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)

2007 satellite image of Syrian reactor via Associated Press

Two new reports from the IAEA shed light on the current nuclear status of both Iran and Syria.  The confidential reports were issued ahead of the IAEA Board of Governors’ June 6-10 meeting, where Iran and Syria will be at the top of the agenda.

There is both good and bad news, so in the spirit of ending on an optimistic note, let’s start with the bad.

The Bad

1) Syria was probably building a nuclear weapon:

The IAEA reports that a long-gone Syrian site (the one that was bombed by Israel in 2007) was “very likely” to have been a nuclear reactor.  The US has made this assertion all along, stating that the site was near-completion partially due to the help of North Korea.  The IAEA, however, has never shown its explicit support for the claim.  This is no longer the case.

"Based on all the information available to the agency and its technical evaluation of that information, the agency assesses that it was very likely that the building destroyed at Dair Alzour site was a nuclear reactor which should have been declared to the agency," the report said.

Syria, like Iran, denies harboring a secret nuclear weapons program, but has refused to allow inspectors to return to the site after an initial visit revealed traces of uranium and other suspicious materials.

2) Iran is probably building a nuclear weapon:

Building on previous comments by Director General Amano, the IAEA’s second report says that the agency has “received further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear-related activities, which is currently being assessed.”

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog, Syria, AQ Khan, Pakistan (all tags)

I have an op-ed on Iran in The Register Citizen today. Take a look.  

Here are a few excerpts:

Last year, a powerful computer virus called “Stuxnet” targeted Iran’s nuclear program. By the time it was discovered, the virus had succeeded in setting back the country’s nuclear progress. Now, Iran claims to have identified a new threat. The virus, which Iran is calling “Stars,” may or may not be authentic. But no matter the outcome, Iran’s announcement could be good for the United States.

[snip]

Iranian leaders have called the Arab Spring an “Islamic awakening,” but the protest movements have been largely secular, calling for democracy and human rights — two issues on which Iran does not have a stellar reputation.

Beyond that, the protests have taken a turn for the worse, as far as Iran is concerned, threatening to unseat one of its greatest allies in the region, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran’s connection with Syria is crucial to its relationship with Hezbollah and, moreover, its ability to project power in the Middle East.

[snip]

Ultimately, Iran looks to be losing ground, and its announcement of the Stars virus is one more problem on a growing list. Either Iran has shown its susceptibility to another damaging virus with the potential to set back its nuclear program yet again, or its announcement is an attempt to draw attention away from those issues it sees as far more damaging.

Read more

Iran Watch, Nukes on a Blog (all tags)

A few big things have come out recently with regard to Iran’s nuclear program.  While some were long awaited and highly anticipated, such as the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), none turned out to be particularly earth shattering.

A new NIE on Iran’s nuclear program will remain classified, but reportedly walks back the conclusions of the controversial 2007 NIE, which stated that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons activities in 2003.  Reports indicate that while Iran may not have made the ultimate decision to build a nuclear weapon, due to internal politics and external pressure, it is likely working on the components of such a device.  

"We believe Iran is moving to the threshold of a nuclear weapons capability," Robert Einhorn, the State Department's senior adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, said at a briefing today.  Due to the inefficient nature of Iran’s uranium enrichment technology, though, Einhorn says that "it would make no sense" for Iran to make the decision to build a nuclear weapon at this point.

Likewise, the most recent report (GOV/2011/7) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to express concern over the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program, noting that some of these activities may have continued past 2004.  According to the IAEA, Iran continues to deny a number of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including implementation of the Additional Protocol and modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its Safeguards Agreement; suspension of enrichment and heavy water related activities; and "clarification of the remaining outstanding issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to its nuclear program."

Additionally, IAEA Chief Yukiya Amano reported Monday that Iran may have engaged in nuclear weaponization studies more recently than previously thought.

"Unfortunately, I cannot say a lot on this issue. But I can tell you that we have received information…" since the last board meeting in December, Amano said, "we have received some information raising further concerns."

Tomorrow, Army Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), will appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee to deliver his assessment of world threats facing the US. His prepared statement, released today, suggests that any new news from the US is likely to be equally optimistic.

Read more

Iran Watch, National Intelligence Estimate, IAEA, Amano (all tags)