Mr. Biden’s Green Light?

Exactly one year ago, in July 2008, former President G. W. Bush had more or less encouraged Israel for going ahead with its preparations of a military strike against Iran in order to stop Tehran’s assumed illicit nuclear weapons program. It was actually one week after Iran had aired fabricated pictures of missile tests in the Dasht-e Kavir desert near Qom. Bush’s remarks had widely been interpreted as ‘amber’, not ‘green’, light for former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who, after all, then only organized some war games in the Mediterranean but was more than reluctant of pursuing an attack. While it had been leaked during the weekend that according to a diplomatic source “the Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a statement which has been denied by Saudi officials, the American Vice President Joe Biden, in an ABC interview said yesterday:

“Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

“Whether we agree or not. They’re entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to that. But there is no pressure from any nation that’s going to alter our behavior as to how proceed.

“If Netanyahu’s (Israel’s Prime Minister) government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.”

At least, it is not their (the Obama Administration’s) choice. What Biden actually does, namely publicly declaring that Israel is ‘entitled’ to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities which are run, at least officially, and surveyed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (NPT), having been signed by Iran but not by Israel, which many believe possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads, is highly questionable. Maybe it is even illicit, and he should better know. While his President is presently in Moscow in order to convince his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev of the advantages of a world-wide denuclearization, his Vice President may have put the Middle East another step further into the direction of a real disaster, as Admiral Mullen has warned on Fox News yesterday.

Meanwhile, the designated new Director General of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, horrified the Israeli Administration when telling Reuters Friday last week that he has not seen “any evidence in IAEA official documents” that Iran was trying to gain the ability to develop nuclear arms.

The last four weeks have seen an almost struggling regime in Tehran after serious and probably qualified accusations inside the country and by foreign media of massive election fraud. Dozens have been killed in riots after the largest demonstrations the country has seen since the Islamic Revolution. And probably hundreds detained, maybe tortured. Show trials are expected, maybe even executions.

The so-called Green Revolution which has never been a revolution since the silent majority, Iran’s have-nots, did not try a rebellion but rather supported ‘their’ demagogic hardliner President, has failed for the time being. What we have seen is understandable dissatisfaction of Tehran’s upper class, students, and intellectuals, with an oppressive regime which clearly violates human rights, a true dictatorship. It indicates a deep disruption of the whole Iranian nation, not only within the complex and unusual framework of political, economic and social powers. We have also learned about the immense power of the internet and the profound fears of regimes all over the world of the new ways of communication and ease of spreading information.

However, none of this would justify ‘green light’ for Israel to preemptively attack the country right now. Insofar the remarks of Biden are irresponsible and highly counterproductive.

Shimon Peres

The Israeli President [1] has joint the felicitators around Barack Obama sending the people of Iran New Year greetings. In an audio message, the 1994 Nobel laureate (with PLO leader Yasser Arafat) doesn’t conceal, however, his deep antipathy for the current administration. He urges the Iranian people to shake off the rule of “an oppressive and fanatical regime” and return to relations of peace and harmony with Israel, which the two countries enjoyed when the Shah was in power, as the Jerusalem Post writes.

 

Peres’ initiative has been criticized in the meantime by European diplomats as diluting Obama’s endeavor.

 

In their respective addresses, neither Peres nor Obama mention, by the way, the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict where most probably more than one thousand Palestinian civilians lost their lives. It took place during the so-called transition period when the outgoing U.S. President Bush was still in office and Barack Obama was President-elect. Israeli soldiers have, in the meantime, confessed war crimes [2].

 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] The Israeli technician Mordechai Vanunu has compared Shimon Peres with the Pakistani dealer of nuclear equipment Abdul Qadeer Khan. Vanunu, who has spent 18 years in prison in Israel for revealing details of Israel’s covert nuclear weapons program, has recently asked the Peace Nobel Committee in Oslo to remove him from the list of nominees.

 

[2] Why do they (the Iranians, the Arabs) hate us? A question, many naïve Americans still ask. The video by mead2000 with text and music by Brian Eno (from Another Day on Earth, Opal Ltd. 2005) may in fact be revealing. The monologue by Aylie Cooke is, as Eno states “emotionally brutal”. The movie is congenial.

 

 

 

Nuclear Non-proliferation

Mordechai Vanunu has asked the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Oslo to remove his name from this year’s list of nominees. “[I] cannot be part of a list of laureates that includes Simon Peres. He is the man who was behind all the Israeli atomic policy.”

 

Like Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan did in Pakistan, he writes, Peres was behind the atomic weapon proliferation to South Africa, including the 1978 nuclear weapon test, and other states.

