Tag: Nuclear weapons
Nuclear Iran – facts, goals and opportunity
Former IAEA Safeguards Inspector Dr. Pantelis Ikonomou writes:
In May 2018, then President Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Today, Iran is much closer to possible acquisition of nuclear weapons than at that time.
Facts
The fourth round of nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran was recently completed.
Their continuation will convene soon. That is a promising development. The nuclear issue has fueled Middle East confrontations since May 2018.
Goals
Reportedly, Tehran would accept an agreement limiting its uranium enrichment and relevant material inventories. That would be in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. President Trump has also said he is ready for an agreement that would limit Tehran’s enrichment. In addition, he has threatened Iran with massive bombing if Iran does not accept his proposals.
Limiting enrichment could guarantee Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. Trump did not, however, clarify whether he also aims at other goals. In the past, the US has sought to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability, ballistic missile program, and strategic influence in the region.
Israel is the third protagonist in Middle East geopolitical theater. It remains irrevocably opposed to any agreement that does not irreversibly destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. The powerful Israel lobby in the US often asserts decisive influence on Washington. It advocates a maximalist policy of unlimited pressure against Tehran.
The opportunity
There are reliable reports of Tehran making a remarkable proposal. Namely, the setting up of a regional nuclear enrichment consortium with Saudi Arabia and UAE, including US investment. This would be an alternative to shutting down its uranium enrichment.
Such multinational cooperation could be realized within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It would be the equivalent of the URENCO (Uranium Enrichment Company) plant, which the IAEA monitors. URENCO is a British-German-Dutch uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel consortium that operates facilities in Germany and Netherlands. URENCO uses centrifuge technology, as do the enrichment facilities in Iran.
Such a project would provide the participating States – Saudi Arabia, UAE, and eventually others in the region – with additional confidence in their ability to obtain nuclear fuel for peaceful nuclear programs. At the same time, the scheme would assure the international community that the countries involved are using the sensitive nuclear material exclusively for peaceful purposes. The stringent monitoring and verification regime of the IAEA nuclear Safeguards inspectors would provide that assurance.
History remains a wise teacher
President Trump’s decision to kill in 2018 the 2015 Iran deal was an obvious failure.
Lack of knowledge and planning characterized Trump’s previous negotiations in the similar case of North Korea. He made a series of controversial statements, exchanged letters of admiration with President Kim, and threatened “fire and fury.” After three in-person meetings, Trump left their Hanoi Summit in 2019 unexpectedly without any statement. Since then, North Korea has continued developing its nuclear arsenal completely uncontrolled.
We should by now have learned the lessons.
International anxiety is justified. Will diplomacy or war result?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Failure and disgrace in 100 days
As they Trump Administration approaches its 100th day April 30, the failures are glaring.
Failures
The most obvious failures are in negotiations. Trump himself laid out the agenda. He wanted:
- The Canal back from Panama.
- To buy Greenland from Denmark.
- Canada as the 51st state.
- Gaza voluntarily emptied and redeveloped as a resort.
- The Ukraine war ended.
- A better nuclear deal with Iran.
- Trade deals that would “correct” bilateral imbalances.
None of this is happening. The first three items are fool’s errands hardly worth discussing. The four later ones are more serious propositions.
Even winning would be losing
The Gaza-a-Lago proposition was a green light for war crimes. The Israelis are trying to force Palestinians out of Gaza. They are failing so far, but they will no doubt persist. This is egregious even from a religious perspective: Biblical Jews did not live in Gaza. No religion, certainly not mine, can approve displacing two million people to please a real estate developer.
Trump is proposing to end the Ukraine war on terms favorable to Russia. Why is not clear, but Moscow would keep the territory it has taken, including Crimea. Kyiv would have to recognize Russia’s annexation of the peninsula. Ukraine would get no security guarantee from the US, which would gain privileged access to its minerals. This is a bad deal, one that that will not end the war, even if Kyiv and Moscow sign on. At best, it will pause the hostilities.
