One nuclear weapon

The ABC's Washington correspondent Kim Landers reported last Monday, ‘The United States' top military officer [Admiral Mike Mullen] believes Iran has stockpiled enough nuclear fuel to make a bomb’. ‘The International Atomic Energy Agency,’ she continued, ‘reported last month that it believed Iran had built up a stockpile of nuclear fuel which could be enough for one nuclear weapon.’

It may come as a surprise that one US official’s belief about the IAEA’s belief is deemed so newsworthy, particularly when Mullen’s boss, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, claims ‘They're not close to a stockpile.’

Waxing hysterical in response to the same announcement, the American Jewish Committee’s tireless Executive Director David A. Harris opined,

A nuclear Iran presents a grave, perhaps catastrophic, threat to the Middle East and beyond. While we welcome the international consensus that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal, as reflected in numerous UN Security Council resolutions, the window of opportunity to prevent this from happening is closing fast…We must not wake up one morning and find ourselves in a new era where Iran has the bomb and the means to deliver it…Iranian terrorist proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, seek a "dirty bomb"; and Iran's neighbors rush to embark on their own nuclear programs to confront the Iranian threat.

In AJC-speak, it’s self evident that the Lebanese nationalist Hizballah and the Palestinian nationalist Hamas are ‘Iranian terrorist proxies’, but this is the first I’ve heard about those outfits seeking a dirty bomb. A quick search reveals that some crackpot posting under the name Iqbal Latif alleged in a comment on Sara Roy’s review of a book about Hamas that both organisations were hiding dirty bombs in mosques. Doubtless ample evidence for David Harris.

As for Iran’s immediate neighbours, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan, we know for sure that one of them will not be rushing to embark on its own nuclear weapons program, because Pakistan’s program culminated in a successful test 11 years ago. Another nearby country, already endowed with tested nukes, long range missiles, and a world class air force, a country that unconditionally refuses any IAEA inspections whatsoever and hasn’t even signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, has been threatening Iran for years. But it’s inconceivable that the UN Security Council’s ‘goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery’ applied to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which could never instigate a regional arms race.

Anyway, there’s no need for Harris to be so worried. A few weeks ago, Philip Sherwell reported in The Telegraph that Mossad has matters well in hand.

Reva Bhalla, a senior analyst with Stratfor, the US private intelligence company with strong government security connections, said the strategy was to take out key people.

"With co-operation from the United States, Israeli covert operations have focused both on eliminating key human assets involved in the nuclear programme and in sabotaging the Iranian nuclear supply chain," she said.

Mossad was rumoured to be behind the death of Ardeshire Hassanpour, a top nuclear scientist at Iran's Isfahan uranium plant, who died in mysterious circumstances from reported "gas poisoning" in 2007.

Other recent deaths of important figures in the procurement and enrichment process in Iran and Europe have been the result of Israeli "hits", intended to deprive Tehran of key technical skills at the head of the programme, according to Western intelligence analysts.

Israel has also used front companies to infiltrate the Iranian purchasing network…The businesses initially supply Iran with legitimate material, winning Tehran's trust, and then start to deliver faulty or defective items that "poison" the country's atomic activities.

Harris concludes by magically transforming Mullen’s belief, ‘His assessment follows a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had understated by one third the amount of uranium it has enriched.’

The source of Mullen’s hyperbole is the most recent IAEA report on their quarterly inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities.

The IAEA report showed a significant increase in Iran's reported stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) since November to 1,010 kg -- enough, some physicists say, for possible conversion into high-enriched uranium for one bomb.

But according to IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming,

The (IAEA) has no reason at all to believe that the estimates of LEU produced in the (Natanz) facility were an intentional error by Iran. They are inherent in the early commissioning phases of such a facility when it is not known in advance how it will perform in practice.

