Atoms of Fear: Reality Check on That Iranian Nuclear Programme

The flurry of headlines on the International Atomic Energy Agency report on the Iran nuclear programme has come and gone. The hype in some media outlets of "Iran has enough enriched uranium to build a bomb" has not been matched by a dramatic response from the Obama Administration.

Still, it's not a bad idea to knock down the distortions and exaggerations of the IAEA's findings. Blogger Cheryl Rofer offers an excellent scientific reality-check on Iran's stocks of enriched uranium:

Whoo-Hoo! Atoms of Fissionable Material Everywhere!
by Cheryl Rofer

As I put the tea water on to boil and turned on the tv this morning, I was assaulted by the claim that seems to be everywhere. Maybe you've seen it in the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or heard the same CBS report that I did, or even read it on Kevin Drum [of Mother Jones].


It's a lie.

Much as I hate to do so, because psychology tells us that repetition will help to fix the erroneous message in our minds, I will quote the most egregious statement of this "news."

Iran has enriched sufficient uranium to amass a nuclear bomb – a third more than previously thought – the United Nations announced yesterday.

Ah yes. And if you live in Boulder, Colorado, or in Connecticut, or New York City, you have enough U-235 under your house (or perhaps block) to amass a nuclear bomb! Or, Kevin, all that sea water lapping up against the California coast has uranium in it too! I have a call in to the IAEA to inspect your homes!

The issue here is concentration. Mining uranium concentrates it from the ore. Purification and conversion to UF6 concentrates it further. The purpose of the enrichment centrifuges is to concentrate the fissionable U-235.

Concentration is not that hard to understand, but in our science-challenged society (yes, we all hated chemistry, where it was discussed in the first week), it seems not to be a consideration. See also this post from earlier this week.

The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.

It would take a reconfiguration of the Natanz facility that the inspectors would notice to produce bomb-grade uranium (concentration of U-235 of 90%). The inspectors also take environmental samples to verify the concentration of U-235. They would have to be kicked out of the facility and their video cameras taken down for Iran to do this.

There are a number of other things in that IAEA report that the media aren't bothering to report, like that the pace of enrichment has slowed. That doesn't support the idea that Iran is racing toward a bomb, so it's not relevant, I guess.

Bloggers who are trying to hold back this tsunami of misleading non-science: Sean Paul Kelly, Cernig.

I also know of one newspaper reporter who is trying to get the story straight, but he hasn't posted yet. I'll post more links as I get them.

Update: Analysing the Iranian (Non-)Threat

Well, it didn't take long.

This morning we highlighted the US "Intelligence Community Annual Threat Assessment", which explicitly said that, as of mid-2007, Iran had not resumed its programme for nuclear weapons.

We added, however, that the report left open the door to those who don't like this assessment of non-threat, offering the admission:

We do not have sufficient intelligence reporting to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain indefinitely the halt of its previously enumerated nuclear weapons-related activities while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart those activities.

And we noted that Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who presented the report to a US Senate committee, "was so cautious that..he has made a rod for the back that he was trying to cover,quite keen to cover his back and that of his agency". Step up, stridently pro-Israel Commentary magazine:

Blair acknowledged [Iran's nuclear programme] was a difficult question to deal with in a public setting. “I can say at this point that Iran is clearly developing all the components of a deliverable nuclear weapons program — fissionable material, nuclear weaponizing capability and the means to deliver it,” he said.

Let's revisit the relevant passage of the Threat Assessment report:

We judge in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities and that the halt lasted at least several years. We assess Tehran had not restarted these activities as of at least mid-2007. Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them.

That's not exactly the same as "clearly developing...nuclear weaponizing capability". Or to be blunt, the Director of National Intelligence, in front of a Congressional committee was undercutting the analysis of his intelligence services.

And it gets worse. Yesterday morning, Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times put out a sensational article, "U.S. Now Sees Iran as Pursuing Nuclear Bomb".

It's a poor piece of journalism, with almost no sources and absolutely no evidence to back up the claim, "The Obama administration has made it clear that it believes there is no question that Tehran is seeking the bomb." There's a Presidential quote pulled far out of context, and another snap sentence before a Congressional committee, this one from CIA Director, Leon Panetta: ""From all the information I've seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability."

It's enough, however, for Miller to write, "The language reflects the extent to which senior U.S. officials now discount a National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007," when in fact the Threat Assessment repeats and supports the conclusions of that Estimate unequivocally. And you can guess which of the two pieces --- Miller's slipshod report or the primary document based on the detailed analysis of the intelligence services --- is racing around the talkboards on the Internet and the journals like Commentary.

So it may come to pass --- amidst hesitant Obama officials, activists wanting to take out an "enemy", and a mainstream media without the time or judgement to consider details rather than assumptions --- that grey becomes black and Iran once more becomes Threat Number One to the United States. If so, then this month's opening for US-Iran engagement will be jeopardised, not by a Bomb but by unsupported bluster.

Israel-Palestine: The Failed Olmert Offer for a Settlement

The Los Angeles Times, reporting on the Israeli election campaign, buries a significant revelation from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. It is nothing less than an initiative by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, launched last autumn, to get an agreement with the Palestinian Authority:

Under the proposal, Israel would relinquish any claim to the Gaza Strip, all but a small part of the West Bank and Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods, a hand-over that would uproot more than 60,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank.

The Jewish part of Jerusalem and large suburban-style West Bank settlements near the city would remain in Israel's hands. In return for annexed West Bank land, the Palestinians would get a strip of the Negev desert adjacent to Gaza and a tunnel or overpass connecting Gaza and the West Bank. The shortest route linking the territories would run about 30 miles across southern Israel.

An international body representing Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the U.S. would administer religious sites in Jerusalem's Old City and holy basin to ensure access for Christian, Muslim and Jewish worshipers. Israel would retain formal sovereignty over those sites.

Palestinians who fled or were forced from Israel around the time of the Jewish state's founding in 1948 would forfeit their right to return, although Olmert offered to accept a limited number -- up to 50,000, according to Israel's Channel 10 television -- under a family reunification program.

The Palestinian Authority was sceptical of the proposal, as it was only verbal and left too many details unsettled. Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat says, "[PA President Mahmoud] Abbas told Olmert that we will not be part of an interim agreement. Either we agree on all issues, or no agreement at all."

Today's Obamameter: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (2 February)

Latest Post: Obama vs. the Generals on Iraq
Latest Post: No More War on Terror
Latest Post: Obama Outsourcing Torture?

Current Obamameter Reading: Cloudy with Signs of Thunder

7:45 p.m. "The Cable" reports that US intelligence analysts from the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Intelligence Council will hold a closed/Top Secret/Codeword briefing on Iran for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday afternoon.

5:20 p.m. Complications and possibly worse from Sunday's provincial elections in Iraq. Tribal leaders in Anbar Province, upset at the apparent dominance of the Sunni religious Iraqi Islamic Party, have claimed widespread fraud and threatened violence if the results are upheld. The head of the Anbar Tribes List warned:

We will set the streets of Ramadi ablaze if the Islamic Party is declared the winners of the election. We will make Anbar a grave for the Islamic Party and its agents. We will start a tribal war against them and those who cooperate with them.

The turnout in parts of Anbar was as low as 25 percent.

5:15 p.m. More trouble in Somalia, only days after the election of a new President. Reports of 16 to 39 dead after a roadside bomb targeting African Union peacekeepers exploded, and the soldiers opened fire in response.



2:45 p.m. One to Watch This Afternoon. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will brief President Obama on Monday afternoon about the plans to send up to 25,000 US troops to Afghanistan. Almost 4000 have been deployed already, 17,000 are in three brigades to be sent soon, and 5000 are support forces.