The better nuclear deal with Iran is a possibility. That’s because Trump is prepared to lift many if not all the sanctions. Biden refused to do that, because Washington imposed some of them for human rights violations. The Trump Administration doesn’t care about those. So a better nuclear deal for Trump means American endorsement of the Islamic Republic’s oppression. Not sure that is what Americans really want.
The Administration claims to be negotiating tariff deals with 90 countries. Unless they lower tariffs relative to the previous Administration, they will raise costs for American consumers. The most important of the negotiations is with China. That will end with higher tariffs both on Chinese imports to the US and on American exports to China. Yes, the US government will gain some revenue, though nowhere near as much as the Administration claims. And most of that revenue will come from Americans. Inflation will accelerate. Recession looms.
The disgraces
Trump supports Israeli war crimes in Gaza, Russian victory in Ukraine, endorsement of Islamic Republic human rights abuses, and trade deals that raise prices and slow growth for Americans. Add that to attacking American universities, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, and deportation of immigrants, and canceling of vital scientific research.
The Administration is weakening the United States. That is the only thing at which it is succeeding in its disgraceful first 100 days.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A stronger American still fumbles
President Biden made a farewell appearance at the State Department yesterday. As a former Foreign Service officer, I’m of course delighted that he did this. It is especially important and timely because the Department now faces Donald Trump’s threat of loyalty tests and mass firings.
Biden’s understandably directed his remarks at justifying what his Administration has done on foreign policy. So how did he really do?
The bar was low
Certainly Biden can justifiably claim to have strengthened America’s alliances. The bar was low. Both in Europe and Asia the first Trump Administration had raised doubts. Allies could not depend on Washington’s commitment to fulfill its mutual defense obligations. Biden’s claim that compared to four years ago America is stronger because of renewed and expanded alliances is true. He is also correct in claiming he has not gone to war to make it happen.
The extraordinary strength of the American economy is an important dimension of this strength. Voters decided the election in part on the issue of inflation. But the Fed has largely tamed that and growth has been strong throughout. Manufacturing is booming, including vital semi-conductor production. Investment in non-carbon energy sources has soared. The defense industrial based is expanding.
Biden is also correct in asserting that America’s antagonists are worse off. Russia has failed to take Ukraine because of the US effort to gather support for Kyiv. Iran and its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria are weaker. Only the Houthis in Yemen are arguably stronger than four years ago.
China is facing serious domestic economic and demographic challenges. But I don’t know why Biden claims it will never surpass the US. On a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis, it already has, though obviously per capita GDP in China remains much lower.
Some claims gloss over big problems
Biden is rightly proud that there is no longer war in Afghanistan, but he glosses over the chaotic withdrawal. He also doesn’t mention the failure of the Taliban to keep its commitments.
He vaunts progress on climate change, but without acknowledging that the goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade will not be met.
Biden talks about infrastructure in Africa. But not about its turn away from democracy, civil wars in Sudan and Ethiopia, and the unresolved conflict in Libya.
He urges that Iran never be allowed to “fire” a nuclear weapon. That is a significant retreat from the position that Iran should never be allowed to have one.
Biden mentions the impending Hamas/Israel ceasefire. But he says nothing about Israel’s criminal conduct of the war in Gaza. Nor does he blame Israel’s right-wing government for the long delay in reaching a deal.
Biden’s legacy
At the end, Biden seeks to bequeath three priorities to Trump: artificial intelligence, climate change, and democracy. He no doubt knows that Trump isn’t going to take the advice on climate or democracy. He might on artificial intelligence, as his Silicon Valley tycoons will want him to.