In other words, if Iran were planning to build nuclear weapons, and if they had enough centrifuges to enrich the ‘stockpile’ to the required degree, and if they could do this without the IAEA noticing, and if they had the knowledge and technology to weaponise the uranium, they might at some stage be able to produce a nuclear weapon. At least according to ‘some physicists’.

In reality, not only has Iran denied such an intention, but the US National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported, ‘We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.’

The IAEA ‘has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, including all declared low enriched uranium.’ Fleming asserts that ‘Iran has provided good cooperation on this matter’. Furthermore, ‘No nuclear material could have been removed from the facility without the agency's knowledge since the facility is subject to video surveillance and the nuclear material has been kept under seal.’

Significantly, the NIC also reported,

We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame…All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

It’s worth remembering that a country with enough Highly Enriched Uranium to build one bomb is not in a position to threaten anyone with it, as they would have to test it before risking nuclear annihilation for shooting off a dud. It doesn’t even have deterrent value. If I’m not mistaken, no country has ever announced that it was developing a nuclear weapon. There are accusations, of course. But, although North Korea provided six days’ warning of its 2006 test, the successful test is the announcement. And you don’t carry out the test until you’ve built more than one bomb, which you can’t do with just enough LEU to process into enough HEU to build one bomb.

Typically evenhanded, the ABC report concludes, ‘Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful, energy-related purposes.’

But they can’t fool cluey American ‘Likely Voters’, 77% of whom told Rasmussen in a poll conducted on 29 and 30 January that they believed Iran's nuclear program was ‘for weapons development’.

Taking a leaf out of the push pollsters’ book, what Rasmussen asked was,

Iran says its uranium enrichment program is for peaceful energy purposes. The U.S., Israel and the European Union believe it is intended to develop nuclear weapons. Do you believe Iran's nuclear program is for energy purposes or for weapons development?

Only 6% believed a rogue pariah state like the Islamofascists in Iran, when credible sources like the cuddly US, Israel and the EU contradict them. The US, that is, except for the National Intelligence Council.

In a demented reprise of the old ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ trope, Rasmussen went on to ask,

Before a meeting is allowed between the President of Iran and the President of the United States, should Iran be required to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities?

While 56% said President Obama should not condescend to meet Ahmedinejad until Iran stops developing nuclear weapons capabilities, 27% said he should, and 17% weren’t sure, 100% of those answering the question at all accepted that Iran was in fact developing nuclear weapons capabilities.

Good for the gander

…a clear and present danger to international peace and security. Its ambitions to become the dominant power in the region, its heavy-handed interference in the domestic affairs of its neighbors, its lavish support for terrorist groups, and its massive arms build-up all underscore the nature of the threat.

…in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and UN Security Council resolutions.

…economic sanctions have been presented as a possible means to influence the regime and persuade it that there will be a painful price for flouting the will of the international community. With the implementation of sanctions and the threat of further ones…sanctions may have more direct impact than skeptics believed.

Despite…destabilizing influence in the international arena, investors from around the world continue to supply vast sums of money that not only prop up the regime, but also serve to embolden it…

No, of course it’s not Israel that the AJC was writing of in its new pamphlet, The Ca$e for Targeted Sanctions. Needless to say, the cuddly peacelovers at the American Jewish Committee aver, ‘No nation should relish the idea of military confrontation…The object, it should be stressed, is not to target the Iranian people, but its government’s policies.’

That would be the same American Jewish Committee that wasted no time yesterday in issuing a statement that ‘condemns the decision of UNISON, Britain's largest trade union, to advocate for a total boycott of Israel’.

"With the UNISON action, the union representing more than one million workers in public services in the United Kingdom has now joined with the journalists and academics unions in a shameful hate campaign against the Jewish state."

The UNISON resolution makes no mention of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, yet calls for the removal of Israel's security fence, pejoratively referred to as the "Apartheid wall".

…"UNISON has aligned itself with these murderous, anti-democratic and viciously anti-Semitic forces."

Later this week the UNISON conference may consider a further resolution calling for divestment from pension funds "which may have investments in Israel or in key companies trading with Israel."

