Keeping Iran Honest

Iran's secret nuclear plant will spark a new round of IAEA inspections and lead to a period of even greater transparency

By Scott Ritter

September 27, 209 "The Guardian" -- It was very much a moment of high drama. Barack Obama, fresh from his history-making stint hosting the UN security council, took a break from his duties at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh to announce the existence of a secret, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran which was inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear programme, underscoring the president's conclusion that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow".

Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity.

The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.

Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.

This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.

In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.

While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.

There are many ways to interpret Iran's decision of March 2007, especially in light of today's revelations. It should be underscored that what the Qom facility Obama is referring to is not a nuclear weapons plant, but simply a nuclear enrichment plant similar to that found at the declared (and inspected) facility in Natanz.

The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be enriched.

Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran's nuclear material stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant (since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran today.

Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility.

One could make the argument that the existence of this new plant provides Iran with a "breakout" capability to produce highly-enriched uranium that could be used in the manufacture of a nuclear bomb at some later date. The size of the Qom facility, alleged to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges, is not ideal for large-scale enrichment activity needed to produce the significant quantities of low-enriched uranium Iran would need to power its planned nuclear power reactors. As such, one could claim that its only real purpose is to rapidly cycle low-enriched uranium stocks into highly-enriched uranium usable in a nuclear weapon. The fact that the Qom facility is said to be located on an Iranian military installation only reinforces this type of thinking.

But this interpretation would still require the diversion of significant nuclear material away from the oversight of IAEA inspectors, something that would be almost immediately evident. Any meaningful diversion of nuclear material would be an immediate cause for alarm, and would trigger robust international reaction, most probably inclusive of military action against the totality of Iran's known nuclear infrastructure.

Likewise, the 3,000 centrifuges at the Qom facility, even when starting with 5% enriched uranium stocks, would have to operate for months before being able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear device. Frankly speaking, this does not constitute a viable "breakout" capability.

Iran has, in its declaration of the Qom enrichment facility to the IAEA on 21 September, described it as a "pilot plant". Given that Iran already has a "pilot enrichment plant" in operation at its declared facility in Natanz, this obvious duplication of effort points to either a parallel military-run nuclear enrichment programme intended for more nefarious purposes, or more likely, an attempt on the part of Iran to provide for strategic depth and survivability of its nuclear programme in the face of repeated threats on the part of the US and Israel to bomb its nuclear infrastructure.

Never forget that sports odds makers were laying 2:1 odds that either Israel or the US would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities by March 2007. Since leaving office, former vice-president Dick Cheney has acknowledged that he was pushing heavily for a military attack against Iran during the time of the Bush administration. And the level of rhetoric coming from Israel concerning its plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran have been alarming.

While Obama may have sent conciliatory signals to Iran concerning the possibility of rapprochement in the aftermath of his election in November 2008, this was not the environment faced by Iran when it made the decision to withdraw from its commitment to declare any new nuclear facility under construction. The need to create a mechanism of economic survival in the face of the real threat of either US or Israeli military action is probably the most likely explanation behind the Qom facility. Iran's declaration of this facility to the IAEA, which predates Obama's announcement by several days, is probably a recognition on the part of Iran that this duplication of effort is no longer representative of sound policy on its part.

In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran's nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility, has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran's centrifuge manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for these items as well.

Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything, should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration".

Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23580.htm




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

Perhaps you would like to inform us why the plant was a 'secret' and was 'discovered' by the 'west'?

Let stick to the FACTS, which means facts that do not rely on who said she said from either side:

-Iran was the first to reveal the existence of this plant to the IAEA (on the 21st).

-Iran is not obliged under the NPT to disclose the existence of such a facility until 6 months before the introduction of nuclear material.

- Iran has repeatedly stated that it is pursuing its path to nuclear technology.. has never mentioned a freeze in the development of new plants and sites.. so why the surprise?

the spin doctors at the 'free media' do a better spinning job every time.

As stated by the author Obama's declaration was nothing more then hot air... and i thought (and was hoping) that he was not going to follow this illogical path of fear mongering and hysteria.... I guess i was wrong.

Perhaps you would like to inform us why the plant was a 'secret' and was 'discovered' by the 'west'?

Let stick to the FACTS, which means facts that do not rely on who said she said from either side:

-Iran was the first to reveal the existence of this plant to the IAEA (on the 21st).
---
I heard an analyst on the radio saying:
The West (USA,France,GB) announced it would inform to the IAEA the existence of a new secret nuclear facility in Iran. To cover itself, Iran quickly announced, before the West could, the existence of this facility. The facility was not brand new!


This explanation seems to make a lot more sense than yours, i.e. that the after hearing Iran revealing the existence of this facility the West went to the IAEA to reveal the existence of this facility.
It really doesn't make any sense.


Anyway, I hope the EU at least will sanction Iran and that Peugeot and VW will close their factories in Iran. Iran needs to be sanctioned.



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

Eric i thought we were not going to go by he said she said?

