In a New York Times op-ed this week that advocates bombing Iran, the author, Alan J. Kuperman, director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin, begins by suggesting that President Barack Obama should “sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal”.
In fact, Iran has said it is still open to discussion with the U.S. about its nuclear program, but that if meaningful dialogue is to continue, the threats of sanctions and military aggression must first cease.
The U.S., however, continues to threaten yet further sanctions, while also insisting that the threat of force must remain “on the table” — a threat of aggression that itself violates the U.N. Charter, which forbids member nations from threatening the use of force as a tool for leverage in international relations.
Kuperman’s reason for why Obama should be happy is that the deal, under which Iran would export uranium to Russia, which would enrich it to 20 percent (not the 90 percent required for weapons-grade uranium) and return it as fuel rods for use in Tehran’s research reactor, “was ill conceived from the start” since Iran would “thus be rewarded with much-coveted reactor fuel despite violating international law.”
His reference is to U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities. The problem with these resolutions, as Iran is not hesitant to point out, is that they themselves directly violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which clearly states that parties to the treaty have an “inalienable” right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and that the international community may take no action prejudicial towards that right.
The U.N. resolutions, needless to say, prejudice that “inalienable” right, particularly given the fact that there is no credible evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program – as both the U.S. intelligence community and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have pointed out.
In other words, under U.S. influence, the Security Council in this case has acted as a rogue body itself in violation of relevant treaties constituting international law and the very Charter under which it ostensibly operates.
Iran, on the other hand, remains in compliance with the terms of the NPT and is meeting its obligations in allowing the IAEA to monitor and inspect its nuclear program, despite much talk to the contrary.
Take the most recent example, the charge that Iran’s uranium enrichment facility near Qom, still under construction, was a violation of its obligation to declare any such facility prior to the beginning of construction. We’re told that Iran agreed to an updated version of its safeguards agreement with the IAEA containing a clause specifying that obligation.
What we’re not told is that at that time, Iran had agreed to implement the terms of the Additional Protocol and revised safeguards agreement on a strictly voluntary basis. The voluntary nature of Iran’s implementation of these measures was explicitly, and in writing (see the so-called Paris Agreement), recognized by the IAEA. Iran was under no legal obligation to do so and had done so simply as a “confidence-building measure”.
In return, Iran got nothing but further threats of sanctions and bombing. So it ended its voluntary observance of measures above and beyond that which was legally required of it.
The fact is that Iran has never ratified the revised safeguards agreement, as would be required for the revisions to be legally binding upon Iran. Under the safeguards agreement Iran has formally and legally obligated itself to, it need only declare such facilities six months prior to the introduction of nuclear material (i.e., introduction of uranium into enrichment centrifuges), which is exactly what Iran did in declaring the site several months ago.
In response to meeting its obligations under its safeguards agreement, the West responded by declaring that the “secret” site (an adjective irreconcilable with the fact Iran voluntarily declared it to the IAEA, but obligatorily used in the media anyways) was evidence of Iran’s intentions to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Summarily dismissed was Iran’s quite credible explanation for the site it voluntarily disclosed, which was that it was attempting to diversify its uranium enrichment capabilities under the threat of certain countries to bomb their nuclear facilities.
The demonization and punishment of Iran for its compliance with its obligations under international law is not entirely unlike the charges against Iraq that it was in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding it disarm because it had not disarmed, when in fact it had disarmed, and when in fact there was no credible evidence that it still possessed stockpiles or was still in production of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The IAEA, for its part, has continuously and consistently reported that it has verified Iran has diverted no nuclear materials towards a weapons program. Former Director General of the IAEA Mohammed ElBaradei, whose term ended just last month, has repeatedly said that there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program. His successor, Yukiya Amano, has made the same observation.
Then, of course, there is the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from the U.S. intelligence community that stated Iran today has no nuclear weapons program, which according to Newsweek, is an assessment analysts still stand by. The NIE did claim that Iran once had such a program in the past, but that it ended it in 2003. The IAEA, on the other hand, recently issued a statement saying there is no evidence Iran ever had a weapons program.
Kuperman continues by suggesting that the goal of the international community should be to “compel” Iran “to halt its enrichment program”, which, he claims, the proposal to send its uranium abroad would not have done. It’s worth noting the fact that this is an explicit rejection of the NPT.
He adds, “In addition, the vast surplus of higher-enriched fuel Iran was to get under the deal would have permitted some to be diverted to its bomb program”, claiming that taking uranium from the fuel rods for further enrichment to weapons-grade “is a straightforward engineering task requiring at most a few weeks.”
The truth of the latter assertion aside, which is contrary to most reports on the subject and contrary to the whole supposed point of the deal, what’s notable here is the assumption that Iran has a “bomb program”, despite, as was the case with Iraq, the total lack of credible evidence to support the claim.
