Where's the truth?

October 30, 2007 6:23 PM

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran is only seeking "peaceful nuclear activities"; Presidential Candidates contend Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Which is right? I can't trust sources from my own country (U.S.) What does a more objective (is there such a thing?) view say?
posted by pelican to Society & Culture (24 answers total)

BBC's excellent Q&A from yesterday can provide some information of who's saying what.
posted by ALongDecember at 6:28 PM on October 30, 2007

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Oct. 28th, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
posted by rancidchickn at 6:31 PM on October 30, 2007

The only people who actually KNOW the answer to the question are in Iran and they either already are telling the truth or are not and have no reason to ever tell until they have built them.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:26 PM on October 30, 2007

I can't trust sources from my own country (U.S.)

What makes you think you can trust sources in another country, or, for that matter, any source at all?

Also, what JohnnyGunn said.
posted by ASM at 7:42 PM on October 30, 2007

You might take the statements made by Iranian leadership and make your own opinion.

A. Ahmadinejad has publically stated Iran is only involved in "peaceful nuclear activities".

B. Ahmadinejad has publically stated that Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth.

In my opinion a nuclear powered/armed Iran would, at some point, be led by a bat shit insane enough individual who, at some time, would feel it was God's will to use said peaceful nuclear materials to make good on one of the statements.

Question is will he choose A or B?

ASM makes a good point- you are probably going to have to go with your gut feeling on this one. And then again, you might not ever have to worry about it one way or the other. In light of the events in Syria I doubt Israel would ever allow it.
posted by bkeene12 at 8:03 PM on October 30, 2007

As JohnnyGunn says, the only people who know for sure are the Iranians.

I think it's likely that Iran interest in nuclear technology is not entirely peaceful. The evidence:

1.) Iran is not an energy poor country. While their oil supplies are not inexhaustible, Iran has the second largest proven reserves of conventional oil. They do not need nuclear energy to supply their own energy needs.
2.) On the other hand, Iran may prudently be considering that their oil reserves are too valuable to use for generating electricity-- they would be better off using nuclear energy for domestic electrical production and selling oil abroad.
3.) Iran is seriously concerned about their security. Their conventional military is no match for the US or Israel. As the war in Iraq demonstrated, not having nuclear weapons is no guarantee of safety.
4.) Actually possessing nuclear weapons would be a powerful deterrent from Israeli strikes or US designs on regime change, almost guaranteeing that a preemptive strike against them would be perceived as too risky.
5.) A fully functioning nuclear energy program would give Iran the technical skills to quickly (and probably covertly) divert resources to a nuclear weapons program. If the program were not transparently monitored, Iran could fairly easily produce weapons grade Uranium through an off-shoot of their normal fuel enrichment, or reprocess spent fuel into Plutonium.
6.) Some of the program uncovered by the IAEA seem to more easily lend themselves to modification for weapons purposes.

As someone who was opposed to the invasion of Iraq as well as preemptive strikes on Iran, I must admit that I would be very surprised if their leaders are not thinking, "Someday, we will be able to produce a nuclear weapon."
posted by justkevin at 8:09 PM on October 30, 2007

B. Ahmadinejad has publically stated that Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth.

This always come up when people get to talkin' about Iran, but from some things I've read, there is no Persian version of "wipe x off the face of the map" and that what he said is better translated as a desire to remove the current Israeli goverment, which would seem far less threatening. We've all got our least favorite administrations after all...

Anybody know the story?

Also: Iran and Russia are pretty tight buds, right? And doesn't Russia have tons and tons of nukes it could accidentally lose? If Iran wanted nukes bad enough, I bet it could find some.
posted by Plug Dub In at 9:58 PM on October 30, 2007

Anybody know the story?

Juan Cole I think was the first to debunk that. From his site:

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

posted by BinGregory at 11:08 PM on October 30, 2007

As with the Iraq WMD, while USA agencies are doing things like peering at blurring satellite photos with imagination and fear on overdrive, the UN actually gets inspectors on the ground there, checking facilities firsthand. (However, unlike Iraq just prior to invasion, the inspectors in Iran are not getting unlimited access to all facilities, so their judgement bears less weight than the (largely unreported in the USA) inspector conclusion that Iraq almost certainly was not hiding any WMD program).

I suspect that both are right - Iran will be in careful compliance with the NPT right now, everything legal and correct, busy setting up (legal) infrastructure and growing local nuclear expertise, but probably not constructing things in ways that would preclude some of the facilities being modified and re-purposed at some point in the future for weapons use, if national policy were to change and obtaining the bomb was deemed necessary.

