Just How 'Secret' is Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program?

The New York Times a few weeks ago ran a story about Iran's nuclear program that trumpeted an amazing scoop. Documents leaked from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed shocking new details about a covert Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons -- one that goes "well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States."

It was just the sort of thing to send a frisson of fear through readers already unnerved by other recent revelations about Iran's nuclear shenanigans -- particularly in light of the news of a hitherto unknown enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom. Stories that appear in the Times tend to drive the news cycle for the rest of the U.S. media -- broadcast, print, and otherwise -- and soon the relevant experts were being bombarded with calls from other journalists. Was it really true, they asked, that the IAEA had discovered an Iranian program hitherto hidden from the world?

Well, no. The Times story centered on the contents of a hitherto confidential IAEA report. The Associated Press first broke a story about the contents of the report back in September, followed by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), which posted excerpts on its website early in October. The ISIS commentary also pointed out that its excerpts came from a "working document" that was likely still "subject to revision." The excerpts showed that IAEA inspectors had concluded that Iran had conducted detailed research into designing a nuclear missile for a warhead as well as manufacturing the explosives needed to detonate an atomic bomb. Yet it all came with one significant catch: None of the documents made it clear whether Iran is still pursuing these programs, or had only done so in the past.

These are important caveats. Right now, the No. 1 problem for spies around the world -- those outside Iran, of course -- is figuring out exactly what Iran is doing with its nuclear program. Although Iran denies it, there is a considerable body of evidence suggesting that Iran has undertaken programs for crafting nuclear weapons at some point in the past few years. The "key judgments" of the still-controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) published by the U.S. intelligence community back in 2007, for example, contended that Iran did have such a program -- but that Tehran shut it down by 2004 under pressure from the international community. Some intelligence experts, meanwhile, suspect that Iran's nuclear weapons program is still ongoing -- not least due to Iran's record of obfuscation on the issue. But so far no one has managed to deliver any conclusive proof.

The issue has become even more fraught since September, when Iran announced the existence of a hitherto secret fuel-enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom. That had many skeptics asking why Tehran would go to the trouble of building an entirely new enrichment facility and keep it hidden from the world if it weren't engaged in some sort of covert military activity. IAEA inspectors visited the facility on Oct. 25, but it will be some time before their findings become public. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has told interviewers that the site is "a hole in a mountain."

Some Israeli, German, and even French spies have been arguing in recent months that the Iranians are moving ahead with their weapons work; the Americans, at least publicly, are still sticking to the conclusions of the 2007 NIE. Somewhere in the midst of it all stands the IAEA, the United Nations agency that was created to oversee the peaceful use of nuclear energy even while preventing the proliferation of the technology for military uses. The IAEA's Department of Safeguards is in charge of conducting inspections to ensure that countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- which Iran has -- aren't violating their obligations. The safeguards staff also receives information from countries, and their intelligence services, that are members of the IAEA board. Although these countries may have their own agendas, it's the IAEA's job to follow up on the leads provided to it and then draw conclusions about what it finds through its inspections. The notion that the IAEA is supposed to stand above the fray gives its assessments a particular weight.

Over the past few years there has been an increasing flow of leaks, experts say, from the Safeguard Department's reports, all of which have tended to be extremely skeptical of Iran's public assurances that its interest in nuclear technology is entirely harmless. That information hasn't always made it into the IAEA's public statements -- perhaps because ElBaradei, has been intent not to alienate the Iranians as he seeks to find a diplomatic compromise that might prevent a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Indeed, sparring between the IAEA's inspectors and its diplomats has more or less burst into the open, fueling even more leaks as both sides struggle to prove their respective cases.

12NEXT

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

CHRIS_T

6:40 PM ET

November 9, 2009

Thank you -- what you say is

Thank you -- what you say is correct:

"What we have now is a picture strongly suggesting that Iran has been up to something fishy, but "not a conclusive assessment that Iran is now currently involved in a military program." The answer to that question -- whether Iran is working on nuclear weapons right now -- remains muddled. On one count the experts agree: The press doesn't have a particularly good record of communicating the complexity of the issues involved. But then, that might not come as such a terrible shock."

