The implications of the Speech by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to Congress was the subject of a brief and immoderate diary by Carl Nyberg on the orange one. Depite the flames that it received, it was pointed out in the discussion that it raises legitimate causes for concern in connection with a increasing banging of war drums against Iran, using the excuse of a supposed program to develop nuclear weapons.
Now no-one, despite the distortion of a poster on Nyberg’s diary, is assuming this will be an invasion in the Afghanistan/Iraq mode. Bush is unlikely to get any members of a “coalition of the willing” to do so and US forces are overstretched to breaking point with the current commitments. What is most likely to be a military option is a conventional weapons attack on the sites known to the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) with a few others thrown in justified by “intelligence” to boost the claim that weapons development was going on there.
So the diary does not get subverted by claims of what was or was not sait, lets look at what Olmert was in the speech about Iran (in part). This is his claim and call for immediate action.
Allow me to turn to another dark and gathering storm casting its shadow over the world. Every generation is confronted with a moment of truth and trial. From the savagery of slavery, to the horrors of World War Two, to the gulags of the Communist Bloc. That which is right and good in this world has always been at war with the horrific evil permitted by human indifference. Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terror, and a notorious violator of fundamental human rights, stands on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
With these weapons, the security of the entire world is put in jeopardy. We deeply appreciate America’s leadership on this issue and the strong bipartisan conviction that a nuclear-armed Iran is an intolerable threat to the peace and security of the world. It cannot be permitted to materialize. This Congress has proven its conviction by initiating the Iran Freedom and Support Act. We applaud these efforts.
A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die: the mass destruction of innocent human life.
This challenge, which I believe is The Test of Our Time, is one the West cannot afford to fail. The radical Iranian regime has declared the United States its enemy. Their President believes it is his religious duty and his destiny to lead his country in a violent conflict against the infidels. With pride he denies the Jewish Holocaust and speaks brazenly, calling to wipe Israel off the map. For us, this is an existential threat. A threat to which we cannot consent. But it is not Israel’s threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and the well being of the world at large.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Our moment is NOW. History will judge our generation by the actions we take NOW…by our willingness to stand up for peace and security and freedom, and by our courage to do what is right.
First, let’s look at the timescale suggested; “in the verge”. The Oxford (Compact) Dictionary definition of verge in this context is:
3 an extreme limit beyond which something specified will happen: on the verge of tears.
Ihe imminence of the suggested action the pharase implies is emphasised by the entry under “point”
“on the point of” on the verge or brink of.
This interpretation of Olmert’s claim of an Iranian nuclear bomb being about to be produced is further emphasised and supported by his call to arms: “History will judge our generation by the actions we take NOW”.7
So how does this rank alongside Bush’s famous words in his SOTUS address in 2003
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Now despite the protests, everything in that was strictly true. The British Government had indeed received recent intelligence, even if it was fake and the US administrtion knew that similar claims were false and the supposed evidence forgeries. Olmert’s round-about claim the Iran will very soon have nuclear weapons is however completely false. Let’s call in aid the very authority that Bush used, the IAEA. The latest statement by the DG is uncommittal based on the lack of co-operation but raises the “cause for concern”. Howwever:
As you are aware, the Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
The Guardian had a useful summary of the position last month. This is its summary of the position:
Estimates on how long it would take Iran to manufacture a nuclear bomb range from a couple of years to a decade. The London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies believes it is on course to produce enough nuclear material within three years.
Rather moe informative and with very detail evidence is this paper from March for Oxford Research (.pdf)
Iran will need to produce many thousands of gas centrifuges to produce enough highly enriched uranium
to make a strategically significant number of nuclear weapons – say 5 or 6 weapons (comparable to the
South African arsenal). They are unlikely even to begin producing a significant amount of highly enriched
uranium for 5 years or longer. If Iran does produce highly enriched uranium suitable for use in nuclear
weapons, it is unlikely to have significant amounts until between about 2012 and 2015 or later. (For use
in nuclear weapons, uranium should be enriched to at least 90 per cent in uranium-235; for use as fuel
in nuclear-power reactors, uranium should be enriched to about 3.5 per cent in uranium-235.)
Iran will, however, have to solve a difficult technical problem before producing significant amounts of
highly enriched uranium. Iranian uranium is reportedly contaminated with large amounts of molybdenum
and other heavy metals. These impurities could condense and block pipes and valves in the gas
centrifuges. In spite of this problem, the Iranians should be able to enrich uranium to the low enrichment
needed for civil nuclear-power reactor fuel. But they would not be able to enrich above about 20 per cent
in uranium-235.
