There. Don’t you feel a little better now? I knew that you would. When in close combat with your political opponent, it’s always a good idea to take a moment to review, revitalize, and relax.
That’s what we’re doing, of course. This “crisis” has not been the doing of the Bush Administration. The blame for jacking up domestic tensions falls entirely and without question on the rabid dog left. Even liberal Democrats (for the most part) have dismissed immediate military action as a chimera. What passes for analysis on left wing blogs and punditry would have us believe that Bush will bomb Iran to take the heat off of the White House due to the Libby scandal, or that Bush will bomb the mullahs in September to rally the country to the Republican standard, or that the President will attack because he sees the end times coming and wants to start Armageddon.
Someone should just dump a bucket of cold water on their pointy heads and tell them to cool off.
The Administration has held no press conferences, no briefings of any kind. They have given measured, careful responses (outside of the President’s apropos characterization of Sy Hersh’s fantasy story about the United States using nuclear weapons in Iraq as “wild speculation) to the notion of military action against the mullahs. Negotiations remain the primary option of this Administration, despite leaks that were 1) meant to let the Iranians know we mean what we say; and/or 2) signal the Europeans and others to get busy at the UN.
Hersh’s dramatic story about disgusted military officers ready to quit if the JCS recommendations included a nuclear option must be taken with a very large dose of salt. Mr. Hersh has penned some of the most curious (and that is me at my most charitable) volumes that purport to be “fact based” in the last quarter century. The Dark Side of Camelot was almost universally condemned as a scandal mongering load of crap, so much so that one wag referred to it as “The Second JFK Assassination.”
And who could forget The Target is Destroyed, a book about the Soviet downing of KAL Flight 007 where Hersh gave the Soviets a virtual pass in shooting down the civilian airliner all because the US had a spy plane in the vicinity and the Soviets mistook the clear civilian markings on the KAL 747 for our intelligence platforms being flown in converted 707’s. (The pilot who shot down 007 pleaded with his superiors, telling them it was in fact a civilian airliner. So much for mistaken identity).
In fairness, Hersh has done some first class work in exposing aspects of the My Lai massacre as well as a mostly factual account of Henry Kissinger’s tenure as the doyen of American foreign policy. But his otherwise excellent book The Samson Option was criticized for poor sourcing and many of Hersh’s articles in recent years have depended almost exclusively on sources who remain anonymous. In effect, Hersh expects us to take him at his word, his reputation being enough to satisfy our questions regarding the viability of his claims.
As a man of the left, he can get away with it. Which brings us back to the current meltdown by the left about our military planning to take out Iranian nuclear capability. Despite President Ahmadinejad’s bluster about Iran joining the nuclear club, the “achievement” of Iraqi scientists is so rudimentary and preliminary to building a bomb that one wonders why he even bothered to announce it. The left leaning blog Arms Control Wonk posted a series of articles on the Iranian nuclear program and gave a reasonable timetable for a crash program by the mullahs to make an atomic device:
Assemble 1,300-1,600 centrifuges. Assuming Iran starts assembling centrifuges at a rate of 70-
100/month, Iran will have enough centrifuges in 6-9 months.Combine centrifuges into cascades, install control equipment, building feed and withdrawal systems, and test the Fuel Enrichment Plant. 1 year
Enrich enough HEU for a nuclear weapon. 1 year
Weaponize the HEU. A “few†months.
Total time to the bomb—about three years.
The difference between what the Iranians achieved yesterday – a successful “cascade” involving 164 centrifuges – and what would be necessary to enrich enough uranium for one single bomb is like the difference between a tricycle and an Indy racing car. In order to weaponize enough uranium for a single bomb, the Iranians would need nearly 10 times the number of centrifuges (that they probably do not have at the moment) spinning at nearly 700 times a second, all working together flawlessly for many months, night and day, before the uranium was enriched not by the measly 3.5% the Iranians claimed yesterday but by at least 80% which most experts say would be the absolute minimum enrichment threshold for the uranium to achieve critical mass and detonate.
The technical challenges for such an operation would tax the labs and brainpower of most First World countries much less the Third World nation of Iran. It took the greatest brains on the planet at the time of the Manhattan Project nearly 3 years and what in today’s dollars would be nearly $75 billion to solve many of the technical problems involved in constructing an atomic bomb. While it is true many of these technical challenges have since been leaked into the public domain, there remain several key steps that are classified.
