One to Watch: Iran Tests First Nuclear Plant

Related Post: Diplomatic Question of the Day - What Exactly is Dennis Ross In Charge Of?

Iran, in a high-profile ceremony on Wednesday, announced it has carried out successful tests at its Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant. The visiting head of Russia's state nuclear company, Sergei Kiriyenko, hailed "significant improvements" in the first Iranian nuclear facility to provide electricity.

So far, no real attempt to turn the news into a sign that Tehran is closer to dropping a bomb on us. The Times had a lengthy article shifting from atomic energy to "the United States and European Union suspect that Iran is secretly building a nuclear bomb". US media have been quiet, however, and there has been no reaction from the Obama Administration.

Twisting the Syria Tale: The Suspected Missile Facility

Hours after we posted an analysis of Washington's engagement with Syria, the story started fluttering across the Internet that Damascus had built a missile facility on the site of the alleged nuclear plant bombed by Israel in October 2007.

According to sources, Syrian representative Ibrahim Othman (pictured) told members of the International Atomic Energy Agency about the facility. He was responding to a question if there was a nuclear operation, but he did not disclose if the missile facility was operational or when it had been constructed.

Motive? It could be that Othman was simply responding to the call in the IAEA's report for Syria to be more forthcoming about its plans and activities. He could have been throwing up a screen to cover any resumption of a nuclear programme. Damascus may have been striking a tough pose in advance of any talks with Israel or the US.

But what about the other side of the equation --- who leaked the story and why? Again, no answers here, only a range of possibilities. Those seeking engagement with Syria may have putting Damascus on notice that this would far from a no-cost process; President Bashir al-Assad would have to recognise that his country and its military plans were still under scrutiny.

Or, of course, those opposed to any rapprochement with Syria --- for all the political calculations that point towards the value of that course --- may have ensured that Othman's disclosure was circulated.

Watch this space.

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.

Secret Britain-Iran Talks in 2005 on Iraq, Tehran Nuclear Programme?

The BBC is claiming that secret discussions between Britain and Iran took place in 2005 on Tehran's role in Iraq and Iran's nuclear programme.

A BBC documentary tonight will claim that Iran made an "extraordinary offer" to stop attacking British troops in Iraq if Western countries accepted Iran's uranium enrichment programme.

The claim is made by Sir John Sawers (pictured), who was Britain's top political representative in Iraq and is now currently Britain's ambassador to the United Nations. He claims, "The Iranians wanted to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme."

The British government rejected the offer.

UPDATED --- Not a Bombshell: The Report on Iran's Uranium and US (Non-)Reaction

See Also: Text of the International Atomic Energy Agency Report on Iran’s Nuclear Programme



Update (2:45 p.m.): The lead story on CNN International's website, "Experts: Iran ready to build nuclear weapon",  is not a "scary interpretation" of the IAEA report: it is an outright distortion. Rather than quote from the report or the officials who compiled it, they refer to the "Institute for Science and International Security", who have "interpreted" the report.

Thus we get the scary side that "Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon without any of the explanation, details, and caveats offered by United Nations officials. Or, for that matter, other "experts" who might have offered the appropriate context for the report.

Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation offers a useful corrective: "Don't Let the Iran Headlines Scare You".

On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest report on Iranian nuclear production. It was a classic half-full, half-empty analysis: those wanting to play up the Iranian threat could note that that Iran has produced more enriched uranium than previously estimated, declaring that Tehran now has enough material for "one bomb". Those preferring a more measured response could highlight the conclusion  that Iran's enrichment programme has slowed "considerably".

Some in the American and British "mainstream" media will go for the scarier interpretation --- in The New York Times, it's Iran understates enriched uranium level by one-third in Paragraph One, Enough for a Bomb in Paragraph Two. However, it is not only Agence France Presse that is pointing to the slower pace of enrichment. The Washington Post headlines, "Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program" and leads with, "The slower pace was interpreted by some U.N. officials as a conciliatory gesture in advance of any diplomatic overtures by the Obama administration."

Indeed, UN officials are also providing the general reassurance that "the discrepancy results from Iran’s estimates versus careful measurement", rather than any deception by Tehran, and that "the inconsistency [is] reasonable for a new enrichment plant". That could be important, countering the soundbites of "experts" like Gary Milhollin on the higher level of enriched uranium: "It's worse than we thought".

Of course, enrichment is not the key issue for an Iranian nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy, programme. That issue is whether Iran is "weaponising" with any programme to develop nuclear warheads, and there is no evidence that Iran has reversed its suspension of that effort in 2003. As a UN official told The New York Times, "The material would have to undergo further enrichment if it was to be used as fuel for a bomb and...atomic inspectors had found no signs that Iran was making such preparations."

Most importantly, it is not the media reaction --- or even that matters here but the response of the Obama Administration. In the NYT, "a senior administration official" took a We're Watching line:

There is a steady timeline of improvement, especially in terms of mastering the efficiency of the centrifuges. Everyone’s nervous and worried about the possibility of Iran pursuing a clandestine capability.

There is no Administration response in The Washington Post.

Of course, with the President and Secretary of State outside the US, the Administration could be in a holding pattern until next week. Yet it's still significant, I think, that Obama's officials were not primed to return to the Bush Administration's blueprint of Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions. In effect, they've allowed the UN to take the lead, damping down any media hyperbole.

And that means, I think, that engagement with Iran is still the priority for this Administration. No bombshells here, just the steadier if slower emphasis on diplomacy.

So keep an eye on whether the Obama Administration plays up the drama of the higher enriched-uranium figures and refers to more sanctions against Iran, or whether it  plays down any threat, thus protecting the priority of engagement.