Iran, nukes, oil and the Busheviks

(TM note: This is a compressed version of a lengthy comment to some former colleagues on the question of whether Iran is developing nukes. I noted that I had followed the Iranian nuclear program from Embassy Moscow, where we attempted to persuade Russia to stop its nuclear aid, and then from both the Clinton and Bush White House staffs. In sum, for about 3.5 years, the Iranian nuclear program was my top priority.)

For background, the following info is from Wikipedia, "Nuclear program of Iran" (as of 11/2/07):

History - 1950s and 60s

The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid after a 1953, CIA-supported coup deposed democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and brought Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power.[12] By 1957, the West judged the regime sufficiently stable and friendly that nuclear proliferation would not become a threat.

That year, a civil nuclear co-operation program was established under the U.S. Atoms for Peace programme. In 1967, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied, 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which became operational in 1967 and was fueled by highly enriched uranium.[13] Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place, the Shah approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000.

Gawdat Bahgat, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies, states that "Despite assertions that Iran’s nuclear program under the Shah was only for peaceful purposes, some sources claim that the Shah intended to build a nuclear weapons capability. In the mid-1970s, the Shah was quoted as saying that Iran would have nuclear weapons 'without a doubt and sooner than one would think.' The Center for Non-proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies claims that the Western intelligence community 'had long suspected that the Shah’s nuclear scientists conducted research into military applications.'...despite these speculations about the Shah’s intentions, it is important to point out that in 1974, when the AEOI was established, the Shah called for making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone (MENWFZ)."[4]

History - 1970s

In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."[14] Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.

"President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'."[15] At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business there.[16]

Then-United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in 2005, 'I don't think the issue of proliferation came up'.[15] As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed in 1968, their programme would have been under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection."

Begin TM commentary:

To the best of my knowledge, the info above is accurate, and of course there is more. Note that we provided Tehran with a nuke plant and highly enriched uranium (HEU) in the '60s. Second, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfie (the original axis of evil?) advocated -- successfully -- the sale of the full fuel cycle, including reprocessing, to Tehran on the grounds that Iran would eventually run out of oil. The sale was approved but cancelled prior to delivery when Khomeini took over. You'd be hard pressed to find any reporting of this in the MSM today. And the Bush administration, with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfie participating, decided 30 years later, there there was no justification for Iran developing a nuclear energy sector because they had so much oil.

On the big question, is Iran secretly developing a nuke weapon? I'd say, probably. But in my time, that conclusion was based on a little evidence and a lot of suspicion. Sound familiar? My take is that if we had developed any real evidence in the meantime, it probably would be in the newspapers.

If Iran develops a nuke, will this be the end of civilization as we know it? It will certainly enhance Iran's standing in SW Asia, particularly since there is no longer an Iraqi counterweight to Iran. Second, it would be a deterrence against U.S. attack, as happened against its neighboring member of the Axis of Evil, Iraq.

And of course, the Iranians know what happened with North Korea, India and Pakistan. Against the strong objections of the U.S., those countries proceeded with their nuclear weapons programs. Despite a lot of bluster, the Bush administration effectively grandfathered two of them into the nuke community, and has worked out a payoff program for the third. Is this a powerful disincentive to developing nukes?

Will a nuclear Iran immediately attack Israel? I doubt it. First, because I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket is not really in charge, the mullahs are, and I doubt that they are in a hurry to see their revolution destroyed for the psychic gratification of attacking Israel. And I believe that Israel would retaliate against Iran even should a proxy attack by (say) Hizbollah occur on Israeli territory. To refresh, Sy Hersh believes (the Samson Option) that Israel has roughly 200 nukes of up to 200KT. There would be a limited number of possible return addresses on any nuclear attack on Israel.

As for the argument that Iranian nukes could threaten the U.S., this is just a red herring by the Israel First crowd, a reprise of the Iraqi UAV/WMD phantom used by Cheney to stampede the Congress into approving the resolution on the use of force against Iraq. The Neocons, AIPAC and the Christian Zionists (John Hagee, Pat Robertson et al.) are not worried about Iran attacking the U.S. -- although they will eventually come to believe their own propaganda -- they are concerned about Israel.