At the same time, our intrepid spies at the CIA are almost certainly dreaming when they claim as they did in a National Intelligence Estimate that the Iranians are a decade or more away from achieving their nuclear ambitions. The Israelis are under no such illusions as they also have gone on record (by way of background briefings) saying that Iran is much closer to that dangerous goal; 3-5 years being their timetable.
Of course, this timetable does not take into account some “shortcuts” the Iranians could use:
- Purchasing highly enriched uranium from a third party
- Acquiring nuclear weapons elsewhere
- Getting the requisite technical assistance from experienced foreign nuclear scientists.
The first two of these shortcuts are highly unlikely given how closely nuclear material is monitored around the world. And while we’ve been hearing for years that nuclear weapons from Russia have been on the market in all sorts of manifestations including so-called “suitcase” bombs, nuclear artillery shells, and even old short range missiles with nuclear warheads, the fact is not a one has been used. And given how closely Iran has been watched by both Americans and Israelis, it seems highly unlikely the mullahs have been able to purchase a ready made weapon on the black market.
The third shortcut is much more likely. There are indications that the Iranians have already gotten help from Pakistani scientists as well as North Korean technicians. Such assistance could considerably shorten the time for the Iranians to develop a nuclear capability.
The point I’m trying to make is that if we know all this, so does the Administration. This is why the UN is still a viable option and, if necessary, multi-lateral sanctions by Western powers against the Iranians. While the Russians and Chinese both oppose such a move, it is probable they would not overtly undermine such sanctions, bringing as it almost certainly will, trouble with their western partners. And since both giants need the west a heckuva lot more than they need Iran, there’s a good chance that any sanctions regime the US and NATO can come up with will have some bite.
The hyperventilating left and the itchy trigger fingers on the right should bear all of this in mind when discussing what to do about Iran. We have some time. Time to carefully build a powerhouse coalition of nations that takes Ahmadinejad at his word when he says he wants to “wipe the State of Israel off the map.” This won’t be accomplished overnight. But the major weaknesses in Iran’s economy as well as a restive population, chafing at 26 years of theocratic rule, could work in favor of the Iranians being forced to abandon their mad ambition to get the ultimate defense against cartoon blasphemy.
UPDATE
More cold water thrown on the fire by Greg Djerejian.
And Ed Morrissey, while slightly more optimistic about Iranian capabilities, still gives time frame of 2-3 years.
Tom Holsinger believes in scenario #2 above; that the Iranians already have fissionable material via North Korea. Read his deductions at Captains Quarters post linked above, comment #2.
9:31 am
The Kurds are the key to infiltrating Iran and tipping the whole state over.
9:32 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House » IRAN: EVERYBODY PLEASE RELAX AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH Despite President Ahmadinejad’s bluster about Iran joining the nuclear club, the “achievement†of Iraqi scientists is so rudimentary and preliminary to building a bomb that one wonders why he even bothered to announce it. The left leaning blog Arms Control Wonk posted a series of articles on the Iranian nuclear program and gave a reasonable timetable for a crash program by the mullahs to make an atomic device: [...]
9:58 am
Good points and comments. I think you’ve covered it from a balanced and more realistic approach. I can’t stand the liberals on the left with their heads in the sand, nor the right-wing conservatives screaming to nuke them now.
But, the one thing you failed to address is that the successful enrichment of uranium on a small scale is the red line that Israel said they’ve drawn. From published reports before Sharon’s stroke, the Israelis do not want Iran to be able to move from small scale to industrial scale enrichment. Israel is not going to wait until they have the bomb, or even enough uranium to build one. As in 1981, once they’ve given up with UN diplomacy (which doesn’t have a great success rate) all bets are off as to how they will attempt to stop Iran, and when.
What we in the public domain don’t know is really how far along they are. Bloggers with the best background in nuclear physics can “predict†or “calculate†timelines, but the fact is we don’t really know. If the Israeli Mossad determines they are farther along than previously feared, and the UN hasn’t reached any kind of consensus, they will make some kind of attempt to stop Iran. History has always shown this. Their survival as a nation depends on preemption (Six Day War) as opposed to waiting to be attacked (Yom Kippur War).
It’s not so much that the US is the only country that can take action. Israel may be the ones who ultimately make the decision to strike, and no one should be too quick to cast them aside as irrelevant to the final outcome.
