Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
United States to offer Nuclear Technology to Iran
Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Finally, diplomatic progress...
A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium - a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.
I already see some people expressing disapproval of this and comparing it to the Agreed Framework, but I think this is far different. For one thing, we don't have Jimmy Carter cowboying off to conduct his own brand of "Trust! But Verify?" free-lance, "direct to CNN" diplomacy. (which hamstrung US efforts to stop North Korea, and led one Clinton cabinet member to call Carter a "treasonous prick")
For one thing, we don't have Jimmy Carter cowboying off to conduct his own brand of "Trust! But Verify?" free-lance, "direct to CNN" diplomacy.
First, it's important to note that we don't have a lot of good options. For a variety of very compelling reasons, we really don't want to attack Iran. Certainly, we can overpower them in a conventional military sense, but they have quite a few assymetric trumps cards...

Show/Hide
we can overpower [North Korea] in a conventional military sense, but they have quite a few assymetric trumps cards...
We don't have a lot of good economic tools in our toolbox, either. The US already has sanctions on Iran, and quite apart from whether we can get sufficient international support to effectively sanction them further, there's the question of the blowback. Iran can do quite a lot to hurt the world economy, and if they find sympathetic peers in the Muslim world (i.e., OPEC), their leverage may be even greater. What's more, the Iranian population is very supportive of the Iranian nuclear program, so sanctions would almost certainly create a sense of victimhood, strengthening the ruling regime.

Finally — and this is important — Iran has the legal right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. If Iran insists upon exercising that right, there's just not much we can legally do to stop them. The Non-Proliferation Treaty states...
Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
Iran is simply obliged not to pursue nuclear weapons. They have a legal right, which we have recognized, to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The question, of course, is whether Iran will only pursue peaceful nuclear energy research, and that's why some critics are citing the Agreed Framework. It did not stop North Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons, but — and this is key — that is because we structured it very, very badly. But that's something we can fix. In fact, we already appear to have applied some of those lessons with regards to Libya, so there's little reason to believe we cannot do so with Iran.

I wrote on this topic more than two years ago...
Needless to say, the Agreed Framework was not the success we'd hoped it would be. In the end, it amounted to a deal whereby our side agreed to provide North Korea with sizable concessions, while North Korea agreed to pretend they weren't working on a nuclear weapons program.
Concessions to Iran must not precede Iranian cooperation.
With Libya, we corrected many of the ineffectual aspects of the Agreed Framework. Presumably, those same lessons will be applied to a treaty with Iran.

Briefly, the important considerations are as follows:

  • Inspections must be comprehensive, transparent and ongoing. Unlike the Agreed Framework, Iran must agree to inspections concurrent with concessions.

  • There must be immediate, automatic consequences for Iranian failures. In addition, international cooperation ought to be predicated on a peaceful Iran — that is, Iranian intransigence with regards to Israel or Iraq could be punished with a cessation of nuclear fuel delivery.

  • Concessions to Iran must not precede Iranian cooperation. Concessions may be concurrent with cooperation, but we must not make concessions in exchange for future cooperation, nor should we give permanent concessions for temporary cooperation.

  • Finally, account must be made for all of Iran's nuclear fuel. Preferably, the nuclear fuel would be supplied to Iran by a third party, monitored and then removed from Iran when the nuclear process is completed.


If properly negotiated, this could be a significant diplomatic achievement. We would have given up nothing we were not already legally obligated to give, while Iran would have agreed to inspections to pursue the nuclear program they were already legally allowed to have and encumbered themselves with additional disincentives to create tension in the Middle East.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’ll put on my Nostradamus hat and declare this a disaster already. Just look who we’re dealing with here. It’s destined for failure.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
PS- And when I say, "look at who we’re dealing with here" I mean IRAN, not the Bush Admin (for all you snide types out there lol)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I wouldn’t be so sanctimonious, Shark. Ahmed-a-nut-job gave some lukewarm praise to the latest plan, rather than a curt dismissal. This despite the fact that it is basically the same thing proposed repeatedly by the EU-3 in the past with a few pinches of sugar on top.

Someone is waving a stick in the background just out of view, I bet.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
The situation in Iran is so unstable that I think it’s impossible for any of us to say whether this is a good thing or not. With unrest throughout the nation, it may be that the Bush admin is just playing for time.

I don’t usually give the benefit of the doubt to our often-bungling diplomatic efforts. This might be one of the few times that it’s warranted.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Technology is something you can’t take back while Iran’s end of the deal is something they can.

I have trouble believing that Iran isn’t planning to come into conflict with us one day. And if they’ve accepted that, they know all deals will eventually mean nothing anyway.

I’m afraid they are buying time. Something we can’t afford to give them.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Actually, it’s a trick. We offered them "nukular technology" which the Iranians assumed was just a mispronounciation. Boy won’t they be surprised when the first shipment of binkies arrive.
 
