Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

It's all about oil

By Marko Beljac - posted Monday, 5 February 2007


Important evidence used against Iran is that it has violated its nuclear safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. It did not disclose that it had an enrichment program nor that it conducted modest experiments with plutonium re-processing.

Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and plutonium can both be used as the fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Both enrichment and reprocessing are actually legal under the NPT framework but non-disclosure is a violation of safeguards. It is this non-disclosure that is of concern.

But non-disclosure does not necessarily equate to a bomb program.

Advertisement

Let us assume that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program. Certainly it would have a strategic rationale for having one. Israel in the past, as a part of its “phantom alliance” with Turkey, has conducted mock bombing runs with nuclear capable aircraft on the Iranian border.

In the Bush administration’s 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, excerpts of which were leaked, Iran was listed as a target of US nuclear weapons. The US, partly, invaded Iraq in order to gain a permanent military presence in Baghdad. Iran has had testy relations with Pakistan, ironically enough given Pakistan’s previous support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

If Iran has a nuclear weapons program it less reflects a desire for regional hegemony and more a reflection of genuine security concerns. Iran would seek nuclear weapons primarily to deter the United States.

How long would it take Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and what kind of threat would it be? If we focus on enrichment, using conservative gas centrifuge capacity figures, Iran would have enough HEU (25kg per bomb) for a strategic deterrent of 5-6 weapons by about 2012-2015 . This is assuming that Iran successfully constructs a large gas centrifuge cascade consisting of thousands of centrifuges.

Currently, Iran has a 164-machine cascade of doubtful working order. Analysts have pointed out that Iran’s enrichment program is bedevilled by impurities and it would require outside assistance to overcome these, if acquiring weapons grade enriched uranium were Tehran’s goal. Given these impurities it is doubtful whether Iran could produce the high grade of enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapon.

Of much more concern would be plutonium. Iran is constructing a heavy water research reactor that would act as an efficient breeder of plutonium. It has been described as a “bomb factory”. This reactor could produce 8kg of plutonium a year, enough for 1-2 nuclear weapons a year. Best estimates suggest that this reactor would not be operational until 2014.

Advertisement

However, the plutonium from this reactor would still need to be reprocessed and in the latest report on Iran the IAEA stated, “there are no indications of ongoing reprocessing activities at those facilities, or at any other declared facilities in Iran”.

Of course Iran may have a secret un-declared program but according to Seymour Hersh the CIA has concluded that Iran has no secret nuclear facilities additional to the ones that we already know about.

That is to say, the Iranian nuclear threat, such as it is, is not a particularly acute one so far as time is concerned. This stands in complete contrast to many scare mongering antics, from the usual suspects, that suggest that we have only “months” in which to take military action in order to forestall an Iranian nuclear bomb.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

14 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Beljac teaches at Swinburne University of Technology, is a board member of the New International Bookshop, and is involved with the Industrial Workers of the World, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union of Workers (community) and Friends of the Earth.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Marko Beljac

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Marko Beljac
Article Tools
Comment 14 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy