The Unknown Unknowns

Recently, I was asked to provide a concrete example of how Iran has not been forthcoming about its nuclear development program. This passage is from the site Nuclear Threat Initiative, which I recommend:

On 21 September 2009, ahead of the public revelation by the leaders of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, Iran disclosed to the IAEA that it was building a second pilot enrichment facility. According to IAEA Spokesperson Marc Vidricaire, Iran’s letter “stated that the enrichment level would be up to 5%,” and the Agency was assured that additional information would be provided in due time. The facility was located in an underground tunnel complex on the grounds of an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) base near the city of Qom. Managed by Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) was slated to hold 2,784 centrifuges, and began operations using 696 centrifuges in late 2011. Moreover, Iran contradicted its declaration to the IAEA concerning planned enrichment levels by moving 19.75% enrichment activities from Natanz to Fordow. A May 2012 report from the IAEA raised concerns over the activity at Fordow, citing uranium enriched past the stated target of 19.75%, and the “difference between the original stated purpose of the facility, and the purpose for which it is now used.” The plant’s size, secrecy, and location on an IRGC military base led some analysts in the U.S. government to argue that Iran constructed it in order to produce HEU for nuclear weapons.

The original is copiously annotated. I have taken the liberty of removing the footnote references for legibility.

That example is not isolated. It is typical of our experience with Iran. The process goes something like this:

  1. We learn via intelligence of an Iranian nuclear development facility. The intelligence might be electronic but is more likely human intelligence.
  2. We convey what we have discovered to the Iranians, informing them that we are preparing to disclose our findings.
  3. The Iranians declare our findings.

I would add that the IAEA has not been given access to all of the nuclear development facilities in Iran of which we are aware and that there is evidence that the Iranians have “sanitized” areas to which they have been given access prior to being allowed to enter. BTW I suspect British intelligence has been more successful than we. Americans are notoriously loose-lipped.

Consequently, the question those in favor of negotiating with Iran need to answer is how do they know what they don’t know? In the light of Iran’s bad faith my view is that we shouldn’t negotiate at all with the present generation of Iranian officials. The pattern with revolutions has been that after a while the revolutionaries get old and die and are succeeded by bureaucrats who are a lot more tractable (think Gorbachev).

But I also think we shouldn’t fret. What will happen will happen.

18 comments… add one
  • steve Link

    Nukes arent actually that hard to make. I would assume that they probably dont really want them given that they were “5 years away” from having completed weapons since about 1995.

    Steve

  • Zachriel Link

    Dave Schuler: I was asked to provide a concrete example of how Iran has not been forthcoming about its nuclear development program.

    That was before the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). After the U.S. pulled out of JCPOA, Iran has again been uncooperative and particles of anthropogenic uranium have been detected which lack full nuclear declarations as required by its safeguards agreement under the comprehensive safeguards agreement (CSA). The detection of anthropogenic uranium shows that inspections work reasonably well. Iran was much more forthcoming during JCPOA than after the U.S. reneged on the deal—as noted in the link in the original post.

  • That is just plain nonsense, Zachriel. You are in denial.

  • Zachriel Link

    Dave Schuler: That is just plain nonsense, Zachriel.

    It’s based on the very link YOU provided to support your position. The evidence cited is largely provided by the IAEA. And the same evidence that shows Iran has not complied with their obligations under CSA before and after JCPOA also indicates they were largely in compliance with their obligations during JCPOA.

    You can’t build a nuclear bomb without fissile material, so the most important aspect of the inspections regime is inspections of the entire fuel cycle, which includes raw uranium ore. Sure, it’s possible that Iran could have evaded inspections somehow, but that position is undermined by the inspections regime which detected errant uranium particles after the U.S. reneged on JCPOA.

  • Zachriel Link

    Dave Schuler: The Unknown Unknowns

    Ironic that you would allude to a quote from Donald Rumsfeld in response to a question about the lack of evidence for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

  • My assertion is that we KNOW that Iran has not been forthcoming in the past. I provided an example. YOUR ASSERTION is that they WERE forthcoming while we honored the FCPOA. How many facilities did Iran reveal from 2015 to 2018 that we did not already know about? I believe the number is zero and that tells us nothing about the total number of facilities they have.

    How do you know what you do not know?

  • Zachriel Link

    Dave Schuler: My assertion is that we KNOW that Iran has not been forthcoming in the past.

    How do you know that? Because experts you cited said so based on inspections and other evidence. And the same experts you cited to support your assertion indicates that Iran was largely in compliance with JCPOA before the U.S. reneged.

    But, sure. Just like Rumsfeld about WMD: “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

  • Drew Link

    I need some Advil. I hurt my jaw as it dropped on my desk at the notion that Iran is forthcoming…..on anything.

  • Andy Link

    Overall, Iran complied with the provisions of the JCPOA until about a year after the US withdrew the deal.

    Withdrawing was dumb because it did not slow Iran’s progress, it accelerated it, and it lessened our ability to see what Iran is doing.

    Now, Iran is breaking its basic obligations. Here’s the most recent IAEA report, which you can read for yourself:

    https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2024-8.pdf

    This is very reminiscent of the situation back in 2003-2004.

  • bob sykes Link

    The Soviet Union is not a good example. It went from Lenin to Stalin to Khrushchev to… Chernenko to Gorbachev to Yeltsin to Putin. We negotiated with all of them except Putin. We cheated and lied to Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

    By refusing to negotiate with Putin, and by aggressively overthrowing the legitimate government of Ukraine, we have brought the world to the verge of WW III.

    You cannot chose another country’s leaders. You have to negotiate with whoever is in power. And you have to negotiate in good faith, something our leaders cannot do.

  • I agree that terminating the JCPOA was dumb.

  • Zachriel Link

    bob sykes: By refusing to negotiate with Putin . . .

    The Obama administration did attempt to negotiate with Putin, trying to draw Russia into a better economic and political relationship. Then Putin annexed Crimea. While the Russian people would have benefited from greater integration with the West, the Russian kleptocracy gains even if at the expense of most Russians.

  • Grey Shambler Link

    And the Russian people, in general, are OKAY with that. They are Orthodox Christian, pro-family, patriotic, homophobic, law and and order people.
    There will be no uprising.
    The news that they get from this country doesn’t even need to be stretched by the government to actually alarm such conservative people.
    They might want some Western foods and fashion but they don’t want to live in a country where it appears that total chaos rules.

  • steve Link

    Pro-family? TFR- 1.49. One of the few nations to lose population over the last 30 years.

    Law and order? Every rating of corruption ever done has Russia rated as one of the worst.

    Steve

  • Order, yes. The rule of law not so much.

  • Andy Link

    “The Obama administration did attempt to negotiate with Putin, trying to draw Russia into a better economic and political relationship.”

    That’s true, but on the other hand, the US never passed an opportunity since the end of the Cold War to shit on Russian strategic interests. Russia did not see the US as a reliable partner and saw the deals for closer economic and political ties primarily benefitting US interests.

    Now, I don’t mind taking advantage when we can, as I’m a US patriot – but it bothers me that policymakers throughout this had such hubris and ignorance that they thought this was all (including NATO expansion) actually in Russia’s interest and were shocked and offended when Russia finally started pushing back. If you’re going to, as Pres Clinton put it, keep serving plates of shit for the Russians, it’s really stupid to think there won’t be blowback at some point.

    Taking Crimea, for example, was totally foreseeable. The idea that Russia would allow Crimea to be a NATO outpost is pure delusion, yet that is exactly what the Bush and Obama administrations believed. They stupidly promoted the idea of Ukrainian membership without any means of making it happen on any reasonable time scale, allowing Russia plenty of time to act.

  • steve Link

    Applebaum had a nice piece up on Russia, China and similar. In it she reminded us that Russians dont actually go to church. They are nominally religious but we have known for quite a while now that only about 10% of them go to church once a month.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/06/china-russia-republican-party-relations/678271/

    Steve

  • Zachriel Link

    Andy: Russia did not see the US as a reliable partner and saw the deals for closer economic and political ties primarily benefitting US interests.

    Your comment has validity. On the other hand, kleptocrats benefit from provoking nationalist reaction. Building modern factories integrated with the West would build long-term wealth. Building the military just leads to the ruin of Ukraine and the degradation of the Russian economy. It was probably a forlorn hope that Putin and his fellow oligarchs would abandon their kleptocratic ways. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Leave a Comment