I’m surprised there hasn’t been a thread on this yet. Recently it was discovered that Iran has a secret (not secret anymore, of course) nuclear enrichment facility.. They have promised to let inspectors in, but it has yet to happen.
How big of a deal is this? Should the US be worried? Should the West be worried?
For years now Iran has been blocking the implementation of the Additional Protocols and has behaved more than suspiciously, doing things like stonewalling the IAEA and then bulldozing a site that the IAEA had wanted to investigate. The US’ recent intel report stated with a high degree of confidence that Iran was working on nuclear weapons until they halted it, and with only a moderate degree of confidence that the halt to their nuclear weapons program continued until the present day.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions have also threatened to touch off a regional arms race and Iranian Hezbollah military forces have a presence in much of Europe and the United States. Even assuming that Iran would not use a nuclear weapon directly, or indirectly via its proxy military forces, we can be fairly certain that nuclear weapons would prevent any conventional military responses should Iran get more aggressive with its use of Hezbollah (Lebanon, in partcular, would have significant cause for concern on that count).
So, yes, it’s not a good thing and yes, we should be concerned. It’s fairly basic logic that one doesn’t conceal something that there’s no need to conceal. And there’s no need to conceal a purely peaceful nuclear program, as it’s allowed and can be verified by the IAEA via the Additional Protocols.
Agreed, although I’m skeptical there is much we can do about it.
As much as I hate to defend Iran… it is credible that they did fear an attack on a facility either by the US or Israel. We have given them much to fear from us, and that has nothing to do with however good or bad they are. I personally think they’re “bad”, but we have allies in the region who are much, much worse.
Short of tactical nuclear bunker-busters (which would probably start WW III), no, probably not. Sanctions, if Iraq and NK are any indicators, will have a devastating impact on innocent civilians while the ruling clique dines in comfort. I still feel that the best course of action would be to, somehow, help along a grass-roots Iranian revolution, but the ‘election’ seemed to be our time to act and I’m not sure if we’ve got that chance anymore.
I don’t think this argument holds much water.
Iran could have, for instance, given the US and Israel (and the rest of the world community which strongly opposes Iranian nuclear weapons programs, don’t forget)
highly credible assurances via the IAEA of total non-diversion and the absence of any and all nuclear weapons programs.
They’ve blocked that for years.
Now it turns out that they have an entirely separate secret nuclear facility as part of god only knows what.
I contend that if Iran had submitted to the Additional Protocols years ago and put all their cards on the table right away, there would have been no real reason for fear. It is precisely their years-long history of obfuscation, non-cooperation and dishonesty that has prolonged rumors and failed to debunk claims of nefarious intent.
Yup, they’d have to be nuts not to fear an attack on their nuclear facilities, even if those facilities were built for entirely peaceful purposes.
You assume that they fear us because they have a nuclear program; whereas I find it much more likely that they have a nuclear program because they are afraid of us. Eliminating or never starting their nuclear program would make us no less hostile to them.
There are endless articles about the Israelis running a strike on their nuclear facilities. If they can get far enough along ,they can stop that forever, assuming a weapon is what they are after. If not, then they risk getting bombed for trying to build a future of nuclear energy. We need a real diplomatic sitdown with them.
If IAEA inspectors were camped in their nuclear facilities, as the international community wants, it’d be foolish for Israel or the US to bomb those facilities.
What do you base this on though? Many countries, some fairly unfriendly to the US historically, have no nuclear program and don’t exactly live in constant fear of some mythical US attack. Iran fears an attack from the US BECAUSE they have a covert nuclear program. If they have a nuclear program to supposedly thwart a strike from the US, then it’s fairly circular logic that has put them in precisely the position of having said attack actually become a possibility, no?
-XT
Yes XT, but you have to remember that the US is a comic-book villain. We want to attack Iran (and in fact, we attacked Iran many times during Bush’s administration, or at least we were going to if not for the keen eyed vigilance of watchdogs) because we’re Evil. If Iran didn’t have a covert nuclear (possibly weapons) program, didn’t support international terrorism and allowed the IAEA 100% access according to the Additional Protocols, then we’d still want to attack them, because we’re Evil.
Just like, ya know, we want to attack Egypt. And Jordan. And Saudi Arabi. And the UAE. And…
Well, that’s what happened to their neighbor country, so it’s not that far fetched (though I don’t think the US will attack as it is).
