Last week I noted what the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons development didn’t say. Today Henry Kissinger weighs in in a similar vein. In particular Dr. Kissinger notes that
- The NIE doesn’t say that the Iranians have stopped all aspects of their nuclear weapons development program (only the construction of warheads).
- The NIE doesn’t say how long it will take the Iranians to produce a warhead.
- The NIE doesn’t say that the Iranians won’t rush to producing weapons on a systematic basis once they’ve acquired the technology.
and concludes with a plea that the intelligence community and the White House stop sparring with each other.
BTW you may remember that I was skeptical of the article in The Telegraph reporting that while Iran had stopped it’s nuclear weapons development in 2003 it had re-started it in 2004 last week because it was only being reported by that single source. This week the Wall Street Journal reports essentially the same thing:
The Iranian opposition group that first exposed Iran’s nuclear-fuel program said a U.S. intelligence analysis is correct that Tehran shut down its weaponization program in 2003, but claims that the program was relocated and restarted in 2004.
The claim, to be made public today by the National Council for Resistance in Iran, joins a broad pushback by conservative hawks who say the U.S. analysis has wrongly given the impression that Iran’s nuclear-fuel program doesn’t present an urgent threat.
Does this constitute a second source or a repetition of the same story from the same source? I also wonder how comfortable we should be with the MEK as a source. But the information does seem to be mounting.
Update
Joshuapundit takes note of a Fox interview with “Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian dissident and president of Strategic Policy Consulting”. This sounds like the same source to me. Comments?
It is abundantly clear that Iran continues to develop the infrastructure needed to develop nuclear weapons. It is not the warhead work that counts but the industrial work. There is absolutely no need for a 40 MW heavy water moderated reactor for energy production. You do need one of that size for plutonium production. Research on polonium is not needed for energy production, but you do need it for a warhead. As to the centrifuges, that’s the matador’s red cape.
If the Arak reactor goes online as planned in 2009 it will take them perhaps 1 or 2 years after that to have a plutonium based warhead. Though we have not yet determined where they might have a plutonium processing plant, they have done the basic research on the process.
Yeah, that’s basically my take, too. As I’ve noted previously you can use an 8″ hunting knife to spread jam on your bread but that doesn’t mean it’s a credible use for it.
Technically, the 40MW HW reactor was never intended for electricity production – it’s far too small for that (the 40MW is it’s thermal energy capacity, not electrical production capacity). Iran has always insisted it is for radioisotope production, but Dave’s analogy for that purpose is apt.
First, it should be noted that the MEK “discovering” Iran’s clandestine program is not exactly true.
Secondly, as I wrote some time ago, one must always be wary of information that comes from exile and dissident groups.
Note that in the body of my post I express skepticism of the MEK as a source.
I think my bottom line assessment is that one should treat such sources as sufficient for re-doubling the intensity of negotiations or as a reason for imposing sanctions but not as a reason for going to war.
Sorry about that I should have said 40 MWt. Yes that has always been their claim, but what do they intend to do with the plutonium produced?
After re-reading some of the IAEA reports the IR-40 reactor at Arak originally had designs for hot cells. They do not appear to have been built yet, but any processing would be done there. They are also being very cagey about the hot cell designs, which is also suspicious.
Until the IAEA gets in there, and sees all the designs, I maintain that this is sufficient grounds for making the case they have a weapons program. Especially when it’s coupled with their polonium research. Thermal batteries is a little thin.
Allen,
Iran finally allowed the IAEA to conduct a design verification inspection earlier this year. Although Arak is a huge concern, it’s a longer-term concern and the reactor will be under IAEA safeguards. Also, Iran would still need a reprocessing facility as well.
Andy,
Mis-read on my part. The IAEA has indeed inspected the IR-40 reactor. Actually, it’s not the U.S. response that will drive this thing, it’s the Israeli response. I believe they will not let that reactor go on-line, no matter what we say.
At any rate in spite of the NIE we need to be taking the same line as before. They are proceeding with all the elements needed to produce nuclear weapons, I can’t see that “intent” at this point in time making a whole lot of difference. If they allow the additional protocol to go forward then that is a whole different matter.
I think the main conclusion I would take away from all this is that they are developing the capability, and it’s a matter of when if they decide to do it.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-more-on-recent-nie-updated.html