10:13 am
John:
Not wanting to necessarily contradict your take on the possibility of Israeli action, here’s a piece by Steve Clemons (no moonbat, although definitely a man of the left):
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28567
I don’t think the Israeli’s are quite as resigned to Iranian nukes as he makes out but certainly the problems with an Israeli strike – not the least of which is that they simply don’t have the capability to take out so many targets over such a wide area – have been well documented.
In a sense, this is even more dangerous because it would put the Israelis on an extreme hair trigger with their own nukes. All it would take would be a couple of false images on a radar and the world would be in trouble.
No good options means no good outcome. Which is why barring evidence that the mullahs are actually going to use their nukes once they get them, a military solution may cost us more than it’s worth.
10:28 am
[...] Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse has a good post on the issue “IRAN: EVERYBODY PLEASE RELAX AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH†[...]
10:31 am
Damn Rick, you do it again. Is it just some oozing pustule in some quarter of your brain that just needs to seep out and infect the rest of your work?
Lots of good stuff here. But ya just have to start it all off with this nonsense:
“The blame for jacking up domestic tensions falls entirely and without question on the rabid dog left.”
This of course while RW “news” sources are hyping “16 days for Iran to have nukes” and all of the rightwing blogosphere is salivating over the prospect of making a really big bang somewhere.
Or, here is a hypothesis. Maybe your real mission is to raise the game of the right wing. But before you can even be heard by them, you have to assure them that they are in their comfort zone (a nut house), and then feed them their red meat nonsense for starters. Then perhaps, they will listen to the rest of what you have to say. Is that it? (sorry if I’ve been a little slow catching on….)
The downside of course, is that you valdiate their craziness on a deep level even as you inject some measured doses of sanity into their thinking.
10:37 am
Stop reading headlines. The thrust of the article was that Iran would have enough HE uranium to build a weapon 16 days after they initiate a fuel run involving 54,000 centrifuges.
That said, I stand by my statement that while the right is talking about no other option besides the military one, the left has jacked up the temperature and rhetoric by positing the silliest damn notions of why Bush will bomb sooner rather than later.
10:44 am
One thing that seriously bothers me about these time estimates:
We have a reference point for how long it takes to get from commitment to mushroom cloud. Spring 1942 to summer 1945. Just over three years, starting from basically zero.
And that was back when nobody’d done it yet, and it wasn’t clear that it was even possible.
Anyone starting a nuclear weapons program now is standing on the shoulders of giants; much useful information is available now that wasn’t in 1942. (So is a lot of misinformation, but any reasonably competent development team should be able to cut through that fairly quickly.)
I’m pretty sure the Iranians are way overstating the status of their visible program, but wouldn’t bet against their also having a hidden program that’s further along.
In any event, their program now is much more advanced than ours was this time in 1942, so insisting that they’re three years from having a bomb is nonsensical. If they started up a plutonium-based bomb project now, they could have bombs rolling off the assembly line much sooner than that.
12:28 pm
Nice post Rick. Agree, taking a breath and time to analyze and reflect is called for now.
Your thoughts are well organized and helpful in me understanding some of the issues. Permit me to make a couple of points. The HEU figure of 80% is high, we can discuss it in email if you wish. Also, I think we need to consider the volatility and uncertainty of the region and mullas in our analyses even more that we usually do. Pakistan and India provide counterbalance to each other a la MAD.
But who provides the counterbalance to Iran? The Europeans seem to have softened and the UN may be ineffective. As you stated, Israel has the will but its resourses are limited for such broad area and long range actions. That leaves the US as the only real counterbalance. The leftie Dems have us divided over Iraq and the Republicans seem hell bent on dividing us even more with their illegal alien amnensty and citizenship. Do you think we can forge a national unity sufficient to take action should it be necessary in the near future?
1:12 pm
In my view, the left and the right are equally to blame for pounding the war drums. The left is so hysterically paranoid about Bush’s intentions that they believe he will start a war because of his religious convictions, or because he loves war. It reminds me of the right accusing Clinton attacking Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq only to distract everyone from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In both cases, the right and left were way off base. The right is also wrong here, because many are advocating attacking them soon for a variety of unsound reasons, and they haven’t thought through or even considered the consequences of such an action. The also have no apparent understanding of Iranian internal politics and society and see Ahmadinejad as all-powerful and representative of the whole Iranian goverment and society.
Eric:
You can’t really compare our program during WWII to what Iran is doing today. Intelligence technology has progressed to the point where a manhanttan-style project could not be covert. That is really the difficulty for the Iranians. Sure, they could greatly speed up their program, but they could not do so secretly. Covert programs always progress more slowly than open ones.
