Recently, United Press International, printed a New York Times story that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency had issued a report stating that inspectors had found “… highly enriched uranium … at an Iranian facility,” and that this uranium did “… not match that found on earlier samples,” which they concluded had come from “…contaminated equipment from Pakistan.” [UPI report used due to NY Times firewall] Due to this reporting, I argued in a DailyKos thread that the IAEA (and thus the administration) would appear to have a slam dunk case against Iran for nuclear weapons production, and not nuclear energy production as Iran claims. Yet the Washington Post reported today that IAEA inspectors disputed a recent House Committee report on Iranian nuclear capabilities, calling the committee’s claim that Iran had created highly enriched uranium “outrageous and dishonest” and offering facts to dispute the House report.
So which is it: Are they or are they not enriching uranium to weapons grade?
Central to the Bush Administration’s claim that Iran seeks nuclear weapons is the assertion that Iran’s nuclear program is not for energy production, as they claim, but is secretly enriching uranium to levels necessary for weapons production. Thus, the claim is not that Iran has created enriched uranium, but highly enriched uranium, which is suitable for nuclear weapons production. The distinction between the two is often confused. Enriched uranium refers to U-238 enriched to U-235 at about 2-3%, which is not enough U-235 density to create critical mass. Highly Enriched Uranium is U-238 enriched to U-235 at or above 90%. That material would have enough U-235 density such that when approximately 50kg of this material is placed in close contact it will go supercritical (a nuclear detonation). So, the distinction between whether Iran has been found to be producing “enriched uranium” or “highly enriched uranium” is the cleave between whether there is evidence to assert that Iran is currently attempting to build nuclear weapons.
Since the underlying facts between the NY Times and Washington Post report are in dispute, one might want to check the IAEA’s reporting to find out exactly what they said. How unfortunate it is then that neither the NY Times, nor the Washington Post, specified which report they used as the basis for their claims; never mind a referenced citation. The best one can do is pull up the IAEA web page and dig through their recent press releases. Here is one:
Iran had not suspended its enrichment related activities. I should note that – although the inspectors´ findings indicated that there had been little qualitative or quantitative buildup of Iran´s enrichment capacity at Natanz – due to the absence of the implementation of the additional protocol, the Agency is not able to assess fully Iran´s enrichment related research and development activities, including the possible production of centrifuges and related equipment.
As I have indicated in the past, all the nuclear material declared by Iran to the Agency has been accounted for – and, apart from the small quantities previously reported to the Board, there have been no further findings of undeclared nuclear material in Iran.
Based upon that statement, one can reasonably say that IAEA doesn’t know whether Iran can produce highly enriched uranium, or if their ultimate goal is to create nuclear weapon(s), but they do know that they have found little evidence to support large scale highly enriched uranium production – today.
What is clear is that Iran does have an underground facility at Natanz, that this facility has a certain number of gas centrifuges suitable for uranium enrichment, and that at least some of this equipment has been inspected by IAEA inspectors. However, the IAEA is also stating that there is still some uncertainty of Iran’s total enrichment capacity and capability.
Yet the Bush administration continues its saber rattling with Iran. This last year President Bush has called Iran a a grave threat to world security, that there must be consequences to Iran’s nuclear defiance, and has threatened to strike Iran with a massive bombing campaign.
There are two questions of import here: Is Iran creating weapons grade uranium, and if so, what to do about it? If President Bush wants to push for another Middle Eastern war, ought he not at least first prove the case that Iran is — indeed — building a nuclear weapon? Should not the question of whether to go to war be address after resolving the first issue, and not be a presumptive fait accompli prior to confirmation of the rationale behind such action?
A nuclear armed Iran may, in fact, be a grave threat to US national security interests and world peace. However, one would hope that after all the errors, misinformation, and confusion to justify the Iraqi war, the Bush Administration would want to absolutely nail the facts before threatening yet another war against a sovereign nation.
——
Text Copyright ©2006 J. Maynard Gelinas.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Updates and story archival at http://daduh.org/node/31
