With the 2012 election looming, it is not surprising that the bulk of President Obama’s State of the Union address was focused on the U.S. economy and job creation. But the focus on domestic issues was underscored by a strong defense of the President’s record on foreign policy, in particular his decision to order the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Apart from the killing of bin Laden, the only foreign policy issue that merited its own paragraph was Iran.

President Obama’s critics have accused him of being weak on Iran. During the Republican debate on Monday night, Rick Santorum even went so far as to say that, “Obama’s Iran policy has been a colossal failure.”

The President countered this criticism on Tuesday, saying, “Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.”

He then added a vitally important caveat, “But a peaceful resolution is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”

Although Obama is not ruling out the possibility of a military strike, at least rhetorically, it is clear that he will not consider it until all other options have definitively failed. Indeed, many in Washington, both in and out of government, have highlighted the dangers of military action in Iran. In fact, several Iran experts argue that that a military strike in Iran will virtually guarantee that Iran continues to pursue, and eventually obtains, nuclear weapons.

And it is not only the civilians in Washington who believe that military action in Iran would be detrimental to regional and global security. In a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, argued for greater engagement with Iran, saying, “We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days…of the Cold War we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran so we don’t understand each other.”

For an excellent primer on how a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear challenge might be achieved, see Arms Control Association analyst Peter Crail’s important analysis here.

Currently, Obama’s Iran policy has been dominated by economic sanctions. The United States-led multilateral sanctions effort has been joined by many other key nations, including Russia and China. And on Monday, the European Union tightened its existing sanctions against Iran, just in time for the State of the Union.

Thanks in part to these sanctions, Iran has become increasingly isolated over the past year.  In the words of Colin Kahl, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East:

One year after the Egyptian revolution began, Khamenei's hopes -- and Western analysts' fears -- have not materialized, and are not likely to. Although it has been fashionable to describe Iran's growing power in the Middle East, actual events suggest the opposite. Iran's economy is reeling under sanctions, and the regime's nuclear activities and saber-rattling increasingly mark it as a pariah state. And as the Arab Spring marches on, Iran will find itself falling further behind.

Whether this will still be the case a year from now remains to be seen. Sanctions alone are unlikely to force Iran to rethink its nuclear program. It’s up to the administration to ensure that economic pressure is paired with the aggressive pursuit of a diplomatic solution.  

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano

A new report on Iran’s nuclear capability from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does not contain any startling new developments, but already it has some conservatives in the U.S. and Israel beating the drums for war.

While the report contains a level of detail not seen before, it does not contain a “smoking gun.”  Details of Iran’s likely weaponization activities prior to 2003 are laid out clearly and include:

• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

It is clear from the IAEA’s report that these activities took place under a highly structured nuclear program.  Iran’s major nuclear effort, identified as the AMAD plan,was stopped “rather abruptly” by Tehran in late 2003, but some staff may have “remained in place to record and document the achievements of their respective projects.”

Unfortunately, more recent activities receive a far lower level of clarity from the IAEA.  According to the report, there are, “indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing,” but “the Agency’s ability to construct an equally good understanding of activities in Iran after the end of 2003 is reduced, due to the more limited information available to the Agency.”

While the Agency continues to express concern with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, the level of activity associated with that program post-2003 remains unclear.  While Iran’s nuclear program continues to make progress, an Iranian nuclear weapon is not imminent and the U.S. intelligence community continues to believe that Iran has yet to make the political decision to build and test a nuclear weapon.

See here for the full analysis of the IAEA's new report and what it means.

Read more

Iran Watch (all tags)

A little light humor from the Onion...

U.N. Address Ends In Tragedy As Ahmadinejad Suffers Third Degree Burns From Malfunctioning Pyrotechnics

September 22, 2011 | ISSUE 47•38

NEW YORK—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's highly anticipated annual address to the U.N. General Assembly ended in tragedy today when an onstage pyrotechnics mishap left the Iranian president with third-degree burns covering 40 percent of his body. Soon after ascending the podium amidst flashing lights and the blaring strains of AC/DC's "Hell’s Bells," the 54-year-old leader was seen protectively cradling his head as a massive fountain of brightly colored sparks exploded directly into his face. "We tried to warn him that our venue was not suited to this kind of display, but he was insistent," U.N. facilities manager Gary Shepard said. "And the pyrotechnicians were supposed to hold off on the larger fireworks until Mr. Ahmadinejad got to his big finish about Israel." Assembled dignitaries agreed they had not witnessed such a grave disaster since 1997, when Kofi Annan’s aerial rigging snapped and sent the secretary-general careening into the delegation from Bulgaria, killing eight.

