The Nuclear Options

Barack Obama's Iran policy is frustrating, slow-moving, and fraught with uncertainty. But have you taken a look at the alternatives?

BY JAMES TRAUB | NOVEMBER 11, 2011

President Barack Obama arrived in office determined to make a sharp break with George W. Bush's policy on nuclear nonproliferation. Obama and his team believed that the only way they could get allies to support a tough line against countries like Iran or North Korea that were seeking to acquire nuclear weapons was to comply with the United States' own obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to reduce its nuclear stockpile. One of Obama's leading nonproliferation experts admitted to me in the early days of the administration that this sounded very much like "an article of faith" adopted by untested idealists. "These are propositions that have to be demonstrated," he said. "The administration will be going to these countries to say, 'We're doing our part; now you have to do your part.'"

You could read the report on Iran's nuclear program released this week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to say, "Proposition refuted." Certainly Obama's critics have. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mitt Romney writes that thanks to "the administration's extraordinary record of failure," Iran is "making rapid headway toward its goal of obtaining nuclear weapons." In fact, the report dwells almost entirely on events that happened long before Obama took office and essentially offers an official imprimatur to the widespread view that Iran has been seeking for years to develop a nuclear warhead and is continuing to do so. Neither Bush nor Obama has stopped Iran from pursuing a goal to which Iranian leaders are single-mindedly dedicated -- nor could they have. But Obama's strategy has thrown a spanner into Iran's nuclear works. On balance, the proposition survives.

Iran is still enriching uranium and is now estimated to have enough to produce four bombs. Enriching uranium to the level required for a weapon is the hardest part of the nuclear process; the advances in hardware uncovered by the IAEA only confirm the belief that Iran is going to the immense trouble of developing an enrichment capacity in order to be able to build a bomb. But according to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, the number of centrifuges spinning at the Natanz fuel enrichment plant peaked at 9,000 in November 2009 and has since fallen. What's more, the average productivity of each centrifuge has fallen over the past year. And Iran may no longer be able to build more centrifuges. There are various reasons for these problems: the Stuxnet virus, which crippled Iran's productive capacity; poor centrifuge design; metal fatigue; and the shortage of key materials owing to U.N. sanctions passed in 2010.    

Obama doesn't get credit for metal fatigue, but he probably does for Stuxnet, which appears to have been a joint Israeli-American venture. In fact, Obama's Iran policy is less rule-abiding, and more sophisticated, than the administration lets on and its critics allow. But it would be a mistake to think that it's only the dark arts that matter. Obama's initial efforts to engage Iran through diplomacy went nowhere, but allowed U.S. officials to argue inside the United Nations and the IAEA board of governors that they had made a good-faith effort to end the isolation that the Bush administration had imposed on Iran. The president's embrace of nuclear abolitionism and his strong push for an arms-reduction treaty with the Russians countered the argument, common throughout the developing world, that the United States was a nuclear hypocrite -- that it was violating the same international rules that it was insisting that Iran observe. The combination of engagement and NPT-compliance has helped Obama persuade Russia, China, and other states to pass tough sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.

BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a fellow of the Center on International Cooperation. "Terms of Engagement," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

WALTSWRONGWITHTHISPICTURE

3:59 PM ET

November 12, 2011

dont drink the koolaid of redacted

there most definitely is a nuclear weapons programme. Every serious nuclear watcher and scientist knows it.

Its more than an open secret...

only anti sem's want iran to get nukes.

 

AARKY

2:02 PM ET

November 14, 2011

Who are the Semites?

Stop insulting our intelligence with the Anti-semitic BS!!. That crap is routinely thrown at anyone who differs from the Likkudnik line. It's meant as an insult, but ignores the fact that most people in the Middle east are of Semitic stock. The most ridiculous insult that a Likkudnik will throw is "self-hating Jew" for any Jew who doesn't lick their jackboots. It's one more of the ways that Zionists insult people and intelligent people have stopped listening long ago. Run back to AIPAC or WINEP and whine that someone still keeps posting after you called them Anti-Semitic.

 

LOCOROCO

8:50 PM ET

November 12, 2011

Iran threatens with street war

The head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission said on Tuesday that Iran would start a ‘street war’ in Tel Aviv if its nuclear program was attacked.

“Israel is not big enough to launch a military strike on Iran, but if it takes such a foolish decision, the Iranian military will fight with the Zionist soldiers in Tel Aviv streets… and will force them out of the Palestinian soil,” Seyed Hossein Naqavi said.

Naqavi also warned, should Tehran’s nuclear program be attacked, the battlefield won’t be in Iran, but “the entirety of Europe and the US.”