 

Vanunu, a former nuclear technician, had revealed to the British press details of the Israeli nuclear weapons program. He had been kidnapped in Italy by Israeli agents in 1988 and spent 18 years in prison, 11 years in solitary confinement. He was released in 2004, but had been arrested since then several times. Between 1988 and 2004, Vanunu had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Price each year.

 

Vanunu had received an honorary doctorate by the University of Tromsø, which is currently my employer.

 

 

 

Not Inevitable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only one day after his inauguration, President Barack Obama got already some good advice on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue from ISIS, David Albright’s  Institute for Scientific and International Security, providing essential background information and recommendations to the public and the new administration. It paints once more a gloomy picture of Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions and clandestine uranium enrichment program. Albright and Jacqueline Shire (together with Paul Brannan and Andrea Scheel) even expect that “[T]he year 2009 will likely mark Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons capability.” However, once again, the report does neither consider the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran nor Iran’s claims that its nuclear program serves entirely peaceful purposes.

 

A Road Map

In order to prevent Iran from going ahead with its enrichment program, Albright et al. see a road map (right now, a rather discredited term) in (i) further increased sanctions (which, so far, had only limited effect, to say the least; the current global financial crisis will have a greater impact on any economy, including that in the U.S. than any sanctions); (ii) hold immediate (!) direct talks (indeed overdue; but right now, who should be addressed? Due to the presidential elections in Iran later this year any talks have to be considered as part of the upcoming campaign); (iii) recommitting to incentive package offered by the European Union in June 2008 (without confidence-building measures it would be an illusion that Iran will respond as desired); (iv) urging Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) (in fact the most important task for the Obama administration. In return, the nuclear issue should then be referred back from the United Nations Security Council to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a position Iran holds since it had withdrawn its signature under the Additional Protocol early in 2006); (v) building diplomatic relations between the U.S and Iran (overdue as well. Former President George W. Bush may have conducted another grave mistake when leaving that to his successor); (vi) engaging Russia and China (Albright et al. clearly see the former obstacle here in the failed presidency of Bush); (vii) supporting regional arms control and security arrangements (a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East must include Israel, which is not even mentioned by Albright et al.); (viii) establishing regional constraints on nuclear energy (why should it be only regional? Nuclear energy will definitely not solve but create serious problems in the future. Its technology should be abandoned by all governments); and finally (ix) opposing a military solution (it is hoped that Israel is carefully reading that issue, too).

 

Circular Reasoning

But let’s have a look at the reasoning in the report. How far has Iran come in its enrichment activities? Albright et al. mention that, since early 2007 when the underground centrifuges in Natanz had been activated (presently, more than 5000 P1 centrifuges are rotating, and Iran plans to install a total of 15’000 in the near future), Iran has yielded a total of 630 kilograms of low enriched uranium hexafluoride (LEU). In order to fuel the soon finished reactor in Bushehr, it would need to produce about 37 tons (!) of LEU. The only reason for Iran to carry on with the program is, according to Albright et al., that it’s seeking to establish the capability of producing enough weapon-grade uranium. With almost 6000 centrifuges operating at current levels, Iran could easily produce highly enriched uranium (HEU) for one or two nuclear bombs a year.

 

Although circular reasoning, of course, this argument is worth a second thought. Iran has already started, as Albright et al. point out, developing next generation centrifuges (IR-2 and IR-3) and significant stocks of uranium hexafluoride. Altogether, Iran has already produced about 350 tons of uranium, according to Albright et al. enough for over 35 nuclear weapons. All of it is safeguarded by the IAEA.

 

Evidence or Speculation

While (according to Albright et al., the unclassified portion of) the NIE in December 2007 stated with “high confidence” that Iran had been working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran halted the program in fall 2003, the IAEA published in May 2008 ‘troubling’ activities on developing and “testing a ‘hemisperical, converging, explosively driven shock system’ applicable to an implosion-type nuclear device” and documents that show that Iran has worked on the “redesign of the inner cone of the Shahab-3 missile re-entry vehicle to accommodate a nuclear warhead.” According to IAEA, these illicit activities date into early 2004. Apart from not contradicting in general the NIE, Iran has insisted repeatedly that these documents had been forged, and denies ever having undertaken any nuclear weapons-related research. Since 2003, there is in fact “far less” (according to Albright et al., public) evidence about renewed nuclear weaponization activities of Iran. Since ongoing weaponization work would be considered a ‘smoking gun’, which would significantly erode Iran’s support worldwide (is there any? one is tempted to ask), Albright et al. speculates that “[I]ran has tightened its security over these efforts.” A further discussion and circular reasoning of this kind about intelligence and Iran’s denial, as once again started by Albright et al. in this paper, should be considered useless unless the long awaited new National Intelligence Estimate is made available to the public. Albright et al. speculate a lot about a ‘break-out’ capability of Iran. They write: “Under a wide variety of scenarios, Iran is moving steadily toward a break-out capability and is expected to reach that milestone during the first half of 2009.” Albright et al. argue that LEU may quickly be fueled into the centrifuges to produce weapon-grade highly-enriched uranium. They disregard the obvious high risk of the leaders for the country of being immediately attacked by, for instance, Israel and the U.S. once it leaves the nuclear NPT and diverts LEU.