It’s enough in the mainstream corporate media simply to take Iran’s “bomb program” as a matter of faith. Evidence is simply not required, and it’s considered perfectly acceptable by the editors of the New York Times and other mainstream sources to print assumptions expressed as statements of fact.
Again, for those who don’t suffer from selective amnesia and aren’t prone to intentional ignorance, the kind of reporting we saw from the Times, et al, prior to the invasion of Iraq might perhaps serve as a lesson about the nature of the role U.S. corporate media play in “manufacturing consent” from the American public for U.S. foreign policies.
the problem is that situation of iraq that days and situation in iran are very different. russia did not delivery enriched uranium to iraq and usa had its interest there. but as for now there is no chance that usa will fight with iran-i think they wait for israel to start war that has to be very difficult and bloody for the latter.
Her is an additional perspective which was missed in this article:
From the very begining the aggression against Iran was pharsed in a cryptic and misleading way as ‘surgical strike’ The idea is of course that Iran is extremely helpless, supine, and passive and will remain so when such ‘surgical strike’ is attempted. This is for the internal consumption, implying the US will not invade but simply bomb Iran selectively. In, short this aggression will be limited with no consequences as was the case with the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear installations. The US public, pathetically mired in ignorance, is thus swayed to look favorably on such an act aggression. The Iran leadership, however, has made it clear again and again, and one must wisely take their statements seriously, that they will wage an all out war on the US and its allies in the ME, if such ‘surgical strike; is made. In short, Iran for all practical purposes,- and this point is completely and idiotically lost on the US corporated media, will be the triggerwire for the thrid world war and its Armegeddon. Such ‘surgical strike’ would be a de facto Jihad for 1.5 billion moslems.
But how else a fascist America will be brought to its knee and doomed if not by a ruinous world war? I personally wish to see the downfall of the United States of America in my life time. How about you?
And of course not to forget Kuperman himself: is he not smack in the middle of the most redneck US state from which that village idiot, George Bush. hails? A redneck paper would publish his garbage happily, but why NYTIMES, unless of course we realize the latter has more jews than the state of Israel. Must keep the circulation up and up.
Well written and very knowledgeable critique on the essay by Kuperman which is based on a widely held unfounded speculation fueled by fear that Iran will produce nuclear weapons even though it has the right to produce nuclear power for its domestic energy needs. The paranoid Israeli government are obviously fully supportive of the determination of the U.S. desire to further its grip on the Middle East and which would if necessary attack Iran which it recognises as a threat to its goals in that area were it not for the fact that it can not afford to get involved in another costly war that would be very damaging to its own interests and may well be a catastrophic event for the U.S. when one considers the probable reactions of other international interested parties.
The real clock that is ticking is not based on Israel’s patience or Obama’s standing with the hawks, it’s Iran’s admission to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It has already applied for full membership.
Once China enters the field — and it will sooner than later — the entire current dialog goes out the window. That will happen when China and Russia consume more crude oil from the Middle East and supply more gasoline than the US.
If the US had a single brain among the entire government, it would give Iran a guarantee of protection against an attack from Israel in exchange for concessions on nuke inspections. As a part of this initiative it should begin to put pressure on Israel to give up its nukes and open its doors to inspection. Israel is where the real problem is, has always been, and will always be until neutralized. But China will likely have to do the neutralization.
However, Jeremy, I find you arguments, while not terribly creative or outside the box, at least well put and thought-provoking, although you come across as being on the Ayatollah’s payroll. And the following 110-word non-sentence sentence copied from above is abysmal:
In other words, while Israel regularly threatens that it won’t wait much longer for the U.S. to come to some agreement with Iran before it launches an attack against Iran’s nuclear sites that Iran’s possession of the bomb would surely deter, Iran is willing pass up an offer that would constitute “a headlong sprint” towards such a deterrent because doing so could actually jeopardize the possibility of it obtaining the bomb, since if Iran accepted the deal ostensibly designed to prevent it from being able to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, Israel would be even more likely to bomb their nuclear sites even sooner than if it Iran just rejects the proposal.
Would you care to explain that remark?
I believe “convoluted” is a better adjective. Which was the point.
Thank you for your excellent summary of all of the flaws in thinking about the Iranian nuclear program that have pervaded U.S. foreign policy, made manifest in Alan J. Kuperman’s scurrilous op-ed. Kuperman does not have the expertise that would have qualified him to write this article. The mystery is why the NY Times published a piece roughly twice as long as any they normally print with flawed reasoning by a writer with no credentials to be writing it. This is a blot on the NY Times. Iran experts have condemned Kuperman’s article universally. The fact that such flawed thinking persists in our major publications is a blot on the American consciousness.