.
[X] HOME PAGE (Main Menu)
. [X] INTERNATIONAL & NATIONAL MENU - Political Topics
INTRODUCTION
Currently, President George W. Bush [R1], some members of the Congress, and the press frequently refer to the
Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear power program as a "nuclear program". They then either openly state (or imply) that the goal of Iran's "nuclear program" is to develop a nuclear weapon. The fact is, regardless of who controls the government of
Iran---you, I, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameniei, or someone else---it makes short-term economic sense and long-term energy-independence sense for Iran to generate electricity with internally mined uranium. A more extended discussion of this subject
is available on three web pages at www.wikipedia.org. [R2]
The purpose of this essay is to balance this misleading propaganda campaign by describing seldom-mentioned aspects of the Iranian nuclear electric-generation program. In addition, America's national interest is discussed. The counter-interest of the Israel Lobby is also examined. The specific topics covered are shown in the CONTENTS list below.
CONTENTS
[X] Iran's
Drive for Energy Independence
[X] Iran's Nuclear Power Program is Legal and Morally Justified
[X] The Value of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
[X] Israel
Lobby
[X] America's National Interest
[X] References
IRAN'S DRIVE FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
When the price of oil goes above $40.00 a barrel, nuclear
generated electricity becomes more economical than petroleum generated electricity. Pierre Gadonniex, head of France's national utility, gave this cost estimate in early 2007. [R3] By October 2007, the cost of oil reached $80.00 per
barrel and has since gone even higher.
If Iran does generate some of its electricity with nuclear energy, it will be in a position to:
In a Wikipedia essay "Nuclear program of Iran", in Section "5.1 Views on Iran's Nuclear Power Program", is a graph titled "Iran's Oil Production and demand". This graph shows the difference between domestic oil production and oil consumption closing during the past decade. [R2] This change is attributed to the growth in population and industrialization. This section of the Wikipedia essay also gives a reference to a 2007 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). In the PNAS article, author Roger Stern forecasts a scenario where Iran's oil available for export could reach zero by 2014-2015. [R4]
On October 23, 2007 at 10:00 am, during the WOSU-Radio Open Line call-in program, Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council discussed the Iranian nuclear electric-generating program. Mr. Parsi explained that current Iranian leaders want to remain energy independent after Iran's oil and gas reserves are exhausted. They want to avoid being blackmailed by the West. This distrust of the United States and the West in general is easy to understand.
IRAN'S NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAM IS LEGAL, AND MORALLY JUSTIFIED
Both the United States and Iran are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (commonly called NPT), and have agreed to the terms of the treaty. (The official name is, "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons".) The text of the NPT is posted on the United Nations' web site at www.un.org. [R6] As a result, Iran's current nuclear energy program is being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Thus, it is very unlikely that Iran could shift to a nuclear weapons program without being detected by the
IAEA inspectors. For this reason, Iranians view their nuclear power development program as completely lawful and aboveboard.
In the past, the IAEA uncovered some aspects of Iran's nuclear energy program that are legal under the NPT, but had not been reported in a timely manner. Iran is not alone. Other NPT nations have experienced similar non-disclosure problems. Since the NPT was initiated in 1970, India, Israel, and Pakistan have developed nuclear weapons in secret without detection. However, that does not mean the IAEA inspections are ineffective. These three nations are not signatories of the NPT, and the IAEA inspectors have not been allowed to monitor nuclear programs in these countries. The March 5, 2008 "derestricted" IAEA document did not report any evidence of nuclear-weapon activity by the Islamic Republic of Iran. IAEA reports are posted on web site www.iaea.org. [X]
To date, India and Pakistan have publicly announced that they have a nuclear-weapon stockpile. The Government of Israel has not publicly acknowledged its nuclear-weapons stockpile. Two books, one by Seymour R. Hersh [R7] and the other by Aver Cohen [R8] provide a historical account of the Israeli nuclear-weapons program.
Does Iran Want Nuclear Weapons?