There is no way to read the mind of Iranian leaders to know their intentions. Iran likely wants the capability to quickly make a bomb, not an actual bomb.

Take that to the IAEA.

SCOTTGOOSE

4:08 PM ET

November 10, 2009

Take what to the IAEA? Your hatred of Israel?

You didn't even say anything. Chris, you sure have a tendency to make some silly posts. If Iran definitely has, at any time, procured materials to weaponize their nuclear program, they are a threat to the world, period. Without unleashing a single nuke on Tel Aviv, a whisper than Iran reached full weaponization capacity would be the catalyst for multiple arms races globally. I assume you meant "a bomb" v. "The Bomb" (being the atom or hydrogen bomb), but semantics aside, you just admitted that they pose a significant threat. The IAEA will continue to be ineffectual as it has notoriously been until ElBaraedi moves out. It has all the substantiated info required to send the western world into a chaotic frenzy. No need from the help of a myopic Arab-sympathizer that defies logic consistently.

SPOOD

4:25 PM ET

Here is an interesting idea, Iran is full of it.

Given the growing internal weakness of the Iranian government and the distinct possibility of a generational move away from theocracy, what better way to consolidate power and draw attention away from internal repression than whipping up an outside conflict?

For a secret nuclear program, the Iranians seem awfully loose-lipped about various stages of its development. No country in their right mind who pursues nuclear weapons advertises such incomplete efforts for the most obvious reasons, it prompts other nations to make them stop before a weapon can be made.

Everyone else who has ever developed nuclear weapons buries its development and enrichment efforts both literally and figurartively until they can produce their big test. Once a test is made, all efforts to make them stop become moot. Its how these things have been done for the last 60 years. France, China, India, Pakistan have done it this way. Why? because it works.
Israel being the exception only that their nuclear arsenal is intentionally the worst kept secret in the region.

My impression given the amount of advertising and sabre rattling by the Iranian government is that they are bluffing. They want a confrontation as a way to strengthen their own hold on the country. An Israeli strike would serve their interests and allow the cold war/proxy war between them to escalate at little real cost to them.

5:38 PM ET

You make some good points; lets hope your right

Ahh, a sane, calculated response from a drive-by FP poster. What a breath of fresh air. Indeed, there is validity to your logic, but only in a vacuum. Granted, for a rational regime whose principal goal is to consolidate regional hegemony, it seems reasonable to wave a sword and feign strength to veil their domestic unraveling. No Western nation, let alone Israel, can sleep soundly in light of such damning evidence in the quixotic hopes that they are simply bluffing. The world would be a much better place if your analysis wrung true. Unfortunately, North Korea is a case-study of why overtly malicious intentions, let alone ballistic missile tests (done by both Iran and NK as you know) cannot be swept under the rug. It would be utterly ignorant to dismiss cold, calculated and quantitative evidence of Iranian deception and the desire to blow up nation states. Nice try tho. I'll repeat again, bluffing would be the absolute best case scenario.

10:39 AM ET

November 11, 2009

But the Norks were bluffing too

But North Korea was more or less a bluff. Their test was ultimately a fizzle, possibly even faked. For the most part their nuclear program served a function as an active extortion racket to the west. Did you notice how quickly they went to the foreign affairs back burner after their test? Their bluff got called and they had ace high.

Kim Jong played up being an insane maniac so people would take his actions more seriously. The reality was he is a self-interested gangster who was just looking to score some extra cash and enhance his street cred.

Given the total lack of credible secrecy of Iran's nuclear program, I have severe doubts of its actual progress or even its intention of ever producing such weapons. Iran's government actively plays the insane fool with their various anti-US/anti-Israel comments to the press, combative rhetoric and less than secret proxy wars against the west by funding Shia militias in the region in an obvious fashion. Like Kim Jong, they want to cultivate an image of being dangerous. But the reality is, the mullahs are not insane. They never have been. They know that moderation and peace will kill their regime.

Nothing is more destructive to a dictatorship than the lack of an outside enemy. It makes the populous look inward and get annoyed over the lack of liberties, economic opportunities and petty inconveniences of being in a police state.

TIGHIMOGPOSPORO

10:22 PM ET

This is madness for people in New York. Ian McEwan's Saturday and Joseph O'Neill's Netherland have really proven their point. I have never felt more paranoid living in New York. I guess we're all gonna rething everythink now and see how we can come up with a strand of living a Tim Kreider kind of happiness without facing an everyday all-gazing threat.

---I'm TP and I make bisaya films and really love cars.

BETZ55

10:14 AM ET

Get the IAEA into Israel and stop the fear mongering

If the US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency, then Israel better be just as transparent. Demonizing and warmongering Iran to protect Israel is wrong. The Iranian 'issue' is 100% Israeli.

When will Israel sign the NNPT and allow inspections of Dimona and their nuclear weaponary?

It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that the Iranians have the right to a peaceful nuclear program in their country:
1) They are signatories to the NPT, a treaty respected by the United Nations, itself an organization the US must respect. The NPT gives the Iranians an internationally regarded right to a program.
2) It is completely unacceptable that the US or Israel attempt to dictate to Iran (or any nation) the basic parameters of Iran's energy program.
Iran has a basic right to decide its own domestic programs and to utilize natural resources found within its own boundaries.

Or what's next, then? The Israelis are bothered that Iran processes iron ore into steel, from which it can fashion conventional weapons, so Iran cannot process iron upon threat of "crippling sanctions"?

Iran cannot utilize its own water resources, as the Israelis believe that Iranians with water might be a threat to them?

The US administration must clearly and openly respect Iran's right to a nuclear program as outlined by the NPT.

The concession that the Iranians made to process uranium outside of their boundaries is just that--a concession--and must be respected as the Iranians going out of their way to appease Israel and her US foil.

For the US administration to simply declare that the Iranians have no right to decide their own energy program and utilize their own natural resources would be for the US to declare that even the most serious international treaties, laws and conventions are irrelevant when we deem them politically inconvenient.

It is telling that President Ford, in 1976, encouraged Iran (then under the US-backed shah) to build both uranium enrichment as well as plutonium processing plants. How is it that what was permissible then under the 1970 NPT, has now become forbidden – under the very same treaty?

What the United States must do is respect Iranian rights, move forward with the external processing provision in place, and demand that Israel declare its nuclear arsenal, sign the NPT and disarm.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is one of the problems at the heart of the conflict, and the US will never be respected as an honest broker for peace if Israel is allowed to maintain a secret nuclear arsenal, while her neighbors are threatened with war if they so much as try to build a reactor.

Israel will not even deny or admit to its truly "clandestine" nuclear program. If you want to talk about nuclear ambiguity and warmongering look to Israel.

10:49 AM ET

Now here's a silly question

Despite having nuclear weapons for about 30+ years, has Israel ever threatened to wipe any of its neighbors off the map?

Does Israel engage in publicly disclosed missile tests for the purposes of making beligerant diplomatic statements?

Does Israel have massive oil reserves which render nuclear power to be an overly wasteful form of civilian electrical generation?

Until you can say yes to any of these, there is no equivalence.

We demonize Iran because they act like demons. They cultivate the image themselves, on purpose. They really have little need of "useful idiots" making them look like a nation of shiny happy peacelovers. They want, nee, they need to be seen as such otherwise nobody will take them seriously. Without an outside enemy, the country will collapse internally.

70% of Iran's population was born after the Islamic Revolution (ages 30 or younger). They are annoyed, they have no love of theocracy because it is the old guard now. Unlike Saudi or Jordanian radicals, Iranians know 1st hand what its like to live in an Islamic state and they are not happy campers.

Plus your argument lacks any kind of internal merit. Just because one person does something a little underhanded, it doesn't excuse another's conduct. Its a logical fallacy.

