Vox Verax blogger on Iran
World has long struggled to check Iran's nuclear ambitions
Minneapolis Star Tribune
May 07, 2006
by Myron P. Medcalf, Star Tribune
Officials from the United States and the United Nations are expected to vote as early as this week on a resolution allowing sanctions over Iran's declarations that it is enriching uranium, a precursor to the development of nuclear arms. Tom Maertens of Mankato understands the issue firsthand.
From 1998 to 2000, he served as the minister counselor for environment, science and technology at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, and from 2000 to 2001 he was the National Security Council's director of nuclear nonproliferation. He said his primary responsibilities in Russia were to monitor dealings between the Russians and Iranians, who were suspected of obtaining nuclear weapons technology from Russia since the mid-1990s. The U.S. nonproliferation program focused on Iran during his tenure, Maertens said.
Q: Was Iran deemed a potential threat to engage in nuclear warfare during your tenure?
A: There was no assessment made that Iran was more likely to start a war than anyone else. Part of [the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] was to prevent new nuclear powers from arising. To enforce that treaty, you look at countries attempting to or are most likely to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. In order to prevent new countries, you try to nip the program in the bud. The tricky part: Under the treaty, signatories are entitled to nuclear power programs and assistance from the five nuclear weapons states listed in the treaty (United States, Britain, France, Russia and China). Iran is a non-nuclear member; its commitment is to not develop nuclear weapons, but they do have a right to develop nuclear power.
Q: Was there any evidence then that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?
A: There was a strong suspicion because of their secretiveness, very similar to the intelligence issue with Iraq. There's no conclusive evidence.
Q: What diplomatic steps were made to warn the Iranian government and alert other countries about the country's nuclear prospects?
A: The principal effort by the U.S. was to prevent the Russians from selling nuclear technology that could be used for a bomb-making program. The Russian economy was doing so bad that we always suspected -- and we had some highly classified sources asserting the same thing -- that Russia was using its nuclear power program as a cover to send weapons technology to Iran [beginning in the mid-1990s]. We tried very hard to get the Russians to stop.
Q: What kind of sanctions against Iran were considered?
A: They didn't seriously consider sanctions because they were trying to cut off the program by persuading Russia not to participate. We had urged restraints on trade. A lot of countries are dependent on Iranian oil and Iraqi oil. That's always the problem you have.
Q: As a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, what consequences would Iran face if it indeed has nuclear weapons?
A: The second protocol of the treaty (signed in the late 1990s by participating countries) allows the International Atomic Energy Agency to make surprise unannounced inspections of all nuclear facilities of a country suspected of having nuclear weapons. One of the issues at stake here is that Iran has not signed that additional protocol. They are resisting surprise inspections of facilities that are not declared. [The additional protocol] was specifically to cover that loophole where a state was developing a clandestine program.
Q: Will sanctions by the United Nations be enough to deter the Iranians from any plans they might have to enrich uranium to produce nuclear arms?
A: I think what needs to happen is that there needs to be a large coalition of the European Union, the U.S. and any other states that are like-minded. Those countries need to sit down and work out a series of potential sanctions against Iran and some benefits Iran would accrue by working with the international community. Sanctions applied to Iran could be similar to those applied to Iraq, Libya, etc. You could freeze their assets overseas, prevent their airlines from landing in other countries ...
Q: What potential threat does Iran pose for the Middle East and beyond?
A: I'm skeptical. First off the Bush administration is portraying this as a crisis. The assumption by the Bush administration apparently is that Iranians would turn around and use [nuclear weapons] against Israel. If Iran were to use a nuclear weapon, it would have a return address and what do the Iranians think would happen? They're hostile toward Israel, but it doesn't mean they're going to attack them with nukes.
Myron P. Medcalf • 612-673-4092
©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
(The article is here.)
Minneapolis Star Tribune
May 07, 2006
by Myron P. Medcalf, Star Tribune
Officials from the United States and the United Nations are expected to vote as early as this week on a resolution allowing sanctions over Iran's declarations that it is enriching uranium, a precursor to the development of nuclear arms. Tom Maertens of Mankato understands the issue firsthand.
From 1998 to 2000, he served as the minister counselor for environment, science and technology at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, and from 2000 to 2001 he was the National Security Council's director of nuclear nonproliferation. He said his primary responsibilities in Russia were to monitor dealings between the Russians and Iranians, who were suspected of obtaining nuclear weapons technology from Russia since the mid-1990s. The U.S. nonproliferation program focused on Iran during his tenure, Maertens said.
Q: Was Iran deemed a potential threat to engage in nuclear warfare during your tenure?
A: There was no assessment made that Iran was more likely to start a war than anyone else. Part of [the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] was to prevent new nuclear powers from arising. To enforce that treaty, you look at countries attempting to or are most likely to attempt to develop nuclear weapons. In order to prevent new countries, you try to nip the program in the bud. The tricky part: Under the treaty, signatories are entitled to nuclear power programs and assistance from the five nuclear weapons states listed in the treaty (United States, Britain, France, Russia and China). Iran is a non-nuclear member; its commitment is to not develop nuclear weapons, but they do have a right to develop nuclear power.
Q: Was there any evidence then that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?
A: There was a strong suspicion because of their secretiveness, very similar to the intelligence issue with Iraq. There's no conclusive evidence.
Q: What diplomatic steps were made to warn the Iranian government and alert other countries about the country's nuclear prospects?
A: The principal effort by the U.S. was to prevent the Russians from selling nuclear technology that could be used for a bomb-making program. The Russian economy was doing so bad that we always suspected -- and we had some highly classified sources asserting the same thing -- that Russia was using its nuclear power program as a cover to send weapons technology to Iran [beginning in the mid-1990s]. We tried very hard to get the Russians to stop.
Q: What kind of sanctions against Iran were considered?
A: They didn't seriously consider sanctions because they were trying to cut off the program by persuading Russia not to participate. We had urged restraints on trade. A lot of countries are dependent on Iranian oil and Iraqi oil. That's always the problem you have.
Q: As a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, what consequences would Iran face if it indeed has nuclear weapons?
A: The second protocol of the treaty (signed in the late 1990s by participating countries) allows the International Atomic Energy Agency to make surprise unannounced inspections of all nuclear facilities of a country suspected of having nuclear weapons. One of the issues at stake here is that Iran has not signed that additional protocol. They are resisting surprise inspections of facilities that are not declared. [The additional protocol] was specifically to cover that loophole where a state was developing a clandestine program.
Q: Will sanctions by the United Nations be enough to deter the Iranians from any plans they might have to enrich uranium to produce nuclear arms?
A: I think what needs to happen is that there needs to be a large coalition of the European Union, the U.S. and any other states that are like-minded. Those countries need to sit down and work out a series of potential sanctions against Iran and some benefits Iran would accrue by working with the international community. Sanctions applied to Iran could be similar to those applied to Iraq, Libya, etc. You could freeze their assets overseas, prevent their airlines from landing in other countries ...
Q: What potential threat does Iran pose for the Middle East and beyond?
A: I'm skeptical. First off the Bush administration is portraying this as a crisis. The assumption by the Bush administration apparently is that Iranians would turn around and use [nuclear weapons] against Israel. If Iran were to use a nuclear weapon, it would have a return address and what do the Iranians think would happen? They're hostile toward Israel, but it doesn't mean they're going to attack them with nukes.
Myron P. Medcalf • 612-673-4092
©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
(The article is here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home