There is good reason to believe that the current leaders of Iran do NOT want to build nuclear weapons. In 1993, Hamid Algar wrote on the problems
of applying Islamic law or guidance to modern warfare. [R9] Muslims may fight in a war but should be careful not to attack the civilian population. In modern warfare, this presents a problem of how to ethically defend themselves in
war without inflicting needless destruction and killing on the opponent's non-military population. If a Muslim nation refuses to arm with nuclear weapons for defense, would this not expose its population to unanswered assaults by an enemy? Accordingly,
the decision to arm one's self with nuclear weapons depends on the structure and intensity of the outside threat.
In his 1998 paper, "Rethinking Dual Containment", Gary Sick mentioned several instances where representatives of the Iranian government have said that nuclear weapons were contrary to Islam. [R10] Those with this viewpoint reportedly include Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameniei's predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who came to power after the Shaw was overthrown. Gary Sick also wrote that based on his own investigations, "...Iran is probably developing the underlying infrastructure that would permit it to mount a fully fledged nuclear-weapons programme at relatively short notice if it should find itself threatened...". [R11]
At the August 9, 2005, emergency meeting of IAEA in Vienna, the Iranian delegation stated that Ayatollah Ali Khameniei, the current Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, had issued a Fatwa (religious ruling) declaring, "...the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons." While a Fatwa is a ruling created by a religious person (not a formal government policy), it nonetheless carries considerable weight in the theocratic type government of Iran and with many of the Shiites within the Government of Iran.
In 2006, Jacques E. C. Hymans examined why many nuclear-weapons-capable states have not developed nuclear weapons. [R12] "Figure 1.1 Potential vs. actual nuclear proliferation" on page 4 gives a "rough picture" of the growth of the number of nuclear-weapon (NW) states and nuclear-weapon-capable (NWC) states from 1950 to 2000. In 2000, the numbers were about 8 NW states and 48 NWC states. That is, only a small number the nuclear-weapon-capable states actually have invested the necessary resources to become a nuclear-weapon state. One of the motivations, mentioned by Hymans, for a weapon-capable state moving to a weapon state is national survival linked to a fear of an outside enemy. [R13]
THE VALUE OF THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
TREATY (NPT)
The obvious purpose of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is to allow non-nuclear nations to develop nuclear-powered electric-generation know-how while preventing them from using this know-how to enrich uranium high enough to
build nuclear weapons. Thus, for the NPT to work, the non-nuclear-weapon states have to trust the nuclear-weapon states to honor their obligations in the Treaty. The NPT requires existing nuclear-weapons nations to help non-nuclear-weapon
signatory nations to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Treaty also reminds nuclear-weapons states that the U.N. Charter says, "States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any State..." [R6] Otherwise, there is no incentive for non-nuclear states to participate. Article X of the NPT says that each party to the treaty "...shall in exercising its national
sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."
ISRAEL LOBBY
In his 2006 book, "Target Iran", Scott Ritter, former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, predicted the Government of Israel and its friends (Israel lobby) in other countries would push the idea that Iran is developing a nuclear-weapons
capability, and that its "nuclear program" needs to be stopped by the United States. [R14] Ritter contends Israel's motivation is based on a hunch not solid intelligence information.
The goals, loose structure, and effectiveness of the Israel lobby is discussed in the 2007 book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. Of special interest here is Chapter 10, Iran in the Crosshairs. To increase the likelihood of conflict, one must first promote needless hostility between the U.S. and Iran. [R15]
The current Iran-is-an-enemy propaganda effort in the U.S. has two main themes: (a) Iran is a threat because it is building an atomic bomb, and (b) Iran is an enemy because it aids insurgents in Iraq that kill Americans. An example of an atomic-bomb claim was given by C.I.A. Director General Michael Hayden during an interview on the national TV show "Meet the Press" with the late Tim Russert on March 30, 2008. [R16] Director Hayden said that in his personal opinion, Iran must be intending to build a nuclear weapon because it continues to develop a uranium enrichment capability in spite of the economic sanctions being imposed on it by the U.S. and others.
If there is anyone who should understand why Iran does not trust the U.S. to supply it with nuclear-reactor fuel, it should be the Director of the C.I.A. In 1953, a C.I.A.-supported coup in Iran deposed a democratically elected government and installed a dictator (the Shah). Even during the Russert interview, the Director Hayden acknowledged that the U.S. and others were imposing various sanctions on Iran while at the same time expecting Iran to trust outsiders to provide a reliable source of enriched uranium. Under these circumstances, any nation striving for energy independence would insist on mining, enriching, and "burning" its own uranium. During this March 30th nationally-televised interview, C.I.A. Director Hayden showed his willingness to recite Bush-Administration anti-Iranian talking points rather than offer a credible explanation for Iran's actions---energy independence. This and other reasons for Iran's distrust of the United States are listed above within the section, IRAN'S DRIVE FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE [X].
The other anti-Iran theme is the Iran-helps-kill-Americans-in-Iraq claim. This claim is now being made by various administration and military officials. The claim usually mentions Iranian-backed special groups, militias, etc. operating in Iraq. Iranians deny these charges and say that the Americans are calling Iraqi insurgents "Iranian-backed" in order to justify continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq. A closer look a C.I.A. Director Hayden's comment on Iran helping to kill of Americans in Iraq is instructive.
During the past year, various news reports have mentioned this topic.
From the perspective of a small country like Israel, maneuvering the U.S. into a confrontation with Iran could have a win-win outcome. If a bombing of suspected atomic-weapons facilities does, in fact, destroy actual bomb-making plants, they would no longer be a military threat to Israel. Needless-to-say, such a bombing attack would certainly create extensive death and destruction in Iran. If it turns out that the IAEA is correct and there are no atomic-weapons facilities in Iran, the unprovoked bombing attack would, without question, leave Israel as the best ally of the U.S. in the Middle East.
AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTEREST
From the perspective of the
U.S., a major world power, there is a different win/loss equation. Launching an economic attack (sanctions) or a military attack (bombing) against one Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT) state, who is playing by the rules, sends the wrong message to
all NPT states. Visits by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors may be used to identify bombing targets, not just provide compliance oversight and technical assistance. By bestowing foreign aid, not sanctions on Israel and India after
they built a nuclear weapon in secret, the U.S. has already sent two wrong messages to the NPT states. Thus, America's future national interests dictate that it fully support the NPT and thereby encourage all nuclear-weapon-capable states to use the
safeguards and benefits provided by IAEA under the NPT.
As of April 2008, Iranian leaders have consistently said nuclear weapons are un-Islamic, and that Iran is abiding by the NPT while it develops its energy-independent nuclear-power capability. To date, the IAEA has not found evidence of a nuclear-weapons program in Iran. Yet, members of the Bush Administration and Congress, as well as some in the news media, are consistently using the expression "Iran's nuclear program" which implies "nuclear-weapons program". They could just as easily say either "nuclear-power program" or "nuclear-energy program". But, by using misleading terminology, speakers and writers are able to mislead listeners and readers into believing that Iran actually has a full blown nuclear-weapons program without actually saying so. A variation of this propaganda tactic was used prior to the Iraq war/occupation.
Without presenting evidence to the IAEA, the U.S. Government and some in the media makes accusations of Iran violating the NPT. At the same time, most news reports in the U.S. do not explain how the United States is openly violating the NPT and the U.N. Charter by: (a) not assisting Iran while it develops its peaceful nuclear-energy electric-generation capability, (b) interfering with Iran's "political independence" by imposing economic sanctions, and (c) threatening Iran with military aggression.
The long-term serious danger here is that these NPT violations by the U.S. may cause Iran and many of the other 47 nuclear-weapon-capable states to exercise their withdrawal option under Article X of the NPT and start conducting their nuclear programs in secret.
REFERENCES
[R1] January 28, 2008, State of the Union address by President George W. Bush [X]
[R2] At least three pages on the Wikipedia web site have details related to Iran's nuclear power
program. To find these pages use the search words "Iran weapons nuclear". The three titles of interest will be displayed within the first search result display. The page titles of interest here are:
. Nuclear program of Iran
. Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty
. Iran and weapons of mass destruction.