Both motions are anti-Semitic, attempting to put Israel beyond the pale, just as prior anti-Semitic movements targeted individual Jews and Jewish communities.

Just in case anyone has missed some of the action, ‘Iran’s nuclear weapons program is particularly worrisome’. Israel’s nuclear arsenal threatens nobody. ‘Experts believe that the regime is developing ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear weapons…and could wield its nuclear deterrent as political blackmail throughout the Middle East’. Some ‘experts’ believe that, some Israeli experts for example, but not the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, for example. And it goes without saying that Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal blackmails nobody. ‘In light of these scenarios, the international community has turned to economic penalties to demonstrate to Iran’s policymakers that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable.’ But a nuclear armed Israel is not only acceptable, but desirable.

And economic penalties for ‘a clear and present danger’, ‘ambitions to become the dominant power in the region’, ‘heavy-handed interference’, ‘lavish support for terrorist groups’, ‘massive arms build-up’, ‘violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and UN Security Council resolutions’? Well they’re ok if the target is Iran, whose deadliest, most implacable enemies make those claims about it. But not if the target is Israel, which has demonstrated that it meets every one of the criteria the AJC cites to justify economic sanctions against it’s regional rival. Except one. Israel has not violated the NPT. That’s because Israel isn’t even party to the NPT, for obvious reasons.

Once again, we have an example of Israel’s shrillest defenders, ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ In their haste to accuse others of anti-Semitism, they display their own anti-Semitism, in the terms of the very ‘Working definition’ they helped draft. Apparently this proclivity for foot shooting has a long pedigree. On Tuesday, the AJC took umbrage when the UN Human Rights Council designated Israel ‘a permanent and separate agenda item’.

“No words can adequately describe how disappointing has been the performance of the UN Human Rights Council since its inception more than a year ago,” said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris…adding that this development is particularly painful for AJC, whose leaders were directly involved in helping to draft the human rights provisions in the UN Charter more than 60 years ago.

I suppose they should have taken more care to frame human rights provisions explicitly to exclude violations by Israel.

Meanwhile, back at the UN…

Danny Gillerman, ‘Israel's ambassador to the United Nations urged the Security Council to take tough measures against "demented" Iran for its nuclear program in the wake of North Korea's declared atomic test.’

Waxing poetic, Yahoo reports, ‘"The international community should learn the lessons of what occurred in North Korea," [he] told army radio. "North Korea was only the preview. Iran will be the feature film, which, if no one takes serious action, will be projected throughout the whole world."’

Furthermore, as if their ambassador to the IAEA hadn’t just said that nuclear proliferation wasn’t an issue, ‘Israeli leaders called for the North Korean test to serve as a wake up call to the international community on the risks of nuclear proliferation and prompt a zero-tolerance policy with Tehran.’

Ignoring Juan Cole’s critique of the translation of Ahmadinejad’s one remark (not ‘repeated threats’ for crying out loud!), Yahoo concludes, ‘Israel considers Iran its arch-enemy for President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's repeated threats to wipe the Jewish state "off the map" and for his comments questioning the Holocaust.’

Well Ahmadinejad may or may not have said anything about wiping Israel off the map, but I for one hope to live to see a map free of sectarian ethnocracies like Israel and hierocracies like Iran.

You learn something new every day

It never occurred to me that a state that is not party to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty could manage to get a seat on the IAEA. The Israeli ‘Ambassador’ to the IAEA, Israel Michaeli, in his profound wisdom, is reported to have opined, "The fundamental goal in the Middle East, as in other regions, is obtaining regional peace, security and stability, not arms control per se." This is doubtless why Israel is threatening Iran. Nothing to do with concerns about Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons development at all. What’s most likely to secure regional peace, security, and stability is undoubtedly a continuing military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and utterly destroying neighbouring countries. Oh, and two or three hundred nukes, of course.

Needless to say, the IAEA did not resolve that Israel’s nuclear program was a threat.