For our first bombs in the 40’s, we used electromagnetic isotope separation (emiss), which is extremely innefficient and requires an extraordinary amount of power. The electricity required for our first few bombs came from the Tennessee Power Authority, which was created solely for the manhattan project. At it’s peak, it pumped out enough power for all of New York City, and that power was used soley for isotope separation. Most of the information we developed on EMISS was eventually declassified because, at the time, we believed that it was too impractical and expensive to use since more efficient techniques were developed. Unfortunately, we found out after Gulf War I that Iraq took our EMISS data, improved on it, and had an advanced EMISS program we knew nothing about until after the war. Although it’s possible the Iranians might have a similiar program, it’s probably unlikely simply because we now know what to look for in an EMISS program. EMISS requires large buildings hooked to multiple large power plants. That kind of infrastructure is difficult to hide.
As for plutonium, no, they couldn’t have plutonium bombs rolling out soon. Plutonium is only made inside reactors and it is difficult to extract. The Iranians would have to get spent fuel out of a reactor (which is monitored by the IAEA) and process the plutonium out of it. This isn’t easy to do and is practically impossible to accomplish without discovery because of safeguards put on reactors and spent fuel. HEU is much easier because it simply requires natural uranium which is much more difficult for us to track.
All that aside, it is certainly possible that Iran has a covert enrichment facility, but from what I’ve seen there is no evidence to support that contention.
1:29 pm
I believe Israel has seen this coming for some time. It’s one of the primary reasons they have already deployed an advanced ABM system. I think Israel will have live with Iranian nukes and I think they have come to accept this privately. Israeli military power is not what it once was, and it is not really possible for them to destroy the Iranian program. Flying aircraft to Iran today is a huge problem that isn’t easily overcome for starters. The best they could hope for is to delay the Iranian program for perhaps a decade. The consequences of such an attack probably are not worth a 10 year delay for a best-case scenario. That’s why I believe they are taking defensive measures and will make it clear to the Iranians that the concept of MAD is alive and well. Some may bring up the threat of a suitcase bomb, but the Iranians will not be able to make one of these for many years. Getting a nuclear truck bomb undetected from Iran to the Israeli border and then inside the country is also unlikely.
2:01 pm
I think that we should take care to keep sight of the fact that the real source of tensions is the Iranian regime. Their nuclear development program is 20 years or more old. I see no reason to believe that they’ve had done anything differently regardless of who the U. S. president was.
I posted in a similar vein this morning, Rick, albeit with a little more kindness towards the Left Blogosphere. I wonder if they can’t get their minds around the notion that just because events redound to the supposed benefit of the Administration they might not have been fomented solely for that purpose.
3:07 pm
[...] Contrary to breathlessly hysterical headlines today like, “Bombs possible within 16 days!”, the actual assessments are still along the lines of five to ten years, before Iran would actually be able to deliver what we’re all pretty sure they’d like. As Right Wing Nut House said earlier, EVERYBODY PLEASE RELAX AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH [...]
5:02 pm
Andrew:
“As for plutonium, no, they couldn’t have plutonium bombs rolling out soon. Plutonium is only made inside reactors and it is difficult to extract.”
I didn’t say “soon”; I said much sooner than three years. What was the elapsed time from the start of the Manhattan Project to Trinity? Iran has a head start on that, in both knowledge and infrastructure. If they’ve got several tons of off-the-books natural uranium, a supply of high-purity graphite or heavy water, and a large industrial basement, they’re set to start.
And I don’t trust either our intelligence agencies or the UN to know what’s going on in every place that could hide a subterranian Hanford.
Speaking of Hanford: reactor construction commenced October 1943; operational September 1944; plutonium shipped February 1945. Mushroom cloud at Alamogordo, July 1945. By my calendar, that qualifies as much less than three years.
Now, I agree that we shouldn’t be going into a frenzy on the basis of what we’re being shown… my points are that (1) there are almost certainly other things going on, out of view (and for which the public activities may be a smokescreen), and (2) any claim that a determined national effort to build a nuke will take more than a couple of years from the word go is contradicted by history.