Or in other words, Iran stands to benefit considerably from peaceful nuclear energy and technology (oil is a far FAR too valuable lifeblood of Iran to waste on something as stupid and cheap as making electricity), and Iran does not want to be dependant on the political whims of another nation to generate that electricity, so Iran's desire for its own peaceful nuclear technology is genuine. And while I suspect there is not a secret plot to get the bomb, I imagine there is a "hedge the bets" added-value: to have peaceful energy legally create the national expertise and nuclear self-sufficiency that would allow the creation of a serious weapons program to become a viable option available to future Iran.

If this is the case, I suspect the world needs to bring more to the bargaining table than we've seen to make an offer of much merit. Right now, the bargain offered to Iran seems to be "we'll make you dependant on us for your electricity, but that's ok because we'll give you a discount (for now anyway - the first one is always free), and you have to say 'yes' and do this our way because we say so, and if you say no, it means you're building nukes".
posted by -harlequin- at 12:13 AM on October 31, 2007

...rom some things I've read, there is no Persian version of "wipe x off the face of the map" and that what he said is better translated as...

Yes, and "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky."

There's a little segment in wikipe about that remark. The Iranian government also provides financial support to Hezbollah and Hamas which you may or may not want to consider when parsing a statement from an Iranian official regarding the future of Israel, violence, and Iran's role.
posted by Martin E. at 1:34 AM on October 31, 2007

The truth is that Iran wants nukes, and who can blame them? In the current political climate nukes = respect.

Would Iran ever use a nuke, or give one to terrorists? Don't make me laugh, that would be instant suicide for the nation of Iran. If Iran ever let a nuke go off in the US or Israel they would 100% guaranteed be vaporized in a real physical sense.
posted by parallax7d at 3:34 AM on October 31, 2007

Guess who's building nuclear power plants: The Shah of Iran
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:02 AM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

All these are good points, with good references, too.

But, given today's international climate, it's worth bearing in mind this quote (paraphrased) I saw recently:

Anyone would be crazy to want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but Iran would be crazy not to pursue getting them.

From a deterrent standpoint, it's not hard to identify why Iraq (no nukes) is in shambles, while places like North Korea and Pakistan (nuclear states) remain relatively intact. This is, IMO, the great danger of nuclear proliferation in general-- the more nukes there are in the world, the more likely it is that they will fall into the "wrong" hands.

Having said that, I think parallax7d has a good point; there's a big difference in having the bomb and using it.
posted by Rykey at 5:22 AM on October 31, 2007

The Economist tends to have good reporting, in my opinion. But on a much more crass note: I have to admit that after the "mobile biological weapons labs" in Iraq turned out to be as dangerous as abandoned ice cream trucks, I wouldn't be surprised if the Shah set off some fireworks and US intel immediately reported it as nuclear weapons ambitions.
posted by greekphilosophy at 5:54 AM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nthing the have vs. use distinction. Everyone who possesses nuclear arms knows its a zero-sum game. If any one person uses it everyone loses. Even if our politicians seem crazy, they must have some sense of self preservation else they wouldn't bother to be as corrupt as they are.

Also keep in mind that saying provocative things that get under the skin of the West is the hallmark of countries that have no other way to get on our radar- it works for North Korea just fine. The best aspect of it is that it forces our hand. You can't not respond so either way they get what they want from us- attention.

I would suspect also that based on interviews I've seen with Ahmadinejad (this is my opinion), he is a very smart man and knows exactly what he's doing. Even if he has no intention whatsoever of pursuing nuclear weapons it may serve his interests (whatever those may be) to let us think he might. If we aren't certain of nuclear status it limits our options.
posted by zennoshinjou at 6:03 AM on October 31, 2007

I don't know anything about any of this, but I have to ask, what exactly entails "peaceful" nuclear activities?
posted by misanthropicsarah at 6:45 AM on October 31, 2007

I would assume nuclear energy.
posted by zennoshinjou at 7:08 AM on October 31, 2007

Yes, nuclear energy used for civilian purposes-- electricity, fuel, etc.
posted by Rykey at 7:16 AM on October 31, 2007

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Oct. 28th, Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

I would encourage anyone interested in the topic to be sure to click through to the article itself rather than rely on rancidchickn's summary thereof.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:48 AM on October 31, 2007

Plug Dub In, your translation statement is very interesting- seriously.

It got me thinking about when Ahmadinejad stated there were no gay people in Iran; was there something lost in translation then too?
posted by bkeene12 at 7:56 AM on October 31, 2007

I'm no geo-political expert, so take all this with a big pinch of salt, but the matter seems fairly clear to me.

Of course Iran wants nuclear weapons, just look at the region. Nuclear Pakistan and India to the East, nuclear Israel to the West, and surrounded by US forces that have invaded its neigbours Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, I'd be nervous too. Does Iran really need nuclear power for energy? This seems a nearly ridiculous argument, what with them swimming on a sea of oil.