11:37 AM ET

Spood, dont waste your time with BETZ55

Betz55 simply cannot veil his anti-Western bent viably with anything but illogical ad hominem arguments. We all know it and he's too deluded (or dare I say too ignorant) to even realize thats what he is doing.
On to speaking with a logical person, i.e. you Spood. I should have somewhat re-calibrated my response to you, but I was in the middle of a seminar and needed to rush my post. My connection with NK was somewhat spurious, as reality exemplifies your thought process behind why Iran, acting similarly with analogous goals, may in fact be bluffing. Further, Iran has proved to be extraordinarily adept manipulators and this nuclear fiasco could just be a great wedge issue to utilize in order to displace blame from all their domestic concerns.
WIth that in mind, allow me to voice my concerns. Iran could indeed be rational actors whose only goal is to maintain their regime, by any means necessary. That being said, the acquisition of weaponized nukes is arguably their best tool in doing so, because if/when they are a reality, domestic concerns will be peripheral in every sense of the world. In sum, I hope Iran is bluffing and if NK is any prototype to use as a benchmark, it is somewhat feasible. However, we cannot be so quick to jump and conclude that these entities behaviors aren't mutually exclusive. In that, I mean they both could be reaching similar goals, through similar means, with a sui generis end-game in mind. In the end, just because NK and Iranian behaviors are so similar, that doesn't mean they are equally rational and ONLY wish to empower themselves in the "int'l community".
Even more daunting is the possibility of a disgruntled mullah who is less rational than Khameni who "loses" a few nukes into the hands of Hezbollah. Than what now? All the calculus behind the "rationality" inherent to the Iranian regime who may ACTUALLY be bluffing is moot if their proxy-pitbulls get their hands on any of this stuff. This reality needs to be considered.

12:32 PM ET

The problem with the

The problem with the disgruntled mullah idea is that even its its embryonic state, Iran's stockpile of atomic material represents a serious threat even if it isn't a nuclear weapon in the traditional sense. The potential to build and equivalent impact of a "dirty bomb" has been in Iran's power for some time. Yet nothing has even come close to such a threat in reality.

They already have the opportunity and allegedly the motive to use one, but they haven't. In fact there is little evidence to show that they are willing to part with such material outside their borders as they have with so many other weapons. Enriched uranium is massively expensive to produce and one doesn't want to dole it out lightly like so much semtex and bullets. At the very least doing so would represent a massive loss of resources and investment with little return.

This bespeaks of a somewhat rational and controlled regime. Their intentions are malicious and their stability is questionable but there really isn't too much that can be seen as evidence in their actions of apocalyptically insane judgment. Nuclear weapons are best kept as a threat and become an absolute liability if used.

Proxy war is cheap and effective for boosting prestige without much inherent risk at home. This also shows a certain rationality to their actions. They are watching pennies and looking to be beligerant on the cheap. Funding a proxy force is much less risky militarily and monetarily than outright conflict.

The reality of Iran's nuclear program is that if one really intends to make nukes, one has to keep the process secret up until the very last moment. Nuclear development requires a "poker face". The materials are too expensive and time consuming to produce and the international ramifications are too great. Nobody wants the process interrupted by outsiders.

When someone crows so loudly and produces so little to support it, a bluff is the most likely scenario.

DMALO

12:40 PM ET

did i just see that?

"Betz55 simply cannot veil his anti-Western bent viably with anything but illogical ad hominem arguments. We all know it and he's too deluded (or dare I say too ignorant) to even realize thats what he is doing."

learn the meaning of ad hominem.

12:49 PM ET

It would be ad hominem..

if the attack was on the person's inherent traits. Attacking one's views and lack of logical coherence is not ad hominem.

Frankly I found Betz55's argument to lack any real merit just from a rhetorical and factual POV. Moral equivalence arguments are usually the tool of someone trying to justify an inherently suspect viewpoint.

Just How 'Secret' is Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program?

The New York Times says a leaked IAEA report contains new revelations about Iran. But does the report really tell us anything we didn't already know?

BY CHRISTIAN CARYL | NOVEMBER 9, 2009

(13)