Read more

Iran Watch, Humor (all tags)

The following letter to the editor by yours truly was published today in response to "The Undimmed Danger of Iran's Nuclear Program":

We can agree that a more coherent strategy is needed in the U.S. approach to Iran’s nuclear advances, as was pointed out in the editorial on the Iranian threat. It is important to recognize, however, that time still exists to pursue a negotiated solution.

Although Iran is currently enriching uranium with advanced machines, the work is far behind schedule. Contrary to Iran’s original forecast, it has not yet installed any advanced centrifuges at its intended facility, and a large part of the reason for this delay are the sanctions that The Post’s editorial implied have failed.

While sanctions may buy time, they cannot solve the problem. The United States should continue its efforts to slow Iran’s program and maintain international pressure on Iran, while keeping the possibility open for a negotiated solution that establishes the inspections and transparency necessary to best detect and deter any eventual move to build a weapon.

Laicie Olson, Washington

The writer is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano

Okay, IAEA, we need to talk about your timing.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to have a new Safeguards Report on Iran, but… well, I guess if you’re tuned into Nukes of Hazard right now you’re probably not on your way to the beach anyway (or maybe you are?) so here’s what you need to know:

On one hand, the IAEA is “increasingly concerned” about “the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”  

On the other hand, while the report is anything but "evidence of Iran's transparent and peaceful nuclear activities," it does show a moderately increased level of cooperation by the country, a level that could be significant if maintained.

The report details a visit by the Deputy Director General for Safeguards to Iran from August 14-19, 2011.  During his visit, the Deputy Director General was allowed access to the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (which was down at the time), the enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow, the IR-40 Reactor and Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) at Arak, and the conversion and fuel fabrication facilities at Esfahan.  In addition, Iran provided access to “an installation where research and development (R&D) on advanced centrifuges was taking place,” along with “extensive information” on its current work on advanced centrifuges, which has fallen behind its originally conceived timeframe.

According to the report, Iran estimates that between September 14 and August 20, 2011, approximately 45.7 kg of UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235 was produced.  This would result in a total of approximately 70.8 kg of UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235 having been produced since the process began in February 2010.  

Ultimately, Iran’s decision to continue producing 20%-enriched uranium beyond the needs of the Tehran Research Reactor is increasingly concerning, but before folks tack on to those two new words used by the IAEA, they would be wise to calculate the real time remaining and consider the steps that can still be taken with regard to diplomacy, as well as the considerable messiness of the other option.

The report is due to be discussed by the IAEA's 35-member board of governors at a meeting September 12-16.

Read more

Iran Watch, IAEA (all tags)

An August 20 article in the New York Times by William Broad highlights a disturbing advance in the technology to enrich uranium which could have serious proliferation risks.  

The new technology uses lasers to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants.  The idea has been around for a long time, but it has proven too difficult to implement – until now.  General Electric (G.E.), in conjunction with Hitachi, has been successfully testing this technology for the past two years, and is now petitioning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a $1 billion dollar plant in Wilmington, N.C.  

Center Advisory Board member Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist and former advisor to President Clinton, told Broad that we’re “…on the verge of a new route to the bomb.”

Concerns about the proliferation risks of the technology are not new.  The New York Times article refers to a September 30th, 2009 letter spearheaded by the Center and other organizations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission highlighting concerns that the technology could make it easier for other countries to develop clandestine uranium enrichment capabilities that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons (read the letter on our website here).  Earlier this year the American Physical Society petitioned the Commission to urging it to make the completion of a proliferation risk assessments a condition of licensing.

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Last night, I appeared on "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" in a segment with Pentagon Correspondent Chris Lawrence on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.  The piece covers recent remarks by UK Foreign Secretary William Hague that Iran has been carrying out covert tests of missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload, as well as the YouTube “unveiling” of a secret Iranian missile silo.

Watch the piece here or on Wolf's blog:

Read more

Iran Watch, CNN, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Lawrence, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

Earlier this year, Julian Borger reported on a provocative piece of news that appeared on the Gerdab website, run by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). The piece addresses the day after Iran’s first nuclear test, stating in a satirical tone that, “The day after Islamic Republic of Iran's first nuclear test will be an ordinary day for us Iranians but in the eyes of some of us there will be a new sparkle.”

It is possible that Borger and others may have gone a little far in their interpretation of the article’s existence.  

Fast forward a couple of months and a couple of flame wars (see here and here for background) and it turns out that the piece was not actually related to the IRGC at all, but was written by an ordinary Iranian.

Today, Borger released an interview with Seyed Ali Pourtabatabaei, a journalist from Qom who says he wrote the piece.  Apparently, Pourtabatabaei’s post was picked up by an Iranian college student working for Gerdab whose job it is to repost at least five articles a day. The student liked the piece.  

Countless polls seem to show that Iran’s nuclear program garners support from the masses, which, while often misguided on the part of the masses, is an important factor in Iranian politics. Pourtabatabaei identifies himself as a reformist who is critical of the current regime, but supportive of the Islamic Republic, much like many supporters of the 1979 revolution who may not have gotten exactly what they bargained for. In his remarks to the Guardian, Pourtabatabaei does not blame the regime for its obstinance. He’s not angry that the regime’s continued refusal to cooperate in any productive way has led to crippling sanctions on its people, or that the regime has the power to make a change and does not. Pourtabatabaei is angry because Iran has not, as of yet, succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon. “I think sanctions will just continue until the end of days,” he says, “and they make us so angry. We don't need nuclear weapons otherwise, but if we are going to have these sanctions, we should do a nuclear test to bring them to an end.”

Read more

Iran Watch, Sanctions, Propaganda (all tags)

It doesn’t really matter who you ask, the answer always seems to be the same: an attack on Iran would be messy, to say the least.

Yesterday, I attended the last of four in the Arms Control Association’s series of briefings on Iran, Solving the Iranian Nuclear Puzzle.  The briefing covered “The Military Option” and featured Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Jeffrey White with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Alireza Nader from RAND.  While all three spoke frankly, none painted a particularly sunny picture of a potential war with Iran.

White noted, as we’ve heard before, that since it is not possible to destroy knowledge or basic technology, any setback would likely be measured in years.  The idea of complete destruction of any program is just “not a fair argument to make.”

Further, White noted that, “The attack itself is a complicated thing.  It’s not something you can easily gloss over the complexity of.”  If we assume an air campaign of days-weeks (which White says would be necessary) then operations would need to be phased, allowing the Iranians to react and the US to respond in kind.  The US and its allies would need air defense for ships, intelligence, a plan to counter Iranian missiles – altogether a lot of assets and phases would be required, all with their own complications.

On top of all this, Pickering offered his view that any attack has the very real potential to reinforce Tehran’s drive toward building a nuclear weapon.

Thankfully, Pickering also noted that, right now, the possibility of a US attack on Iran "seems to be as close to zero as one can get it, for which I'm deeply happy."  

Across town, Admiral William Fallon, former US CENTCOM Commander, also said that there is probably "little chance" of a US or Israeli strike on Iran, adding "we ought to be working pretty hard to focus on other things that would have us in a different place."

"Improvement in relations, in my opinion, will likely occur with the realization that the interests of both people are better addressed with engagement and cooperation rather than antagonism and hostility," said Fallon.  

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog, Pickering, Fallon (all tags)

A small number of House Republicans are threatening to undermine U.S. strategy in Iran by encouraging military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

On May 23, 2011, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX)) introduced House Resolution 271, a bill expressing support for “the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty…[and the use] all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.”   To date 44 Republicans have co-sponsored the bill.  It has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This is not the first time the U.S. House and Senate have expressed such support for Israeli military strikes.   In 2007, the House put forth a similar bill expressing support for Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in Syria occurring in 2007 and in Iraq in 1981, but that bill expressed support after Israel’s strikes, not before.  

Rep. Gohmert’s 2011 bill is vague and dangerous.  The bill states that “if no other peaceful solutions can be found within a reasonable time” strikes are acceptable, but “reasonable time” is not defined.  Libya pursued a nuclear weapons program for 25 years before finally abandoning it in 2004.  Since no solution has yet been found to the Iranian nuclear impasse, does that mean military action is viable now?  

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, Iran Watch, Israel, Congress (all tags)