The Shah's Atomic Dreams

More than three decades ago, before there was an Islamic Republic, the West sought desperately to prevent Iran's ruler from getting his hands on the bomb. New revelations show just how serious the crisis was -- and why America's denuclearization drive isn't working.

BY ABBAS MILANI | DECEMBER 29, 2010

Of the many inaccuracies and obfuscations of the Iranian nuclear negotiations, one of the most persistent has been the claim that, in questioning the ultimate goals of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, the West is seeking to enforce a duplicitous double standard. According to this line of rhetoric, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last shah of Iran, was a Western ally -- or, in the language of the regime, a "lackey" -- and thus America and Europe were willing and eager to help him get not one, but many, reactors. But since the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, these critics allege, Iran is being singled out and persecuted. In 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Der Spiegel, "It's interesting to note that European nations wanted to allow the shah's dictatorship the use of nuclear technology.… Yet those nations were willing to supply it with nuclear technology. Ever since the Islamic Republic has existed, however, these powers have been opposed to it."

Even some progressive intellectuals in the West have bought into this story, either supporting the regime's program or at least criticizing the U.S. stance on Ahmadinejad's current program as hypocritical given its past lenience toward the shah. The U.S. government itself, in what must be considered an inexplicable failure of public diplomacy, has never challenged this narrative -- although it has access to hundreds of pages of documents that disprove the regime's allegations.

In fact, Washington was involved in a long-standing and frequently behind-the-scenes diplomatic tussle with the shah over the purpose of his nuclear program. Recently declassified documents from the Carter and Ford presidential libraries; the departments of defense, energy, and state; and the National Security Council (NSC) show that every element of today's impasse between the U.S. government and the Islamic Republic was also present in the negotiations with the shah. These range from Iran's insistence on its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) right to a "full fuel cycle," its complaint that the United States was singling it out for guarantees no other country was required to give, and finally the U.S. offer to make Iran part of an international consortium to enrich uranium outside Iran, the so-called "Russian solution." The shah repeatedly insisted that at least he did not want a nuclear bomb -- yet he was adamant that Iran not be treated as a second-class citizen. These negotiations, details of which have not been published before now, don't just expose the regime's lies about the alleged U.S. double standard, they also offer a useful guide for Western negotiators in navigating the waters of Iranian nationalism, both real and feigned.

Iran's nuclear program began in 1959 with a small reactor given by the United States to Tehran University as part of the "Atoms for Peace" program announced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in December 1953. But that only whetted the Iranian monarch's appetite: With his increased oil revenues, and with his new vision of Iran as the hegemonic force in the region, a nuclear program became for Shah Pahlavi the symbol of progress and power. He summoned Akbar Etemad, a trained nuclear physicist, to the royal court in 1973, told him of his desire to launch a nuclear program, and asked Etemad to develop a master plan.

Two weeks later, the shah met with Etemad again. He quickly read the 13-page draft document Etemad had prepared, then turned to the prime minister and ordered him to fund what turned out be one of the most expensive projects undertaken by his regime. There was no prior discussion in the Majlis, where the constitutional power of the purse lay, or in any other governmental body or council. Like every major policy decision in those days, it was a one-man act. Thus was launched Iran's nuclear program.

The shah's plans called for a "full-fledged nuclear power industry" with the capacity to produce 23,000 megawatts of electricity. By 1977, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) had more than 1,500 employees (who were, on the shah's orders, allowed to become the highest-paid government employees). Pahlavi had arranged for the training of Iranian nuclear experts around the world (including a $20 million endowment at MIT), engaged in an intensive search for uranium mines in Iran and all over the planet, and launched several nuclear research centers across the country. AEOI was in those days one of the most heavily funded programs in the country. In 1976, its budget was $1.3 billion, making it, after the country's oil company, the single biggest public economic institution in the country.

While Germany and France showed immediate eagerness to sell Iran its desired reactors, the United States was initially reluctant to sell any, "without conditions limiting [the shah's] freedom of action," according to the text of a U.S. governmental memo. The German company Kraftwerk signed the first agreement to build the now-famous Bushehr reactor with an initial completion date of 1981 and an estimated cost of $3 billion. As Bushehr was located in a dangerous zone that was prone to frequent and strong seismic activity, extra funds were set aside to protect the site against the dangers of an earthquake. It was said at the time that the German government was so eager to find a foothold in the Iranian market that it guaranteed Kraftwerk's investment against any loss. U.S. companies, on the other hand, were barred from these contracts until Washington's concerns about the shah's intentions were addressed.