Written By: Jody
URL: http://
Let me introduce the two of you. President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, meet Chairman Kim Jong-Il. (UN functionary walks away)

Call me Jong-Il. I hear you got some good swag from Condi. Yes, and the Americans will eventually leave Iraq, too. I won’t have to do much of anything, just as you didn’t have to with Maddie. Call me Mahmoud. BTW, Jong-Il, thanks for the missiles, and please thank your connection in China for shipping them overland so the US Navy couldn’t interdict them. Your welcome, Mahmoud, but what I want to know is when you will complete the countertrade by shipping us oil. We can use our tankers or Chinese tankers to pick up. Use the Chinese tankers, Jong-Il because the Americans certainly won’t mess with them. Better would be Indonesian tankers, because they control a strait that the US Navy must use. Now, let me introduce you to my friend, Hugo. Thank you, Mahmoud. I want to meet him and perhaps do some business.



chsw
 
Written By: chsw10605
URL: http://
Technology is something you can’t take back while Iran’s end of the deal is something they can.
Nuclear energy technology and infrastructure is different than nuclear weapons technology and infrastructure. With even moderate supervision, it would be impossible for Iran to use the same facilities to do both. In any event, they already have the technology — it’s just a matter of deploying it properly and to a degree sufficient to get what they want out of it. Presumably, what we’re proposing to give them would be energy-specific.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
So what is to prevent the following from happening:

- Iran agrees and "cooperates".

- We give them the nuclear technology.

- Once they have the technology, they stop cooperating and resume weapons development.

I suppose in this scenario we have bought some time, and maybe we’ll be better equipped/situated to deal with a nuclear armed Iran in the future (for example, if Iraq settles down).

And maybe the whole non-proliferation game is not about keeping the genie in the bottle forever, but just postponing it’s release as long as possible.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
And maybe the whole non-proliferation game is not about keeping the genie in the bottle forever, but just postponing it’s release as long as possible.

As our game is currently structured, you are very correct about this statement. There is an inherent tension between the abilities of states that have nuclear weapons and the states that do not. It’s been there since the first bomb, and it’s not going away. States want nukes.

The only ways around this are:


a)The nuclear powers disarm. Of course, this might create even more incentives to get nukes, because then you’re the only one who has them, but you can also argue that it levels the playing field.

b) military force becomes a non-issue in international relations. This is why autocratic states that become democracies often abandon their covert nuke programs.

I once wrote something arguing, essentially, that the push for non-proliferation is fool’s gold, playing into the hands of autocratic regimes by allowing them to trade weapons for legitimacy, as Libya has done, and that we should ignore nukes completely and focus on democracy, human rights, and economic interdependence, period.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Jon, congrats, smart post. Personally, I don’t think diplomacy is likely to work, in terms of Iran giving up its program, but it’s still a smart, hand-strengthening move to prepare the ground for other types of pressure short of war. When those have had a while to work, a return to negotiations might do a little better.

Still, in the simplest cut there really aren’t any plausible options that are likely to end Iran’s nuclear program. Diplomacy might slow it down as much or more as military action for much less cost. Neither one is likely to "work."
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Nuclear energy technology and infrastructure is different than nuclear weapons technology and infrastructure. With even moderate supervision, it would be impossible for Iran to use the same facilities to do both. In any event, they already have the technology — it’s just a matter of deploying it properly and to a degree sufficient to get what they want out of it. Presumably, what we’re proposing to give them would be energy-specific.
I wouldn’t be so sure all the technologies involved are so distinct.

The military was interested in the manned space program because the same technology to launch a man into the air and splash him down safely into the ocean was the same stuff you needed to develop ICBM technology.

A successful light water reactor could be used to help build alternate reactor types, like a fast breeder reactor for instance. It is really efficient on fuel since it transforms the control rods into more nuclear fuel. We wouldn’t want to stand in Iran’s way of realizing such a potential economic benefit. The fact it produces weaponizable Plutonium is just an odd side benefit.

By making them better at light water reactors, we make them better at fast breeders. Even if its just the pumbing and detectors.

There’s other know-how that may not be readily available. Things like how the chain reaction builds up in the nuclear material so you can avoid a meltdown. Of course if the same math and constants help you understand how to size atomic material for a bomb, that’s incidental.

If anything, it will make discerning their nuclear weapons program from their nuclear power program that much harder. IF they buy a couple hundred nuclear grade hazmat suits, we’ll have doubts as to what they may be for.

Are we giving them the bomb? No. But every little bit does help.

Although we probably shouldn’t stand in the way according to the treaties we signed, we’re not obligated to help them advance. Especially when one day we could be on the receiving end.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
This is the achilles heel of Libertarian thought. You make a leap of catastrophic proportions when you assume that Iran will "act in good faith." Or, more accurately, that the president of Iran will act in good faith.

The demonstrable rule, not exception, of history is that given opportunity, unstable regimes will spread instability. The extension of that rule is that leaders who threaten force, regardless of stripe or affiliation, almost always engage in force to achieve their goals.

I am not willing to gamble that Iran will break that trend.
 
Written By: UncleBeal
URL: http://wordsnotfists.blogspot.com/
i think that you USA should not give iran nuclear because the probaly want to use it to blow something up.
Americans are dumb to do that!!!!:)
 
Written By: Nestor Skool Girl
URL: http://piczo.com
as its bad to hear that america is supper power of present time now iran is an islamic state so me is in faver of iran that he should to fullfill his atomic project
 
Written By: wajid qureshi
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider