamed El Baradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stood at the rostrum of the United Nations General Assembly and warned the world about nuclear terror. “The possibility of terrorists obtaining nuclear or other radioactive material remains a grave threat,” said Dr El Baradei. “The number of incidents reported to the Agency involving the theft or loss of nuclear or radioactive material is disturbingly high,” he said. “Equally troubling is the fact that much of this material is not subsequently recovered. Sometimes material is found which had not been reported missing.”
The threat of radiation – whether from an industrial or nuclear reactor accident or the intentional use of an atomic weapon, is increasing. With widespread proliferation of radioactive and fissile materials, securing these remains both a daunting task and necessary effort. Limiting the size of the nuclear club must remain of paramount importance to a unified world. Trouble is the exigency of unity remains elusive. However, a weak inspection team at the IAEA, which suffers from a persistent lack of financial support, political and legal power, and manpower, still remains an important and reparable vulnerability.
“Distrust and caution are the parents of security” – Benjamin Franklin
In all likelihood, the nuclear club is about to welcome a new member. Will it be the last time the clubhouse door opens? All the major players are engaged in games of chance and games of deceit. Each of the participants has something to gain by the games; regardless of the outcomes, except the West.
It has been said, keep your friends close and your enemies closer – will the Obama gambit work? For the sake of Israel, the U.S. and the West, it better. But we’d all be safer if other options were clearly defined and on the table, if for no other reason than to keep everyone honest. How do you spell F15?
Iran: Plutonium or Uranium? Does it matter?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Robin McFee is a physician and medical toxicologist. An expert in WMD preparedness, she is a consultant to government agencies, corporations and the media. Dr. McFee is a member of the Global Terrorism, Political Instability and International Crime Council of ASIS International. She has authored numerous articles on terrorism, health care and preparedness, and coauthored two books: Toxico-Terrorism by McGraw Hill and The Handbook of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Agents, published by Informa/CRC Press.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