2:30 p.m. Following our weekend exclusive secret US-Iran talks, there is a further revelation today. Senior Obama Administration officials have told The Wall Street Journal that California Congressman Howard Berman planned to meet Iranian Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani in Bahrain in December. At the last minute, however, Larijani withdrew.

The meeting was brokered by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, which had organised the Manama Dialogue on regional security in Bahrain.

11:40 a.m. Today's Country on Notice for Bad Behaviour: Turkey. We're not the only ones to notice Turkey's shifting foreign policy and the aftermath of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's criticism of Israel at the Davos Economic Forum. The Washington Post features an editorial by Soner Cagaptay which shakes a big finger at the naughtiness in Ankara:

The erosion of Turkey's liberalism under the AKP [Justice and Development Party] is alienating Turkey from the West. If Turkish foreign policy is based on solidarity with Islamist regimes or causes, Ankara cannot hope to be considered a serious NATO ally. Likewise, if the AKP discriminates against women, forgoes normal relations with Israel, curbs media freedoms or loses interest in joining Europe, it will hardly endear itself to the United States. And if Erdogan's AKP keeps serving a menu of illiberalism at home and religion in foreign policy, Turkey will no longer be special -- and that would be unfortunate.

It is purely coincidence that Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the stridently pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

10:10 a.m. Juan Cole offers an overview of early returns from the Iraqi provincial elections. His interesting evaluation is that parties supporting a strong central government (such as Da'wa and some Sunni parties) have done better than those (Kurdish parties and Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) favouring more power for provincial governments.

9:45 a.m. A senior United Nations official has been kidnapped in southwest Pakistan. He is John Solecki, an American who is head of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Quetta.

9:40 a.m. A Taliban suicide bomber has killed 21 people in an attack on a police training centre in Uruzgan province in Afghanistan.

Morning Update (9 a.m. GMT; 4 a.m. Washington): The signs of thunder comes in the revelation, first set out by The Los Angeles Times on Saturday and analysed by Canuckistan in Enduring America today, of a complexity in President Obama's rollback of Dubya-era orders permitting unlimited detention and torture.

White House staffers are telling the media that "rendition", the practice in which detainees are transferred by the US to other countries who may or may not carry out the torture that Obama has banned, will continue. The leaks appear to be an assurance to the military and the CIA that they can continue to pick up enemy suspects and not worry about legal issues, provided they get the bad guys into the hands of foreign allies.

Obama Outsourcing Torture?

"An invaluable tool, (the CIA) said, is the practice in which U.S. agencies transfer individuals arrested in one country to another allied country that is able to extract information from them and relay it to the United States.”

Washington Post, 1 Nov. 2002

In their haste to fall over themselves in praising the Obama administration’s decision to close Guantanamo and CIA secret prisons, much of the media forgot to ask if that also applied to rendition. Rendition, a practice that began not with the now departed Bush administration but with its Democratic predecessor, involved the transferring of terrorism suspects from American control to the custody of American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. And how do these countries “extract information” from suspects. Here’s an account from the Washington Post of some of the methods employed by Jordan’s General Intelligence Department:

Former prisoners have reported that their captors were expert in two practices in particular: falaqa, or beating suspects on the soles of their feet with a truncheon and then, often, forcing them to walk barefoot and bloodied across a salt-covered floor; and farruj, or the "grilled chicken," in which prisoners are handcuffed behind their legs, hung upside down by a rod placed behind their knees, and beaten

We now have the apparent answer about rendition. The LA Times reported yesterday that it will continue as will the CIA’s power to kidnap people off the streets in foreign countries as it has done in widely publicized cases in Europe. The difference, according to one anonymous Obama official, is that “if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."  The Obama administration should be asked as soon as possible whether torture is within these “parameters.” If it is it is further evidence that the main difference between the Obama version of the war on terror and that of his predecessor is in the way that it is sold to the public.