Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed in a Senate hearing – following the release of the classified National Intelligence Estimate in 2011 – that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.”
Mohamed ElBaradei – who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA – said that he had not “seen a shred of evidence” that Iran was pursuing the bomb.
Six former ambassadors to Iran within the last decade say that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and that Iran is complying with international law.
The International Atomic Energy Agency states:
All nuclear material in the facility remains under the Agency’s containment and surveillance.In other words, all nuclear fuel is accounted for and is being controlled and monitored by the international agency tasked with nuclear non-proliferation.
What about Iran’s enriching uranium to 20%? The IAEA considers 20 percent enriched uranium to be low-enriched uranium and “a fully adequate isotopic barrier” to weaponization. In other words, 20% is well within the legal guidelines for developing a program of nuclear energy.
Indeed, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is acting in a wholly legal fashion. As the six former ambassadors cited above note:
In terms of international law, the position of Europe and the United States may be less assured than is generally believed.
Nuclear physicist Yousaf Butt – former fellow in the Committee on International Security and Arms Control at the National Academy of Sciences, scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, and frequent contributor to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists – points out:
Most experts, even in Israel, view Iran as striving to become a “threshold country”, technically able to produce a nuclear weapon but abstaining from doing so for now. Again, nothing in international law forbids this ambition. Several other countries are close to, or have already reached, such a threshold, with a commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody seems to bother them.
Iran is not doing anything that violates its legal right to develop nuclear technology. Under the NPT, it is not illegal for a member state to have a nuclear weapons capability — or a “nuclear option.” If a nation has a fully developed civilian nuclear sector — which the NPT actually encourages — it, by default, already has a fairly solid nuclear weapons capability. For example, like Iran, Argentina, Brazil, and Japan also maintain a “nuclear option” — they, too, could break out of the NPT and make a nuclear device in a few months, if not less. And like Iran, Argentina and Brazil also do not permit full “Additional Protocol” IAEA inspections.
More
The real legal red line, specified in the IAEA’s “Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements,” is the diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons program. However, multiple experts and official reports have affirmed over the years that they have no evidence that any such program exists.
2 comments:
Any government - or corporation - that can enrich uranium to 20% can easily increase the enrichment to 90% U-235. It takes much more effort to go from the natural 0.7% of U-235 to 20 than it does from 20 to 90.
Of course Iran wants a Bomb, they're surrounded by nuclear armed countries and they have one of the largest remaining supplies of oil and gas. They saw what happened to Iraq (no Bomb) versus North Korea (built a Bomb). I don't support the double standard re: Israel (which has had The Bomb since the 1960s) and I don't want a new war, but it's ridiculous to pretend that a uranium enrichment facility bought from Pakistan's A. Q. Khan doesn't allow Iran to make nuclear weapons if they want them.
How much of the current bluster is bluff, how much is serious preparations for attack, how much is the neo-cons vs. neo-liberals in the US Presidential Selection -- stay tuned and we will all find out. Iran, however, could retaliate against oil exporting facilities of their neighbors (if any support a new attack) and there's no spare capacity in OPEC to handle that event. If there is an attack on Iran, it's likely the world will look very different very quickly.
It's worth remembering that Obama's mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski warned against an escalation against Iran back in 2007.
http://www.oilempire.us/zbig.html
Brzezinski warning against a US attack on Iran
---
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8886543/Israel-refuses-to-tell-US-its-Iran-intentions.html
In recent months, Meir Dagan, who retired as director of Mossad at the beginning of the year, has made a series of unprecedented speeches countenancing against Israeli military action - describing it as "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".
Since 14,000 Americans more or less are dying from Japanese fallout, anything that retards nuclear power is good. All that has happened in this regard is that the story has been debunked and, more importantly, testing to find the truth of the matter has been stopped. Nuclear power can never never never be trusted, because every possible eventuality has to be considered, while secrecy and profit are the only things that get any real consideration or action from our corrupt governments.
Post a Comment