The point of contention seems to be the Additional Protocols, which apparently never were ratified by the Iranian Parliament, but followed voluntarily prior to 2005, at which point Iran suspended the implementation of the protocols due to not getting guarantees for their right of a nuclear fuel cycle. So in that sense they don’t seem to be obliged to implement the Additional Protocols.
Other than the AP’s, the latest IAEA report seems to conclude (I just did a cursory reading) that the enrichment plants and research reactors run according to declared specifications, and the amount of nuclear material is accounted for, as well as contained and under surveillance by the IAEA.
I haven’t found the specific requirements regarding the declaration of new sites under the NPT safeguards, but from what I’ve heard elsewhere, a nation is only required to report new facilities 6 months before fissile material is introduced, and this new plant is even 18 (?) months away from that.
What other issues are there?
Well, they buried it.
Hard to see why they buried a peaceful nuclear processing facility if it is all just, you know, peaceful and all.
The devil is in the details…and the details for our attack into Iraq were fairly unique. Unique circumstances and a fairly unique response from the US. Note that we haven’t exactly had good relationships with Iran since the late 70’s…and yet we never attacked them in all that time. You might want to consider why that is the case, and why and how we did end up butting heads with Saddam and Iraq. Just a thought.
Good point. It WAS a classic Der Trihs statement after all. 
Don’t forget Belgium…
-XT
Well, I can’t say you’ve acted in a very friendly manner towards Iran either. I think the important question is whether your argument is convincing enough for the Iranians.
I’m fairly certain that the keen eyed Iranian would have noted one very important thing…despite the fact that they took US citizens hostage, and despite the hostility you have noted (that goes both ways btw), we haven’t exactly showered Iran with bombs or missiles. And this despite the fact that Iran wasn’t nuclear armed.
There were a number of reasons we DID attack Iraq, and while I think that our invasion of Iraq was wrong, I think that people on this board have convinced themselves that it was entirely out of left field, ignoring the historic context of the previous decade and the first gulf war.
Personally, I think we need to be careful in hand-waving away this potential threat, or minimizing it. I’m not sure whether military action (by the US) is in order, necessarily, but I think this needs to be taken seriously, and I’m at least marginally encouraged that Obama seems to be doing so, even if many 'dopers seem to want to just hand wave it all away as simply US paranoia (ignoring the fact that it’s not JUST the US who is concerned by all of this).
-XT
They do confirm non-diversion of known material, but note troubling activities like the type of simultaneous explosive devices needed for detonating nuclear weapons, and reiterate that there are issues that must be cleared up by the AP’s.
The fact that Iran’s secret, underground facility which hasn’t been monitored by the IAEA hasn’t yet been certified ‘clean’.
I must have missed the part about findings of other tech related to nuclear weapons. The AP’s however appear not to be ratified by Iran, so why would they be applicable?
That is true. However, the new plant seems to be open for inspections like the known facilities, so that should be cleared up soon enough. I doubt it will be found to be in violation of the safeguard protocols.
[
](| IAEA)
I trust that answers both the ‘what’ and the ‘why’?
Iran is doing a very poor job of convincing the world that it has nothing to hide.
Thanks for quoting the relevant sections. I did find them myself when I went for the second read though. It doesn’t answer the ‘why’ in regards to them being held accountable to the AP’s, as it seems strange to me to hold them accountable for a treaty extension that they have not ratified.
Iran to give time soon for atom plant inspection: TV | Reuters](| IAEA)
While you are right that it has not yet been inspected, I think it’s not a fair point. The site is under construction and timetables for inspections are being worked out, so they will have access soon enough.
Maybe you dispute their information that the site has not yet been in operation, but I am fairly confident that IAEA would be able to easily notice this during the coming inspections. I haven’t heard anybody put forward that claim yet anyway, so I don’t think it’s relevant. The safeguard protocols seem to have reporting deadlines, and this site does not appear to be in violation of them.
I haven’t found the authoritative source for the requirement of 6 month notice prior to introducing the uranium hexafluoride which I claimed earlier, but I have seen it quoted in the news. Ahmadinejad says that the site will be operational in 18 months, so that would make them a year early with regards to their treaty obligations.
Out of curiosity Henrichek, why do you think that the Iranian’s would have gone to the trouble of building this thing in secret if it’s on the up and up? I mean, if it’s simply for the peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy, why the secrecy? Why not just build the thing in the open and allow full and complete inspections right from the start? Seems fishy to me, but what are your thoughts?
-XT