10:03 pm
Eric, you missed my main point entirely, but I should have been more clear. I had assumed you knew the state of Iran’s reactors, but perhaps you do not. Currently, the only reactor Iran has capable of creating plutonium is their small 5MW test reactor we (the us) built for them in the 70’s. As a research reactor, it can be configured to produce various isotopes. Iran used this to produce a small amount of plutonium and they probably conducted experiments to separate it. There are still many questions about Iran’s intentions with respect to plutonium, but what is certain is that they have not produced anywhere near enough to create a bomb and their technical expertise in creating, handling and separating the isotope is still minimal. To create a bomb, they need a source to generate a lot of plutonium. They simply don’t have that. The test reactor can produce a few grams for research purposes but not enough for a weapon. Even when the Bushehr reactor gets finished and maybe fueled this year by the Russians, they won’t get any plutonium from it. The reactor isn’t designed to produce a lot of plutonium (it’s not a “breeder” reactor) and the fuel will be under IAEA controls. They do have a heavy water reactor under construction at Arak that could be used for plutonium production once it’s built and fueled. They would also need a plutonium separation facility which they currently don’t have. Because of all this, there is simply no way for them to covertly build the infrastructure and gain the expertise in under 3 years.
Again, there is no comparison to the manhattan project. We pumped billions of dollars, the best minds in the world, used unsafe designs and technology, and employed over a hundred thousand people to produce a couple of small-yield devices. Just because we did it in the 40’s doesn’t mean that it’s simple and easy for everyone else to do, especially without anyone else knowing it. As an analogy, we developed ICBMs in the early 1960’s, as did the Russians. The technology and materials to make an ICBM is much easier to acquire than a nuke, yet few countries have ICBMs. Even Iran and North Korea, which have put significant resources into their ballistic missile programs, have yet to develop what we had 40 years ago. Why? Because the engineering, material science and many other technical aspects are still beyond the capabilities of most other countries in the world. The same is true with nuclear technology.
8:57 am
Andrew:
I was explicitly not assuming that Iran’s existing reactors were available for plutonium production! I assumed a supply of refined natural uranium and of a suitable moderator.
If they have minimal expertise in producing and handling plutonium, that’s still more than zero. They’d be starting with a lot of publicly-available knowledge that didn’t exist in 1943, starting with the fact that plutonium bombs are possible. They’ve no doubt also acquired a lot of the more obscure knowledge from, e.g., North Korea.
Remember the Hanford timeline: less than a year to build the reactor; another five months to produce enough plutonium for two bombs.
While it’s true that we couldn’t do it again in such a short time, it’s not a safe assumption that a rogue regime would be limited by OSHA rules. If we assume that the mullahs are really planning an apocalyptic confrontation with us, we can hardly count on their putting a high value on the safety of their workers.
Developing a nuke for the first time took a collection of the world’s top scientists. Doing it for the tenth time is a job for a team of good engineers and technicians.
Now, I wouldn’t expect Iran’s team to be turning out sophisticated super-clean silo busters anytime soon, but, given national priority and competent management, plus a few good engineers in the right fields, I maintain that they could have crude but effective Fat Man type bombs in limited production not much more than two years from the go-ahead, and that we shouldn’t assume otherwise. Assuming incompetence on the part of one’s adversaries is not a safe bet, even it it is usually right.
So, we really have to look hard at their intentions, and at just how good our intelligence capabilities really are. I don’t have any inside information on either topic, but suggest that discerning the true intentions behind the public displays of lunacy is the key part of threat assessment. Just what are they really planning to do with nukes, and what are they willing to risk to get them? How much of the lunacy is real, and how much is propaganda for either domestic or foreign consumption?
Thinking of a Far Side cartoon: How nature says, “Do not touch.” Proclaiming “We’re crazy, and we have nukes” is one thing… “We’re crazy, and we’re about to have nukes” seems completely off the wall, and I have to wonder what’s really going on.
11:49 am
Eric,
I don’t want to be mean, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to Iran’s plutonium capabilites. You don’t simply need a supply of LEU and a moderator, you need a full-blown reactor to produce the quantities of plutonium necessary to make a weapon. A reactor the Iranians don’t have. You also need an isotope separation plant – again something the Iranians don’t have. Your argument that they could build these by themselves and produce a weapon in less than three years is ludicrious. They can’t even build a convential reactor on their own without Russian help. And you didn’t even address the issue of doing it covertly, which is what they’d need to do to keep the IAEA and everyone else off their backs.