 

What about Israel?

In order to build confidence in the international community Tehran has to implement once again the Additional Protocol of the NPT. Iran must indeed prove that it is not clandestinely working on a military project of developing nuclear weapons. In return, the nuclear issue should be referred from the UN Security Council back to the IAEA. These acts should be accomplished as soon as possible. The upcoming presidential elections in Iran will, of course, create some hurdles for the new Obama administration and Tehran, as well. It is unfortunate and negligent that this ISIS report does not explicitly call Israel for eventually signing the NPT and allowing the IAEA to investigate its nuclear activities. The whole Middle East must sooner or later be nuclear-free.  

 

 

Legacy

Documented civilian deaths from violence according to Iraq Body Count.

90,329 – 98,605

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civilian death toll in Iraq dramatically decreased during the year 2008. Fortunately, the expected overt civil war did not break out in Iraq. Anyway, I have especially expressed my disgust  for several female or even teenage suicide bombings on the occasion of Shi’a festivals here on this blog.

President G. W. Bush’s legacy will be a burden not only for his successor in the White House. His initial statement ‘mission accomplished’  has been attenuated to ‘term accomplished’ with most if not all questions left unanswered and new problems, in particular with Iran’s role in the region, emerging. The proxy war in Gaza insufficiently conceals that the  arch enemies Israel and Iran have lined-up already for new military conflicts in the near future. Coming-in President Barack Obama will have to learn that regional powers may not be kept under control by drastically economically weakened United States which have completely lost their moral reputation (if they ever had it) in the Middle East. 

But that might be a chance as well. Obama may set the stage for confidence-building measures by quickly declaring the end of the ‘War on Terror’, even before closing down Guantanamo Bay. International collaboration and diplomacy even with Iran and Syria is overdue after years of solo actions of the previous US administration and attempts to force allies into ‘coalitions of the willing’. Due to his background, Obama might have much more intercultural competence and an open, not restricted and fundamentalistic, mind as regards to cultural and religious matters.

It is clear that Israel’s new war in Gaza is intended to quickly set the scene in order to prevent Obama from starting his diplomatic initiative. Let’s see what his first steps will be next week.

In a Timely Manner

On November 13, the Institute of Science and International Security (ISIS) has published a report about ongoing construction activities at the heavy water reactor site near the city of Arak in western Iran. The report provides, for comparison, satellite pictures from October 2008 and February 2007. Clearly, some buildings around the reactor dome have been finished in the meantime.

 

Heavy water moderated nuclear plants can be fueled with non-enriched uranium, so there might be less risk for nuclear proliferation. On the other hand, plutonium and tritium are produced as by-products which might be used in nuclear weapons. According to ISIS President David Albright and Paul Brannan, the reactor, if eventually operating optimally, could produce nine kilograms plutonium per year, enough for about one or two nuclear weapons. Iran has always denied that it is building a separation and reprocessing facility from the reactor’s irradiated fuel. Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have repeatedly reported that it would take until 2011 or even 2013 when the reactor in Arak will eventually be completed. Albright and Brannan now suggest that Iran might have decided to speed-up the construction works. An Iranian official has even admitted some time ago that the site might be ready for fuelling in 2009.

 

The ISIS report comes at a time of certain alert. Israel’s attack of a possible nuclear site at Al Kibar in the Syrian desert in September 2007 might in fact have been an exercise and prelude of an air strike at Arak. That Israel might consider such a strike during the transition period between the US American elections on November 4 and President Barack Obama’s inauguration on January 20 next year has been a matter of speculation for some time. The satellite pictures of ISIS indeed resemble those published before and after the attack of Al Kibar (and bulldozing by Syrian cleanup efforts).

 

In June 1981, Israel destroyed, in an air strike, for the first time on foreign territory, a heavy water nuclear facility under construction, the Osiraq reactor near Baghdad, Iraq. Ironically, the heavy water Osiraq reactor was of the same type as Israel’s French-designed reactor at the Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona, which was constructed in 1958 and provided the country with sufficient plutonium for establishing its status as (unofficial) nuclear power.

 

 

Palestine Wiped Off the Map