The recent nuclear framework agreement between powerful world leaders and Iran, regarding the lifting of sanctions, has the U.S. Senate stating that they will do everything that they can think of to change it, and Israel’s Netanyahu clearly displays his thoughts with the one-word, “nightmare”.
It seems that no one understands why Iran needs enrichment facilities when less expensive reactor fuel is available on the international market. Therefore, it is said that there can be only one reason ... to produce enough enrichment for a bomb.
Therefore, it is really necessary to pause and study Iran’s history.
Chris Lawrence, a nuclear scientist at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation says, “This detached calculus is made possible only by a radical ahistoricism that seems to pervade nearly all discussion of the Iranian nuclear program.”
He continues, “Nuclear power reactors represent towering investments. Most are designed to last 40 years, and their lives are often extended to 50 or 60. Meanwhile, the price of fuel makes up less than 30 percent of their operating cost”.
Starting with the revolution in 1979, when construction on the Bushehr reactor had reached 80%, the German construction company was encouraged to back out, and U.S. pressure in the 80’s caused France, China, and Argentina to back out of being suppliers of nuclear fuel.
Therefore, this history shows that Iran cannot rely on the international availability of fuel, fifty years from now ... certainly not from Russia, and is a good reason to be self reliant.
It should not be surprising, considering years of sanctions, that they continued with a secret procurement process, it being their only option.
“As fellow nonproliferation analyst Ivanka Barzashka and others have pointed out, the existence of the Fordow plant [Constructed beneath a mountain. Ed.] removes this option since it would be invulnerable to an airstrike. In fact, if Iran can simply continue enriching at Fordow, then destroying Natanz [Iran’s largest enrichment plant. Ed.] is even worse than pointless, since it would likely change Iran's calculus in favor of weaponization.” Lawrence continued.
It may seem strange that Iran would agree to reduce its’ enrichment process and, it is suspected, this will enable them to maintain their centrifuge capability, should there be a failure of future agreements and, thus, avoid shutting down their reactors as they did in the 80’s.
We must not be too pleased with ourselves that severe sanctions have caused this latest agreement, because as Lawrence also says, “Iran came to the table in 2003, before sanctions were escalated, with a better deal than we could possibly imagine today. We eloquently responded, "You're evil, go away." Since then, they have done the rational thing and become excellent enrichers of uranium so they will never again be without fuel for their reactors”.
I hope that a final agreement is reached in June, and that the U.S. Senate keeps its’ pointed nose out of harms way ... the less that I say about Netanyahu the better.
It is a complicated issues but considering that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons as does Israel, Britain, France, Russia and possibly North Korea and no country has used them because of the MAD issue why shouldn't Iran have some? Is Israel to be the only mid east country with the power to destroy a neighbour? Iran's ayatollah's know if they fire a nuclear weapon at Israel Tehran will be cinders in seconds. It's called nuclear deterrent.
ReplyDeleteTwo points:
ReplyDelete- My understanding is that the UK and the USA would provide countries such as Australia and Canada with nuclear weapons should it become necessary.
- I have a strong feeling that, in fact, it would be Israel that may make the first move, and given the geography, a retaliative strike against Tel Aviv would not leave much of Israel left, whereas Iran would redevelop its' greater land mass much quicker. It should also be wise to consider the very uncertain actions of the Arab world in such an event of an Israeli first strike.