What you’re essentially doing is confusing nuclear science, which is well known and understood, with nuclear engineering, which is the difficult part. Knowing the science behind nuclear technology and knowing how a nuclear bomb or reactor works is much different than actually building one and overcoming the many important technical challenges along the way. Iran has the science part down, but they don’t have the engineering expertise or the industrial base to support your claims. That’s why they rely heavily on the Russians for their reactor design and construction, and AQ Khan and North Korea for enrichment and other technologies. I’m not assuming incompetence, far from it. I’m talking about capabilities, and the requirements for them to achieve those capabilities. If there is any assumption it is by you and other bloggers who make assumptions based on heresay or ignorance.
“Doing it for the tenth time is a job for a team of good engineers and technicians.” Sorry, but that is complete BS. I don’t know why this myth about how easy these things are persists. It’s like saying it’s easy for a bunch of recently-graduated aerospace engineers to build the space shuttle. Even if you have all the necessary detailed plans, the materials, and the proper equipment, there are still signficant challenges.
And just to add some credibility (and I’ve said this before on this and other sites), my wife is a nuclear engineer who’s worked non-proliferation issues for about 13 years. I have been involved in a variety of intelligence disciplines for almost 15 years including ballistic missiles, some wmd, and naval and air force capabilities. My wife is an expert on what is and isn’t possible and is intimate with the details of what’s necessary to achieve a certain result with respect to nuclear weapons. I’ve learned from her enough to become a competent layman but she is always there when I have questions.
So we not only have to look at intentions, but also capability. You simply can’t assume the capability will be there and only focus on intent, especially in matters of war and peace.
As for intent, if you look at it from the Iranian perspective, it’s pretty obvious. First is national prestige. Iran is the heir to the great Persian empires of centuries past, and they view their pursuit of nuclear technology through that lense. Secondly, and probably the primary reason for their desire for weapons, is self protection. Nothing guarantees regime survivability like deployable nuclear weapons. With “hostile” American forces to the east and west of them (and our tough rhetoric), Pakistan and India with nukes, and of course Israel, it’s only natural for them to want them as well as a security guarantee and counter to perceived and real threats. Any further intent is speculation. Many have speculated that they will use them as soon as they can deploy them, either directly or through their proxies. This is obviously the greatest concern we have. Hopefully we’ll get (or already have) reliable intelligence on their true intent so we’re not forced to speculate, which always makes for poor decision making.
12:22 pm
Andrew:
You don’t simply need a supply of LEU and a moderator, you need a full-blown reactor to produce the quantities of plutonium necessary to make a weapon. A reactor the Iranians don’t have.
Yes, you do need a reactor. And, as I pointed out, the Hanford reactor was built in less than a year. If the materials are available, and the risks are considered acceptable, it can be done. The result won’t meet international safety standards by a long shot, but it’ll make plutonium.
Oh, and you don’t need LEU. Natural uranium will do, if you’ve got a suitable moderator.
You also need an isotope separation plant
Nope. You need a chemical separation plant to extract the plutonium from the uranium and fission products. If you’re running the reactor in military plutonium production mode, the result will not require isotope separation to be usable for Fat Man type bombs.
Once again: you’re asserting that something is impossible, and I’m pointing out that it’s already been done once. It may be difficult, dangerous, and unlikely, but it’s clearly not impossible.
Just how unlikely it is depends on the degree and nature of motivation, which comes back to intentions. Are we looking at a resurgent Persian Empire, or at a doomsday cult? Big difference in the risks they’d be willing to take.
Of course, the feasibility of the weapons program depends heavily on the cooperation of Iran’s talent pool, which I understand is relatively alienated from the mullahs at present. Overly agressive moves on our part might encourage the talent to cooperate with the leaders… which, from our perspective, would surely be counterproductive.
1:36 pm
Eric,
I am done with this argument, you believe what you want. But it begs the question of why the Iranians would get us, then the Germans, then Russians to build their Bushehr reactor over the course of over 25 years when they, as you indicated, could do it in less than three years on their own. Why are they asking the Chinese to build them a reactor-grade graphite plant if they could do it themselves and build your Hanford reactor in less than a year. Why was their program languishing until AQ Khan gave it a technical boost?
I’ll just correct one small point – I said, “You also need an isotope separation plant.” You said, “Nope. You need a chemical separation plant…” Well, a chemical separation plant IS an isotope separation plant since what you’re doing in the plant is separating nuclear isotopes – so they are the same thing, just different terminology.