That stuff about wiping Israel off the map is nonsense. Iran wants a nuclear weapon for self-defence. The US is dead against letting it get one as it means Iran could, potentially, close off the straights of Hormuz, cutting off Saudi oil and bringing the West to it's knees. This would piss off everyone in the Western world and be ample political ammunition for regime change in Iran, but not if they had the bomb.

I've had this fixed in my head for about a year now, I'd love to know if iany of it was wrong.
posted by greytape at 9:44 AM on October 31, 2007

bkeene12: There is a story on a NY Times blog about this. An adviser to Ahmedinejad says that he was "misunderstood" on the whole "we don't have gays" thing: link.
posted by medusa at 9:48 AM on October 31, 2007

pelican: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran is only seeking "peaceful nuclear activities"; Presidential Candidates contend Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Which is right?

It looks like Iran is definitely pushing for a nuclear fuel cycle using enriched uranium, which would give them the ability to build a bomb. My understanding is that under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty--which Iran has signed--Iran is not prohibited from developing an independent nuclear fuel cycle: a party to the NPT is allowed to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium and stockpile them, as long as they are placed under IAEA safeguards.

Christopher de Bellaigue, Iran and the Bomb, New York Review of Books, April 27, 2006:

Achieving a nuclear fuel cycle and the ability to build a bomb would give Iran's leaders a different degree of protection altogether. It would be in a position to deter attacks by any hostile power. Acquiring a fuel cycle, however, is a perilous undertaking. In a speech that he delivered to senior officials at the end of 2004, whose contents were recently made public, Hassan Rohani, then Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, spoke of the intense diplomatic pressure being felt by Iran. "If we can one day complete this [uranium enrichment] cycle and present the world with a fait accompli," he said, "the situation will change. The world didn't want Pakistan to get an atom bomb or Brazil to get a fuel cycle, but Brazil achieved a fuel cycle and Pakistan a bomb, and the world came to an accommodation with them ... but we haven't yet achieved a full fuel cycle, and that, as it happens, is our main problem."

In a later article, de Bellaigue quotes Ray Takeyh.

As for Iran's nuclear program, which he believes is designed to produce weapons, Takeyh writes: "The Islamic Republic is not an irrational rogue state seeking such weaponry as an instrument of an aggressive, revolutionary foreign policy designed to project its power abroad ... for Iran this is a weapon of deterrence, and the relevant question is whether its possession will serve its practical interests."

Given that Iran is not prohibited from developing a nuclear fuel cycle by the NPT, there would need to be some kind of quid pro quo to convince them to do so. As de Bellaigue says, "Iran's leaders are unlikely to abandon their plans to achieve a fuel cycle unless they believe that they will be more secure as a result."

International Crisis Group, February 2006:

There is no easy way out of the Iranian nuclear dilemma. Iran, emboldened by the situation in Iraq and soaring oil prices, and animated by a combination of insecurity and assertive nationalism, insists on its right to develop full nuclear fuel cycle capability, including the ability to enrich uranium. Most other countries, while acknowledging to varying extents Iran’s right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to acquire that capability for peaceful energy purposes, have a concern – reinforced by Iran’s lack of transparency in the past, continuing support for militant Middle East groups and incendiary presidential rhetoric – that once able to highly enrich uranium, it will be both able and tempted to build nuclear weapons.

But EU-led diplomacy so far has failed to persuade Iran to forego its fuel cycle ambitions; the UN Security Council seems unlikely to agree on sanctions strong enough to force it to do so; and preventive military force is both a dangerous and unproductive option.

Two possible scenarios remain, however, for a negotiated compromise. The first, and unquestionably more attractive for the international community, is a “zero enrichment” option: for Iran to agree to indefinitely relinquish its right to enrich uranium in return for guaranteed supply from an offshore source, along the lines proposed by Russia. Tehran, while not wholly rejecting offshore supply, has made clear its reluctance to embrace such a limitation as a long-term solution: for it to have any chance of acceptance, more incentives from the U.S. need to be on the table than at present.

If this option proves unachievable – as seems, regrettably, more likely than not – the only realistic remaining diplomatic option appears to be the “delayed limited enrichment” plan spelt out in this report. The wider international community, and the West in particular, would explicitly accept that Iran can not only produce peaceful nuclear energy but has the “right to enrich” domestically; in return, Iran would agree to a several-year delay in the commencement of its enrichment program, major limitations on its initial size and scope, and a highly intrusive inspections regime.

The ICG has more detailed background information on Iran, e.g. this report on Ahmadinejad's presidency.

Another view of potential negotiations between the West and Iran, by Kenneth Pollack and Ray Takeyh (Foreign Affairs, March 2005).
posted by russilwvong at 10:50 AM on October 31, 2007

Tangential
posted by hortense at 8:41 PM on October 31, 2007