**** To link to Wikipedia, click here [X].
[R3] April 8, 2007, www.cbsnews.com - Pierre Gadonniex, head of
France's national utility, "Electricite De France", noted that when the price of oil goes above $40.00 a barrel, nuclear electric power is economically competitive in Europe.
[R4] 2006, "The Iranian petroleum crisis and United
States national security", by Roger Stern, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), January 2, 2007, Vol.104, No.1, pp 377-382.
[R5] 1998, "Rethinking Dual Containment" by Gary Sick,
Survival, Vol. 40, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp 5-32 (see pages 9-10).
[R6] The text of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) may be located on the United Nations' web site by first selecting the "search" option at the lower part of the
English home page. Then search with "NPT". Then select "NPT Treaty" from the list of choices. To link to the site www.un.org, click here [X].
[R7] 1991, The Sampson Option: Israel's
nuclear arsenal and American foreign policy, by Seymour R. Hersh, ISBN 0-394-57006-5, pages 135+.
[R8] 1998, Israel and the Bomb, by Aver Cohen, ISBN 0-231-10482-0, pages 58+.
[R9] 1993, "The
Iran-Iraq War: The politics of Aggression" edited by Farhang Rajaee, Chapter 14 titled, "The Problem of Retaliation in Modern Warfare from the Point of view of Figh" by Hamid Algar, pp 191-197.
[R10] 1998, "Rethinking
Dual Containment" by Gary Sick, Survival, Vol. 40, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp 5-32 (see pages 16-17).
[R11] 1998, "Rethinking Dual Containment" by Gary Sick, Survival, Vol. 40, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp 5-32
(see page 17).
[R12] 2006, "The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy" by Jacques E. C. Hymans.
[R13] 2006, "The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy" by Jacques E. C. Hymans. (see pages 27-29)
[R14] 2006, "Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change" by Scott Ritter.
[R15] 2007, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.
[R16] March 30, 2008, MSNBC - Meet the Press with Tim Russert and guest C.I.A. Director General Michael Hayden. Following is an excerpt from that
interview that is now located the internet archive at: www.msnbc.msn.com. [X]
*** MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear program? [The context here is: developing nuclear
weapons.]
*** GEN. HAYDEN: Personal belief? Yes. It's hard for me to explain. And, you know, this is not a court of law stuff. This is, this is, you know, in terms of beyond all reasonable doubt, this is, this is Mike Hayden looking at the body of
evidence. OK. Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff they appear willing to pay for what they're doing now if they did not have, at a minimum, at a minimum, if they did not have the desire to keep the option open to, to develop
a nuclear weapon and perhaps even more so, that they've already decided to do that? It's very difficult for us to judge intent, and so we have to work back from actions. Why the continuing production of fissile material, and Natanz [underground fuel
enrichment plant]? They say it's for civilian purposes, and yet the, the planet, the globe, states around the world have offered them fissile material under controls so they can have their, their, their civilian nuclear program. But the Iranians have
rejected that. [Bold added] I mean, when you start looking at that, and you get, not just the United States, but you get the U.N. Security Council imposing sanctions on them, why would they go through that if it were not to develop the technology
that would allow them to create fissile material not under international control?
[R17] On May 1, 2008, The Columbus Dispatch newspaper (page A6), Associated Press, "Iran helping to kill Americans in Iraq, CIA chief says:
Newly found arms will prove it, says military official." The report said that on April 30, 2008, at a Kansas State University lecture, C.I.A. Director Michael Hayden said, "It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the
highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq."
[X] HOME PAGE (Main Menu)
. [X] INTERNATIONAL & NATIONAL MENU - Political Topics
Address:
Bill Buckel
1641 Hess Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43212
. .Ph. 614--488-8963
Notice: This web site does not have an e-mail return address.
URL = http://www.billbuckel.com
Up-dated: July 1, 2008