The shah was adamant that Iran should enjoy its "full rights," as he put it at the time, within the NPT -- an agreement Iran had immediately signed upon its formulation and that calls for non-nuclear states to forfeit the search for a nuclear bomb in return for easy access to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But Iran not only insisted on the right to have the full fuel cycle, it also was interested in processing plutonium -- a faster way to a nuclear bomb than enriched uranium.

AFP/Getty Images

 

Abbas Milani is director of Iranian studies at Stanford University, where he co-directs the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution.

Adapted from
The Shah by Abbas Milani. Copyright © 2011 by the author and reprinted with permission from Palgrave Macmillan, a division of MacMillan Publishers Limited.

HRIS

3:36 AM ET

December 30, 2010

 

NORBOOSE

11:49 PM ET

December 30, 2010

Wheres the hypocrisy?

Ok first of all, you can hardly treat "the West" as a singular decision making entity, but lets assume you can and lets assume that the Iranian accusation is correct. If then, "The West" liked the shah so it supported Iran's nuclear program. Now, "the West" doesnt like the current government, so it opposes Iran's nuclear program. Unless you previously saw "the West" as a christ-like entity, how does this ring of hypocrisy, it rings of basic human nature. When someone I have deep trust and confidence in carries a gun, I feel more secure. When someone who I think is looking to murder me in my sleep is carrying a gun, well, thats bad and I want to stop that from happening. Simple self-interest.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

9:26 AM ET

December 31, 2010

You are looking for hypocrisy in the wrong place

There is no hypocrisy in being happy for one nation to possess nuclear weapons but not another; the hypocrisy lies in the act of pretending that your reasons for the distinction are other than what they truly are.

 

AMERICANMADE

3:31 PM ET

January 1, 2011

The last pargraph

I enjoyed the last article up untill the last pargraph. That last paragraph can be an article of its own and it needs some facts before I buy into the writers conclusions.

 

SABABA03

7:05 PM ET

January 1, 2011

Differences between the Shah & the Mullahs

Although Mr. Milani points out important issues with Iran's nuclear ambitions, going back to Shah's days during the early 1950's. He does not mention the Massadegh factor, who was then the PM, and later was deposed by coup led by the CIA & MI6. The critical part of that period was when, Mossadegh was sick of the British oil company BP whom he suspected, was stealing Iran's oil w/o pay.

To retaliate, he began to cozy up to USSR for support. In fact, the communist party (Named Toodeh) was already vying for power in Tehran. During the mids of the cold-war then, it was a big NO NO for the West lead by U.S.

Despite their common objectives, It is impossible to compare the leadership and ideology between the Shah's then, and that of the Mullahs today. (which I don't believe is Mr. Milani's objective).

The Shah's drive was based on personal megalomaniac, who perceived himself as the direct incarnation of Cyrus II, some 2600 earlier. Therefore, he felt it was incumbent upon the Shah-han-Shah (in farsi, king of kings) to bring the Persian empire of the past, and restore Iran (Persia) to its glory days.

He disdained the religious establishment there, and loath the Islamic clerics as backward, and primitives, whom he blamed for Iran's luck of progress vis-a-vis western societies.

He tried hard to push the Islamic fundamentalists from Iran's main stream population. In fact, the Shah was credited for murdering Khomeini's father, who was a high ranking Mullah in Iran. Later he deported the son to exile in Paris, whom 15 years later (1979) the father of the revolution took his revenge on the Shah by deposing him.

Though Mullahs today have the same ambitions of restoring Iran's past glory. They crave for different glory – the Islamic glory of yesteryears. That is why we hear the Akmed in Tehran, he is waiting for some elusive Madhi to return.

While the late shah was operating more-less on Western standards (secularization of Iran, and connection to distance past, etc.), which had no real impact on the geopolitical of today . This regime's motives are clearly based on fanatical religious ones, which does have direct and ominous impact on, not only the ME & Gulf region, but the rest of humanity.

That is in my humble view, are the differences between the late Shah's plans and these Mullah's nuclear plans, and the reasons why the rest of the world objects to any of the Mullahs nuclear plans with such ferocity.

 

DAVIDRAMEZANI

9:45 PM ET

January 1, 2011

Different causes for the same issue in different circumstances

There are couple issues in here. One is the nature of the Shah’s opposition groups verses the nature of the Islamic Republic’s opposition groups. The other issue is that Shah was caught up right in the middle of the Cold War at its pick which was a war between the Free World and the Communism where as now it is the Islamic Republic which has elevated Iran into a new Islamic Cold War with the Free World. So this is a paradigm shift from Shah’s foreign policy to Islamic Republic’s foreign policy.

The Shah’s opposition were primarily anti American Communist groups where are the opposition to Islamic Republic with the exception of small group of Leftists are mostly American allies and pro Western groups. So the concern during the Shah was the risk of worst case scenario which took place on 1979 through the ubiquitous Islamic-Communist uprising. Where as, the worst case scenario now for Islamic Republic would actually be considered the best case scenario from the Western perspective. Back then the main concern was not the Shah but his opposition. Now the main concern is not the opposition to Islamic Republic but it is the Islamic Republic itself. It is two distinct opposing concerns from Western perspective.

So it is understandable for the United States to take two different approaches to two different set of problems on two different times under two different circumstances. It should not be surprising. On the surface the concerns might appear the same for both situations but the underlying problems have two different natures. Another word, different causes for the same issue in different circumstances are at work. So, I think it is important for us to frame the problems accurately and put it is perspective in order to be able to see the big picture.

Happy New Year,
David Ramezani

 

DAVIDRAMEZANI

1:17 PM ET

January 3, 2011

Trust, transparency and accountability

The issue boils down into trust, transparency and accountability. How can you trust a group of unelected officials who has made the anti Americanism its top priority foreign policy? How do you trust bunch of unelected officials whose own people are not willing to trust them. How can you hold some unelected officials accountable while both the Iranians and the International community is not convinced they can be trusted? Lack of transparency and lack of accountability of the unelected officials has casted the shadow of doubts and has provided enough justification to the International Community to be skeptical about Islamic Republic. If Islamic Republic removes all the unelected officials from power and if it is willing to have an open and a free election then it would provide a good will gesture to the International Community as a government which can be trusted. In the absence of that, I really doubt if Islamic Republic can be trusted by both Iranians inside and the International Community outside.

 

GRANDPAW7

9:03 PM ET

January 2, 2011

So, what to do?

Except for the comment about the IDF ending Iran's nuclear program, the comments seem to bit too much like a classroom discussion for me. There are a lot of accusations that the U.S. is being hypocritical, but the ones I have seen are not based on the history to the Shah but on the claim that Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear program under the NPT, which the IAEA has found that Iran has violated. The article rejects the claim of hypocrisy against the U.S. but I'm not sure if the article has in mind as the source of the claimed hyprocrisy the support given the Shah yeah those many years ago or has in mine Iran's claim under the NPT. Nor do I understand what "democratic, law-abiding government" the article is referring to. It does seem that some of the world (including the U.S?) have told Iran that it could have a peaceful nuclear power program if it complied with the NPT. But I'd like to see what better informed people than I see as a possible solution short of an attack on the nuclear facilities by Israel or the U.S , given its violation of the NPT.

I admit that it may be that the article and the comments are just too deep for me to fully understand; that does happen to me from time to time. I personally favor more dialog, or maybe I should say attempted dialog, with Iran despite how ineffective that might seem just because I fear the unintended consequences of an attack. I am hopeful that Israel has some things going which we don't know about that might sidetrack Iran's nuclear bomb wishes.

The author says that the good people in Iran are against the bomb. My impression is the opposite, that while the good people are against the government they do think that Iran has a right to be a nuclear power; how they square that with how the current government might use a nuclear bomb is beyond me. I take it that they just don't want to accept that Iran is too backward or whatever to be entitled to the dignity of being a nuclear power like India and Pakistan.