They would, therefore, not be able to produce uranium enriched enough for use in nuclear weapons. To
do so they would first have to remove most of the molybdenum. They would need foreign technical help
– from, for example, China or Russia – to solve this problem.
So we can dismiss the claim by Olmert that Iran in “on the brink” of building nuclear bombs and, even if that was the desire as is claimed, they would not be able to do so to well after Bush leaves office. Maybe that is the cause of the urgency, another President is unlike to be as ignorant of foreign policy implications. Well, so the argument will go, if the Iranians are allowed to complete and start the reactor they will give material to terrorists to build “dirty bombs”. This is a bit far fetched as it is far easier to acquire materials for such bombs from other sources – like the “unsecured” machinery containing radioactive materials that litter the ex Soviet Union. Even if we believe the Iranians would do so, the question then becomes why they have not already. Little known or mentioned is the fact that they already have reactors, again from the Oxford Research paper:
Iran operates four small research reactors, supplied by China, three at the Estahan Nuclear Technology
Centre and one, supplied by the USA, at the Nuclear Research Centre in Teheran. Two, at Estahan, are
sub-critical assemblies used for training nuclear physicists and technicians; they have both been
operating since 1992. The third at Estahan (Tehran) is a 30-kilowatt research reactor used for research
purposes; it has been operating since 1994. The fourth is a 5 megawatt-thermal reactor also used for
research; it has been operating since 1967, an indication of the length of time during which Iran has
been interested in nuclear technology.
The other scare that will no doubt be raised will be by reference to the short/medium range SCUD missiles fired at Israel by Iraq during the first Gulf War. Set aside that these were at the extreme of their ranges and carried little or no warheads. Firing a missile sufficient to carry a nuclear device would require one of the rockets now being tested by the Iranians so no doubt we will have a replay of the “rockets capable of hitting Europe” claims as in Blair’s infamous public report about “Iraq’s WMD”. So would Israel be vulnerable from these new weapons? Not according to the Israeli Defense Forcee’s spokeman quoted in the Jersusalem Post
Maj. Elyakim, commander of the Arrow missile battery at Palmahim, told The Jerusalem Post last month that the missile crews were always on high alert, but that they were recently instructed to “raise their level of awareness” because of developments on the Iranian front.
The Arrow missile, he said, could intercept and destroy any Iranian missile fired at Israel, including ones carrying non-conventional warheads. Experts believe that if Iran is attacked by Israel or the US, Teheran would respond by firing long-range ballistic missiles at Israel.
This sort of bravado may also be called into defence of Olmert along the line that there is no need for the Israelis to promote/campaign for or whatever you would like to call their lobbying for action. The argument will go – Israel bombed Saddam’s nuclear plant so they could just as well destroy the main Iraninan plant. No need therefore to get the USA to do it. The answer to that claim can be seen by simple reference to the map. To get to Iraq, the Israeli air craft had to overfly Jordan and/or Syria. They are not exactly friendly towards each other and both had arguments with Saddam. In addition their radar facilities were hardly state of the art so it would have been unlikely that they would have been able to intercept the Israelis. Indeed neither was Saddam’s air force which at that time was fully functioning.
The current position means that to attack Iran they would either have to overfly Iraq or refuel. The Americans would hardly allow them the overflight in view of the obvious problems permitting it would cause. The alternative of flying down the Red Sea, round the Arabian pennisular and on into Iran means the planes would have to refuel. A highly vulnerable tanker aircraft would have to be stationed ready for this operation.
The converse is also true of any suggested Iranian attack by aircraft. It would be impossible for them to take such action without being detected by US AWACS planes and likely being shot down by the USAF. You also haveto look at the balance of power. The Oxford paper suggests that to get to a useable stockpile of a handful of bombs would take at least to the next decade. Compare that to the current Israeli plutonium stockpiles estimated to be enough for between 100 and 200 warheads.(Compreshensive briefing on Israel’s WMD programs in a briefing for the UK Parliament by CND in .pdf format here. The origins of the Israeli nukes may help to explain why they consider the Iranians are being duplicitious. During the 1960s they themselves tricked the UK government into passing over nuclear materials. The story of how a former British nuclear scientist who had been a member of the IAEA Inspectorate was involved in the scam goes some way to explain the suspicions of both the Iranians and Saddam about the IAEA inspectors. Whatever Olmert’s motives, his distortions will be used as part of the justification for precipitant action. His assertions, made before Congress will be quoted as facts. Hopefully this can be a resource to counter some of the wilder claims you might meet.