“Iranian forces will fight with the enemies with maximum might and power all throughout the European and US soil, if Iran comes under attack,” he reiterated.

Mariko Femdom Quasod

 

A11242408

5:00 AM ET

November 15, 2011

Recognizing such skepticism,

Recognizing such skepticism, one portion of the IAEA report was devoted to addressing the credibility of the information. But Mr. Kelly, the former IAEA inspector who also served as a department director at the agency, remains unconvinced.SWF Converter Mac

 

DFGFGER

2:36 AM ET

November 13, 2011

www.yahoofashion.net ser ewdfghtrfyer g hrtf

dstrdsd uyjhrtfy eaw sdf sdfse gh ghj

http://www.yahoofashion.net

Nike s h o x(R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35.
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35.
Tshirts (Polo , ed hardy, lacoste) $16.
free shipping.you will get nice

ft aseras dfg fhgyujrsty wraw cg fgher t

 

JOHNRDKIDD

5:27 AM ET

November 13, 2011

An illegal attack on a sovereign state would be calamitous

IRAN, REVISIONIST ZIONISM, WAR & BINYAMIN NETANYAHU

“Revisionist Zionism is represented by the Likud Party founded in 1973 by Menachem Begin and now headed by Binyamin Netanyahu.”
“Begin, was the leader of the Zionist militant group Irgun, which targeted the British in Palestine, and had a deep-rooted hatred of Britain, which some claim would resurface decades later with his aiding and supply of illegal weapons to Argentina during the Falklands war.” (wikipedia)

The above gives the background of Binyamin Netanyahu, PM of a state that, according to the Federation of American Scientists, has built a secret arsenal that may contain up to 400 undeclared nuclear warheads. He is now unsuccessfully trying to persuade America and Britain to attack Iran because although, unlike Israel, the Iranian state has no nuclear weapons whatsoever, it has a development program for nuclear applications that Israel has tried, but failed, to sabotage through the use of a malicious computer virus.

Germany with other NATO states are refusing to collude with Netanyahu’s Likud government in such an illegal attack on a sovereign state and Britain should also make clear its opposition to an invasion that could be calamitous for world peace and the global economy. ###

 

JEANPOMEL

10:13 AM ET

November 13, 2011

Hey, wake up ! America's hegemonic power is over !

Actually America is the threat itself to its national security. All the measures the US has taken in late 2000's is only just feeding anti-american sentiment. Lobbyin is imense of the US governament, because with fear this companies grow (weapon industry and so on).

"ran arms itself for need, the US for profit." Ayatollah Khamenei

 

CHICKEN SALAD

11:15 AM ET

November 13, 2011

We should ask ourselves:

Have we really tried rapprochement with Iran?
Have we really tried to establish a meaningful dialog with the Mullahs?
Are we willing to sit around a table without looking down on them, hear their concerns, & try to reach a workable compromise through a mutual cooperation?
Will Israel allow us to?

 

AARKY

2:31 PM ET

November 14, 2011

Rapprochment Would be Great

Excellent questions! And the answer is NO. There have been so many Zionist infiltrators at State and in the WH that Hillary just parrots their instructions. When someone gets canned and shown the door at high levels in the government, the standard message is they wanted to spend more time with their family. That has happened to Dennis Ross, an Uber Zionist, who effectively sabotaged any meaningful attempts at rapprochment with Iran. He has gone to WINEP, which is a lobbying organization for Israel, along with AIPAC. Too much of the blame sits at the desk of the President for not having had a purge at State and telling the many dual citizenship members of Congress to shut up with their rants for war. One of the first steps to gain better relations is to stop with the phrase"All options are on the table". Stop all the insuinuations and wild charges that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Cancel all embargos on all products that have no military end use. Fire David Cohen at Treasury, who helps create the crazy embargos. Allow direct flights by US air carriers to Iran and vice versa (US Air carriers routinely overfly Iran on their way to India and Pakistan). Ask Iranian permission to establish a diplomatic Interest Section in Tehran. Cancel restrictions on banking transfers to and from Iran. Stop running around threatening other countries who do business with Iran.

 

JOHNBOY4546

6:56 PM ET

November 13, 2011

"is now estimated to have enough to produce four bombs."

Look, that statement is simply wrong.

Iran has enriched uranium to a level of 20%, and
a) you can not make a bomb with that stuff
b) there is ZERO evidence that Iran has ever enriched any uranium beyond 20%

Q: So how many bombs can Iran make with the uranium they have?
A: Not A One. Zip. Zero.