Sad to say, Biden’s legacy will lie in other areas. Fearful of nuclear conflict with Russia, he failed to give Ukraine all the support it needs to defeat Russia. He was reluctant to rein in Israel for more than a year of the Gaza war. He failed to stop or reverse the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. America is stronger than it was four years ago, but it has not always used that strength to good advantage.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Mushroom clouds over the Middle East
Former IAEA inspector Pantelis Ikonomou writes:
After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear deterrence became the strongest parameter in projecting geopolitical power. Nuclear weapons could eventually be decisive in the Middle East.
Israel and Iran are now in direct confrontation
Safeguarding state security and regional dominance are the fundamental aims of the main protagonists, Israel and Iran. Since spring, they have been confronting each other directly. Two exchanges of missiles have resulted. Further escalation seems irreversible.
Serious questions need serious answers. Where is this dynamic leading? What is next? Is there hope for an end to the escalation after next week’s presidential elections in the US? Is the global superpower willing or even capable of rerouting the war dynamics towards a peaceful direction?
The next American President
Candidate Donald Trump in 2018 withdrew the US unilaterally from the Iran nuclear deal. A few days ago Trump urged Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Doing that would force Iran to end its doctrine of strategic patience. Iran would exit the NPT, develop the military dimension of its nuclear program, and construct nuclear warheads. Iranian parliamentarians are already proposing this course of action.
The other candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, was an important voice in Washington as the current Middle East crisis developed. President Biden has struggled to prevent the escalatory spiral. His effort slowed but not stopped it.
The consequences are dire
Continuation of this situation could force Israel to abandon its doctrine of nuclear opacity. It neither confirms nor denies its nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Meir considered using nuclear weapons during the 1973 Yom Kippur war to respond to Egyptian army advances. Prime Minister Netanyahu could also be forced to consider or threaten their use.
An Iranian decision to pursue nuclear weapons or Israeli confirmation of its nuclear capability would change the situation dramatically. Either or both would challenge the credibility of the Non Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA, and the UN Security Council. Adding Iran to the non-NPT states (India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) could undermine the global security architecture. Mushroom clouds would loom over the Middle East.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The war Netanyahu wanted is at hand
Prime Minister Netanyahu has spent the 31 years since the Oslo accords seeking two principal foreign policy goals: preventing establishment of a Palestinian state and destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is on the verge of getting a chance to achieve both. In the process, he is ending Israeli democracy, earning the enmity of much of the Arab street, and drawing the US into another Middle East war. I don’t like the result, but he is definitely stalwart.
Obliterating the idea of a Palestinian state
I recall in the mid-1990s a discussion at a mutual friend’s house with the then National Security Advisor to Vice President Gore. Leon Fuerth believed that Netanyahu would eventually come around to accepting a Palestinian state. I had my doubts. I still think I was right.
Netanyahu spent many years thereafter pumping up the idea that Israel was under siege, both by the Palestinians and the Iranians. The Second Intifada and the wall Israel built to isolate itself, successfully, from the West Bank boosted his credibility. Once Hamas took over Gaza from the Palestinian Authority in 2006/7, he worked hard to keep the two governing bodies separate. Dividing the Palestinians was one way to make sure they couldn’t get what they wanted.
Defeating Iran
Hezbollah is Iran’s most important ally/proxy in the region. Israel has now destroyed perhaps 50% of its rocket and missile supplies and killed an even greater proportion of Hezbollah’s leaders. The pager/walkie-talkie attack two weeks ago maimed thousands of its cadres. Israeli troops are now on the ground in southern Lebanon seeking to push Hezbollah forces north of the Litani River.
Netanyahu is imagining that regime in Iran is imminent:
He will be content with the results of yesterday’s 180-missile Iranian attack. Israel appears to have suffered little damage and no known strategic losses. Many of the missiles were destroyed before hitting their targets by US, Israeli, and other unnamed defenses.