3:04 pm
Andrew:
I gotta take one last shot here. Well, a chemical separation plant IS an isotope separation plant since what you’re doing in the plant is separating nuclear isotopes – so they are the same thing, just different terminology.
This is completely wrong. Separating different elements is an entirely different problem from separating different isotopes of the same element. The former can, in most cases, be readly accomplished by ordinary chemical means. The latter requires trickery to separate atoms which differ in mass, but are chemically (very nearly) identical.
Give me a mixture of, say, silver and indium, and I’ll rummage aound in the Rubber Bible and figure out a way to separate them with my Junior Chem-O-Kit. Give me a lump of natural silver and ask me to separate the Ag-107 from the Ag-109, and I’ll be stuck, because that needs some sort of isotope separator, which I can’t conjure up on short notice.
Now if, as you say, the Iranians are trying to get the Chinese to build them a graphite plant, it seems to indicate that they don’t already have a stockpile of graphite ready to start building a clandestine, risky reactor – nor already built into one. Whether or not they have a supply of uranium available, this puts them further back on the curve, and lowers the alarm level considerably.
12:14 am
That sounds great…. until you realize that there is no possibility of forming a coalition interested in (with the possible exception of a couple of allies) the preservation of Israel. Anti-Semitism is at an all-time high in Europe; synagogues are burning in France,while swastikas are cropping up everywhere from sidewalks to graveyards in the Netherlands. Europe, Russia, and China sadly enough seem to be more interested in preserving the flow of Iranian oil than the state of Israel.
Nor were we faced, in dealing with Communism, with leaders who believed in the emergence of a mythical Hidden Imam who would arise from a catastophic destruction of nations to reestablish the Caliphate.
I’m just saying.
12:25 am
Eric,
You are quite right about the two types of plants. Isotope separation plants generally refer to uranium enrichment when talking about bomb design, and chemical separation, or reprocessing as it is commonly called, is the means to extract plutonium. Please forgive my sloppy error.
Much of the evidence is contradictory, but there were reports in the late 1990’s that China was negotiating with Iran to build a graphite production facility. However, it appears that China pledged to cease cooperation with Iran on nuclear matters except to complete a Zirconium production facility and 4 small research reactors at Isfahan (which are now operational). No graphite production facility has been found to my knowledge. However, the Iranians recently completed a heavy water production plant at Arak, which is located next to a 40MW HW moderated research reactor that is under construction and will probably be completed in 3 or 4 years. Iran supposedly failed to purchase one from the Chinese or Russians, so this is reportedly an indigenous design. So far, they have only submitted preliminary blueprints (with important details missing) to the IAEA, so we don’t yet know the details of the design. Once that is complete and fueled, it could reportedly produce enough plutonium for 2-3 bombs per year depending on how often they operated it. The only thing missing at that point is a reprocessing facility. Any reprocessing facility will likely be located at Arak to preclude the long-distance transport of dangerous spent fuel.
So, provided they construct a reprocessing facility, complete the reactor on schedule, and have the equipment and design to make a plutonium device, they could conceivably have their first one in 4-5 years. There isn’t much opportunity to move the schedule up because the reactor will require 80-90 tons of heavy water and the plant at Arak can reportedly produce about 16 tons a year.
Anyway, that is enough for a Friday night, have a good weekend.
1:16 pm
Andrew:
I think we’re converging here.
If they haven’t managed to get their act together on things like a graphite production plant, that does call into question their ability to progress on any sort of ambitious production project; graphite should be the easiest part of the whole enterprise.
I just get bothered when people set a lower bound for how long something will take, and it’s longer than it took the first time that thing was done.
Stepping back (and taking a deep breath), I have to wonder how much of Iran’s visible activities – not just the uranium enrichment, but the military exercises, flying boats, and demolition frogmen video – is meant to be serious, and how much is just for show. And, of course, how much is hidden… or whether what they’re hiding is the fact that they don’t have anything to hide (as seems to have been largely the case with Saddam).
The whole business of an aggressive regime announcing that it will have nukes soon just seems wonky. A nuke in the hand is a deterrent; a nuke in the near future is a “bomb me” sign. I have to assume that games are being played, and I suspect that I’m not the intended audience.
If they really don’t have a well-hidden development program that’s doing much better than the open one, then by the time they have deliverable warheads, I expect we’ll have the ability to intercept their delivery systems, if we know approximately where and when they’ll be launched. Presumably their intelligence service has seen the same press releases I have, so….