'my' explanation as you put it is not mine at all its based on FACT as reported by the IAEA.... your explanation on the other hand is based on an analyst on the radio..... there is also a analyst that says Ahmadinejad is the next hitler... there is also an analyst that says Iran will nuke tel-aviv in three years.... you see where i am going?

The poster of this article is a lawyer himself so he knows that in a court of law.... it is proof that wins the day not what a analyst (most likely pro Isreali however irrelevant) has to say. So again the facts are:

-Iran reported the existence of the facility to the IAEA on the 21st
-Four days later the US says they caught Iran....
-Iran is only obliged to report the existence of these kind of plants 6 months before nuclear material is introduced. which they did (unless reported other wise by the IAEA)
-Iran is well within its right to make new plants as long as it gives the agency the required information when its due.

1. Scott Ritter is hardly either pro-Israeli or for that matter, pro-American.

2. We have no idea currently, when or if the facility came online or is coming online. Real inspections will tell whether or not the facility has processed fissionable material and whether Iran is in compliance or not.

3. Arguably building the facility in secret violates the IEAE's "heightened scrutiny" of the Iranian nuclear program which Iran agreed to after the missile warhead issue.




Provost

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929

Eric i thought we were not going to go by he said she said?

'my' explanation as you put it is not mine at all its based on FACT as reported by the IAEA.... your explanation on the other hand is based on an analyst on the radio..... there is also a analyst that says Ahmadinejad is the next hitler... there is also an analyst that says Iran will nuke tel-aviv in three years.... you see where i am going?
---
I beg to differ, my previous post was not at all "hearsay".
It is absolutely understandable that big announcements like the ones the US, France and GB (please, don't forget the two EU countries) did, are announced in advance. They must give proof and this must be analyzed which takes time.
In that aspect, it's very possible that Iran, upon hearing of the announcement, decided to reveal what was to be revealed anyway. It's a way of covering itself.

It's much more plausible than "your" explanation, imho.



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

"1. Scott Ritter is hardly either pro-Israeli or for that matter, pro-American."
agreed i think scott Ritter is probably the most realistic 'Analyst' when it comes to such issues. In my response to Eric I was referring to the Radio analyst and not Scott Ritter.

"2. We have no idea currently, when or if the facility came online or is coming online. Real inspections will tell whether or not the facility has processed fissionable material and whether Iran is in compliance or not."

Agreed again but in the absence of proof you are not deemed to be guilty.. so until there is proof that Iran violated the rules then such rhetoric and war mongering by the UK, US and France is not justified and hugely counter productive (like they care). Just to make sure there is no confusion such judgment is only passed by the IAEA and not the CIA or MOSSAD or Eric's analyst

"3. Arguably building the facility in secret violates the IEAE's "heightened scrutiny" of the Iranian nuclear program which Iran agreed to after the missile warhead issue."

You are referring to the additional protocol which was only implemented by Iran under voluntary basis and for confidence building measures in 2003 to 2006. In 2006 the Iranians in a letter to the IAEA indicated that they would no longer abide by this protocol since the confidence building measures by them did not lead to anything. They realized that they simply were not allowed nuclear technology, it did not really matter what they did to increase confidence and transparency.


Eric, again please refer to known FACTS... 'more plausible' then the EVIDENCE we have so far is not a fact and wont win a legal battle.

It's just a theory, but it's a more plausible one than yours if I may say so.



When I was young I used to pray for a bike, then I realized that God doesn't work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

In 2007 when Iran withdrew from the additional protocol it was not in response to the 'missile warhead case', whatever that is, but because despite its extra compliance with the IAEA its case was sent to the UNSC and sanctions were applied against the country.

Iran is therefore, like all other npt countries, not obliged to inform the us or un of any facility until 6 months before it plans to introduce uranium to that facility. Iran informed the IAEA 18 months before it plans to introduce uranium to qom, not because 'it found out that america knew', but because it did not want to give any leverage to the P5+1 during the talks starting october.

You can't even maintain a nuclear weapons program with 3,000 centrifuges. What's that going to make you 1 small yield bomb per year? Whoopdedoo, its not 1945 anymore, as soon as the iaea informs the us of the unnacounted uranium either from the supply lines it keeps a close eye on or the other enrichment facility the us or israel is going to attack it.

Seriously, you people are so ridiculously stupid its beyond comprehension. Nothing has changed, your accusation is exactly the same as it was before iran declared the site to the IAEA, now you're just making up another lie and saying it was all a big secret. What is wrong with you people, you fell for the exact same lie in 2003. Your leaders are driving your country into an abysmall hole and you can't even waken up to the fact that they've been deceiving you this whole time. You are collapsed, finished, kaput. Do you not understand this? Obama is not your messiah, he lied to you. According to your own top generals you need 500,000 extra troops in afghanistan just to win a war against the talebs.

You put oil sanctions on Iran and it will withdraw from the NPT, israel will then attack, and the whole region will be drawn into war, which is preferrable to iran once its oil industry is put under sanctions. Why do you people not understand this? Why are you falling for the same lie you fell for in 2003?

----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too