You can argue that they could - COULD - take their 20% uranium and attempt to enrich it further, which COULD get you to your hypothetical four bombs.

But, heck, why stop there? Why not add up all the yellowcake and all the ore that's lying in the ground, and then calculate that if they took all that stuff and enriched it to 99+% then they COULD make 1,000 bombs?

Because, so sorry, you are playing a game of "let's pretend" to get to your "four bombs", and two can play that game.

This is a simple truth: the Iranians do not have a single gram of uranium that is suitable for putting inside a bomb, and simply can not further enrich a single gram of the uranium they DO have without the IAEA knowing immediately that they have done so.

That's the truth, and that's what you should be writing about.

 

JOHNBOY4546

6:56 PM ET

November 13, 2011

"is now estimated to have enough to produce four bombs."

Look, that statement is simply wrong.

Iran has enriched uranium to a level of 20%, and
a) you can not make a bomb with that stuff
b) there is ZERO evidence that Iran has ever enriched any uranium beyond 20%

Q: So how many bombs can Iran make with the uranium they have?
A: Not A One. Zip. Zero.

You can argue that they could - COULD - take their 20% uranium and attempt to enrich it further, which COULD get you to your hypothetical four bombs.

But, heck, why stop there? Why not add up all the yellowcake and all the ore that's lying in the ground, and then calculate that if they took all that stuff and enriched it to 99+% then they COULD make 1,000 bombs?

Because, so sorry, you are playing a game of "let's pretend" to get to your "four bombs", and two can play that game.

This is a simple truth: the Iranians do not have a single gram of uranium that is suitable for putting inside a bomb, and simply can not further enrich a single gram of the uranium they DO have without the IAEA knowing immediately that they have done so.

That's the truth, and that's what you should be writing about.

 

FORLORNEHOPE

7:05 AM ET

November 14, 2011

The Turkey solution

The only, long term, way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear bomb is to support political change. Iran has the potential to be a democratic, culturally Islamic state with a similar political system to that of Turkey. Even if it were to develop a nuclear bomb in the interim, it would probably then want to get rid of it along with its present revolutionary regime. Now just ask yourself, would an attack by Israel or its puppets in Washington make that outcome more or less likely? It's also worth asking whether the present Israeli government sees a democratic Iran as an even greater threat than an isolated revolutionary one?

 

MASINI

4:41 AM ET

November 19, 2011

a war would destroy the human race

People. I think we are heading towards a new patter nuclear war. Too many countries have the top technology and in some states decisions are taken by people unaware. I think that great powers must react before it is too late. I do not know who will be the future of humanity if one of these Arab countries out of control will become a nuclear power. We can wake up one day to use the atomic bomb for their goals, but realize that a nuclear war would mean the end of the race - the human race. We come to destroy us and I think this time is not too far. pastura eco

 

LISAJANE64

5:36 AM ET

November 27, 2011

Atomic Hypocrite Number One

Well thought article here. Thank you.

Does Iran really harbor a “nuclear weapons program”? Why single them out? The constant bullying of the Great Zionist Tag Team is getting more and more pathetic everyday. Stuxnet Virus? Come on people.

Let’s all get informed and hope for the best. No more Israel-USA war crimes, please.

Much love folks!
Lisa O.

 

ELEANORRALBER

8:28 PM ET

December 10, 2011

Iran continues to be enriching uranium

Germany along with other NATO states are refusing to collude with Netanyahu’s Likud government such an illegal attack on the sovereign state and Britain also needs to explain its opposition for an invasion that may be calamitous for world peace and also the global economy. Allow larger direct flights by US airline carriers to Iran and the other way around (US Airline carriers routinely overfly Iran enroute to India and Pakistan). Ask Iranian permission to determine a diplomatic Interest Section in Tehran. Cancel restrictions on banking gets in and from Iran. Stop playing around threatening other countries that do business with Iran.

 

FRIVCITY

12:53 AM ET

December 13, 2011

Documents

Those documents had markings on them, and were designed to resemble Iraqi documents, but when we dug into them they were clearly forgeries,” adds Kelley. “They were designed by a couple of member states in that region, and provided to the Agency maliciously to slow things down. Miniclip Starfall Funbrain Miniclip Friv. Now just ask yourself, would an attack by Israel or its puppets in Washington make that outcome more or less likely?

 

SHEILAAR

7:28 AM ET

December 15, 2011

Turkey solution

Yea ! Even if it were to develop a nuclear bomb in the interim, it would probably then want to get rid of it along with its present revolutionary regime. Now just ask yourself....good work !
massagista