The hidden costs of the nuke deal with Iran

Posted By Michael Singh Wednesday, October 21, 2009 - 2:40 PM Share

By Michael Singh

When companies are faced with making a decision between multiple risky options, they will often seek out information in order to reduce their uncertainty. So, a pharmaceutical firm will conduct clinical trials in order to determine if a drug is safe or dangerous, information that could mean the difference between profitable sales and damaging litigation. Such an investment in information is never free -- indeed, it often comes at a significant cost that must be weighed against the value of the knowledge obtained.

In this sense, the recently concluded U.S.-Iran talks in Geneva can be considered a diplomatic purchase of information. The United States, by offering to remove Iran's low-enriched uranium and turn it into the raw material required to make medical isotopes, is testing Iran's claim of peaceable intent and the Obama administration's hopes for engagement. If the Iranians comply, they may be open to further compromise, perhaps as a result of the political pressure they have faced at home since the summer's election turmoil. Their refusal, on the other hand, would serve as a clear signal of intransigence and lead Washington to pursue an alternative path. The most likely result is somewhere in between -- Iran gives no clear answer, but seeks to draw out talks and divide the P5+1 -- meaning that the United States has to ensure that we and our allies agree on what constitutes an acceptable response from Tehran. Whatever the result, it is a bold and innovative gambit by the United States, and the Iran hands at the National Security Council should be commended for devising it.

Like all purchases of information, however, this one comes at a cost. The P5+1 have had to accept the uranium enrichment which Iran has conducted in recent years in defiance of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. Even if it ultimately does not reach a deal to send its LEU abroad, Iran will surely seek to pocket this concession and declare a measure of victory. Similarly, by presenting the admission of IAEA inspectors to the until-recently-covert Qom enrichment plant as a concession, Iran gains tacit international acceptance of a facility built in defiance of its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations. If the P5+1 accepts this fait accompli and negotiates to limit rather than eliminate uranium enrichment in Iran and to monitor rather than shut down the Qom facility, the result could be a dangerous one for the stability of the Middle East and the viability of the global nonproliferation regime.

Another cost of the current U.S. initiative is that it risks demoralizing Iran's ascendant political opposition by bolstering the regime at a time when its legitimacy at home appears to be waning. Given that an internal transformation in Iran may be the best hope for long-run peace and stability in the region, any action that risks delaying it could be costly indeed. None of this is to say that the current approach should not be tried, given the paucity of attractive options; it is simply to say that it is not free. At some point the purchases of information must end, and a decision must be taken. A pharmaceutical company that conducts many clinical trials but sells no drugs eventually finds itself out of business.

SAMUEL KUBANI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:IRAN, NUKES, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
 

SAINT MICHAEL TRAVELER

2:06 AM ET

October 22, 2009

The hideous cost of hypocrisy & nuclear warheads

Mr. Singh you stated that “Iran gains tacit international acceptance of a facility built in defiance of its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations.” This statement is completely erroneous. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT), 1968, is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. To be in compliance with NPT, we need to stop hypocrisy and eliminate the nuclear warheads in possession of the following nations:

Nuclear Warheads 2009
US: 9552
Russia: 12987
UK: 192
China: 176
France: 300
India: 75
Pakistan: 90
Israel: 200
North Korea: 2

SOURCE:
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/home/main.mpx">BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, GUARDIAN/DEFENCE ESTIMATES

Iran singed the NPT. Under this treaty Iran has the rights to enrich uranium, use nuclear byproducts for research, medicine, agriculture and produce nuclear electric power. There is no dispute that Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. Iran does not have any nuclear weapons and according to IAEA is in compliance with the terms of the treaty.

The treaty requires that the members give up their rights to have nuclear weapons for defense; those who had nuclear weapons and had signed the NPT had agreed to eliminate their nuclear weapons. China, England, France, Russia, and USA had singed the NPT treaty. All these nations are in violation of the NPT.

Under NPT, Iran is able to produce fuel for nuclear energy production. Iran has already informed IAEA about construction of the facility at Qom for enrichment of nuclear fuel.

Among the 189 countries party to the treaty, five nations have nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France (also permanent members of the
UN Security Council).

 

DAVE1995

1:38 PM ET

October 22, 2009

Michael, you are full of....

...yourself.

 

SAINTSIMON

5:08 PM ET

October 22, 2009

Fine - but everything you

Fine - but everything you suggest is based on us knowing exactly how much LEU they have - we don't - in fact if Iran was really clever they could have planned this all along by making it seem they have less LEU than they do - we have no idea how many secret enrichment facilities are out there.

And it is not to the advantage at all for the current regime to compromise on its nuclear ambitions - their long term regional goals, their political fortunes and their prestige are too closely linked to the bomb - compromise, or worse, failure would show weakness and embolden the putative progressives - social upheaval would no doubt ensue. The only way the current regime gives up the bomb is if we force them and there are but three ways to do that: China and Russia fully commit to sanctions [which will never happen because such does not serve their interests]; we use military force [extremely unlikely with Obama as president]; Israel uses military force [very likely since the other two are so unlikely].

 

BOBERTYA

9:14 PM ET

October 22, 2009

Saint Michael, erroneus...

Saint Michael, you are categorically wrong when you state that the IAEA believes Iran to be in compliance with the NPT, considering their reports released in 2003 and again in 2008 that state the contrary (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-40.pdf). Iran, as a signatory to the NPT is also responsible for abiding by the Safeguards Agreement, thereby allowing a third party to inspect nuclear sites. Iran indeed has notified the IAEA about nuclear facilities that were constructed in secrecy, but only once they were fully operational, and Iran has not allowed comprehensive inspection of its facilities since the early 2000's. It would be manifestly contrary to the entirety of the NPT to construe Iran's willingness to abide by one element of the treaty to signify its right to develop nuclear capabilities as it sees fit without the necessary oversight, as laid out in the other elements of the treaty... This would be analogous to saying "As long as Billy stays under the speed limit he can drive as recklessly as he wants." I believe that Iran should have the right to develop peaceful nuclear capabilities, but not until it proves, physically shows the international community that this is its only intent.

 

SAINT MICHAEL TRAVELER

3:44 PM ET

October 24, 2009

Iran should show Compliance with IAEA requirement

I suggest the following three steps to eliminate potential for violation of NPT by Iran and developing nuclear weapon in the future:

1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium:
USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.

2. Nuclear Shield
An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran, from nuclear bomb states;

3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East
This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.

President Harry Truman in 1946 gave this statement about nuclear bomb:

" It is a terrible weapon, and it should not be used on innocent men, women and children who have nothing whatever to do with this military aggression. That happens when it is used."
He was referring to using the bomb on Japan.

I support President Obama's quest for reduction of the nuclear warheads in USA and Russia. However, The treaty requires that the members give up their rights to have nuclear weapons for defense; those who had nuclear weapons and had signed the NPT had agreed to eliminate their nuclear weapons. China, England, France, Russia, and USA had singed the NPT treaty. All these nations are in violation of the NPT.

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More