So maybe the whole thing is really just about prestige, and the crazy talk about Israel is just posturing? I dunno, and trying to comprehend the thinking of politicians (never mind religious foreign ones) gives me a headache. How much are they serious about? Heck, some of our own Senators have the same problem with Dubya.
Ah, well… it’s a weekend for looking for the Easter Wabbit. And ODing on chocolate, and suchlike happy things.
Happy Holiday Indexed to the First Full Moon of Spring, everyone!
5:54 pm
Eric,
I agree on converging. Here’s my conjecture: The Iranians originally wanted a graphite reactor for plutonium production. After many years of trying to acquire outside assistance they eventually gave up and switched their focus to a HW reactor. Probably with design help from the Russians, Chinese, or both, they felt they could build their own given enough time and went ahead with the construction of a HW plant. A HW reactor has many benefits over a graphite reactor anyway, so they probably ditched the graphite reactor idea altogether.
If they want bombs to put on their ballistic missiles, they will want them to be plutonium-based for a variety of reasons (The main one is that plutonium devices are more efficient and weigh less, but much depends on how pure they want to make their HEU). In my opinion, they are planning to start with HEU devices in a couple of years then switch to plutonium weapons once their production gets rolling – provided they can hide it from the IAEA and us, which won’t be easy. It may take a significant amount of time and effort to develop the covert infrastructure necessary to get the plutonium unless they take the drastic step of withdrawing from the NPT, which will have severe consequences for them. In the meantime, they will probably have some HEU-based devices and they will learn a lot about bomb design and manufacture which will help them immensely when/if they get plutonium.
I’ve followed the Iranian military for a decade and they’ve concentrated on three main objectives: Defending critical targets, like their nuclear facilites, especially from an air attack. Developing the capability to strike at regional opponents – this basically boils down to their ballistic missile program. They want the ability to attack Israel and possibly other states directly since their Air Force isn’t up to the task. The final focus is building the ability to control the strait of hormuz and a large portion of the Persian/Arabian Gulf. The majority of the hardware they’ve purchased or built in the last decade supports one of these three key objectives. However, the weapons they displayed on TV last week are show pieces of outdated Soviet technology. They look cool for the cameras, but aren’t a significant military threat, especially when compared to the weapons and tactics they didn’t show on TV. The most serious threat to us, and the world, frankly, is their focus on the SOH. If they managed to sink a couple of tankers in the right spots, they’d close the gulf to most oil exports for months. Of course, it would take pretty drastic circumstances for them to do that since the regional and global repercussions would be huge. Even so, the threat and ability to close the strait, even for a short period, gives them an advantage in dealing with oil dependent countries and the gulf Arab states.
It’s certainly all very complex and fascinating, despite being scary as hell. I just hope we don’t screw it up. The Iranians are our natural allies, in my opinion, and we will need them as a bulwark when the gulf Arab states finally weaken and collapse into chaos or revolt into unfriendly governments. The Saudi’s have screwed up their country so much that they’ve virtually guaranteed a radical Wahhabi state will be born if they ever loose power. What a nightmare that will be.
4:31 pm
Andrew:
The most serious threat to us, and the world, frankly, is their focus on the SOH. [...] Even so, the threat and ability to close the strait, even for a short period, gives them an advantage in dealing with oil dependent countries and the gulf Arab states.
This makes sense to me. It strikes me as a good reason for keeping our Strategic Petroleum Reserve topped up; with a big enough reserve, a temporary interruption in supply would hurt the suppliers more than it would hurt us, which creates some disincentive to such disruptions (though the threat remains effective against any other oil-consuming nations that don’t have reserves, and of course against the other suppliers).
I just hope we don’t screw it up. The Iranians are our natural allies, in my opinion, [...]
On this, I agree with you completely. I have friends who have friends and family living there. The Iranian expats I’ve known have all been (at least) decent people, and from what I know of the indigenous culture (as opposed to the culture of the mullahs), we and they can coexist perfectly well.
If we wind up in an all-out fight with Iran, it will surely be bad for us, and disastrous for the Iranians. I’m really, really hoping that the decent Iranians will somehow gain control of their country before anything drastic happens… and that we don’t start a fight unnecessarily.
I’d much rather party with them than fight them.
11:30 am
Good article, EXCEPT you missed one VERYT importnat factor…Iran HAS the number of Centerfuges needed to weaponize Uranium to the amount needed, which does give the Radical Right Wing pause as to why we in the West and Israel ned to be alarmed.