Retaliation is nevertheless all but certain. Netanyahu has been looking for an opportunity to hit Iran for decades. The Israelis will likely aim for nuclear and oil production facilities. The nuclear facilities will be difficult to destroy, as vital ones are ensconced well under ground. The best the IDF can hope for is to block some of the access routes. The oil facilities are more vulnerable. Oil and natural gas are Iran’s major exports. If they don’t flow, the economy will deflate.
Restraint is not in the cards
The Americans and Europeans will be urging restraint on Israel. They don’t want a regional war. Netanyahu isn’t listening. His own political future depends on continuing the fighting and achieving a spectacular military success. Hamas has denied him that in Gaza. So far, Hezbollah has proven an easier target. Netanyahu knows President Biden will do nothing to Israel’s block arms supplies. And he wants to boost Trump’s chances of winning the presidency. So he has no reason to restrain an attack he has wanted to launch for decades.
Netanyahu’s governing coalition has only a thin majority in the Knesset. But his allies and his own Likud political party have given him a blank check in pursuing a regional war. The Arab states are protesting the war in Gaza but doing little to prevent Israel from attacking Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran. All of them are anathema to the Gulf monarchies. The Arab street is still sympathetic to the Palestinians, but it has little say. Restraint is not in the cards.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s about Iran as well as the Palestinians
Israel is now conducting a different war in Lebanon than the one it has conducted in Gaza. As Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib (@afalkhatib) has noted, “Gaza is a war of revenge, not precision.” So far, the war in Lebanon has been far more precise and targeted, though of course it has also killed hundreds of innocent civilians.
The “precision” war
This is likely to continue. The Israelis know most Sunnis, Christians, and Druze in Lebanon do not trust Shia Hezbollah. There is no point in hitting them. Support for President Assad’s war against the (mainly Sunni) Syrian opposition and involvement in Lebanon’s corrupt sectarian politics have blotted Hezbollah’s copybook. Leveling communities that don’t like Hezbollah would make no sense.
Hezbollah opposes the existence of Israel, but it has done little for the approximately 200,000 Palestinians who live in Lebanon. The Israelis are letting it be known that they are contemplating a ground invasion, but that is likely to be unrewarding. The Israel Defense Force will prefer to continue to destroy Hezbollah large rocket and missile inventory from the air. Any ground incursion is likely to be limited to the south.
The Arab openness
The Jordanian Foreign Minister yesterday made the Arab and Muslim position clear:
This is not new for the Jordanians, who protect Israel’s security every day, in return for Israeli help with internal security. But “all of us are willing to right now guarantee the security of Israel” is a bold formula, even with the traditional conditions that follow. He was apparently speaking after a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, whose 57 members include the non-Arab Muslim states.
There is more Muslim and Arab acceptance today of Israel’s existence than at any other time since 1948. But Israel isn’t paying any attention. Why not?
Two reasons
The first reason is the one Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi cites. Netanyahu wants to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. He has devoted the last 30 years to that cause. He is not going to give it up now.
Just as important: for him, the fight with Hamas and Hezbollah is about Iran, not only Palestine. The IDF is well on its way to destroying Tehran’s best deterrent, which was Lebanese Hezbollah’s stock of rockets and missiles. Tehran’s Syrian deterrent is already in tatters. Hamas isn’t destroyed but will need time to recover. So Netanyahu is clearing the way for an Israeli attack on Iran, focused on its nuclear facilities. I find it hard to understand how Iran would use a nuclear weapon against a place as small as Israel without killing a lot of Muslims. But Israeli prime ministers have been willing to do some frightening things to prevent neighbors from getting nukes.
The consequences
With its deterrent gone and at risk of losing its nuclear assets, Tehran will likely amp up its nuclear program. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will no doubt see production of nuclear weapons as a necessary deterrent against an Israeli attack. An Iranian sprint for nuclear weapons will ignite Turkiye and Saudi Arabia rivalry. That would make four nuclear or near nuclear powers in the Middle East, with many complicated relations among them. It is hard to see how that will serve Israeli or American interests.
RSS - Posts