They wanted to attack Iraq (in my view) because they believed that Saddam might have put a nuke program underground. They have the same concern about Iran, which probably went to school on the 1981 Israeli attack on Osirak. Only a an invasion could definitively settle the question on Iraq; Iran is a tougher nut, so they will have to settle for an air attack. But this is all about Israel, not about a threat to the U.S.

Part of the administration's propaganda campaign against Iran is the well-known hostility every Iranian in the world has against us, for no reason whatever. And besides, Iran supports terrorism.

Iranians probably have a somewhat different view, starting with the coup against Mossadegh; the longtime U.S. support for the Shah (and Savak); U.S. aid to Saddam, the clear aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war (who incidentally, was well known to be using Sarin against the Kurds starting in 1983, well before Rumsfeld visited Iraq); and the shootdown of Iran Air 655 in 1988.

If that all seems like ancient history, consider the following:

• Bush has a approved a $75 million State Dept. program intended to foment regime change in Iran;
• Iran (and Turkey) believe the U.S. is funding anti-Tehran Kurds aligned with the PKK;
• Sy Hersh has reported that clandestine U.S. military teams are active in Iran, presumably engaged in sabotage;
• The U.S. supports the anti-Tehran Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), despite it being a designated a Foreign Terrorist Org on State's shit list. We even tolerate an office and fund-raising in the U.S. by an MEK front group (the National Council of Resistance of Iran) and its spokesman, Alireza Jaffarzadeh, who appears on Fox News as an Iran expert.
• According to both U.S. and Pak intel sources, the U.S. supports Jundullah (Soldiers of God), a Baloch independence group which stages raids from Pak territory into Iran. The group reportedly inflicted heavy casualties on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces near Zahedan (SE Iran) in both 2006 and 2007. The leader of the group, Abdolmakek Rigi, was interviewed by VOA on April 2, 2007, where he was introduced as the leader of a "popular resistance movement in Iran;"
• Sy Hersh has also reported that the Mossad is training and equipping the Iranian Kurdish group Pejak, which is conducting raids into Iran.

So, despite these provocations, are the Iranians unalterably hostile to the U.S.? A number of sources have reported an Iranian approach to the U.S. in 2003. The proposal, as reported in the press entailed the following tradeoffs: Iran would address the U.S. concerns (nukes, terrorism, and support for a two-state solution for the Palestinians); and, in exchange, the U.S. would end sanctions against Iran, stop the Axis of Evil rhetoric, and reestablish diplomatic relations.

Were they serious? We won't ever know because the Bush administration didn't believe it needed to negotiate with Iran in 2003, since we were "winning" in Iraq, and refuses to do so now from a position of weakness. In other words, for the Busheviks, there is no good time to negotiate.

From my time in counterterrorism after 9/11, I remember quite clearly that Iran prevented AQ fugitives from Afghanistan crossing their territory, perhaps out of a fear of retaliation, but for reasons of self-interest as well (Sunni Arabs vs. Persian Shiites, stability on its borders, etc.). Press reports suggest that Iran continues to prevent Arab jihadis, travelling under the AQ franchise brand, from crossing its territory into Iraq.

Is Iran "meddling" in Iraq? I don't have much doubt. Iraq is on their border, after all. Most of the world thinks the U.S. is "meddling" in Iraq as well, from 6,000 miles away, and more recently, meddling in Iran, as well.

Does Iranian meddling threaten our troops? Yes...but only as long as they are in Iraq. Take them out and Iranian meddling doesn't threaten them at all.

Would bad things happen in Iraq if we withdrew? Sure...just as they are happening now. The people who claim that a catastrophe would follow our withdrawal are the same people who have not been right about anything in Iraq to date. What makes anyone think they are right now?

Remember also that opinion polls inside Iraq show that all three major ethnic groups oppose the presence of AQ by 93-94%. I don't see Iraq becoming an AQ safe haven, particularly not in the Shia and Kurdish areas. As for the Sunni areas, there is a good possibility that Sunni tribal leaders would turn against AQ, much as has happened an al-Anbar. Nationalism still apparently trumps Islamism in Iraq.