Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Casablanca, this coming Monday

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From The Times

December 5, 2007

Relax? Don't. Iran can still build its bomb

Bronwen Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator

Iran says that a newly published US intelligence report proves that its intentions for its nuclear programme are benign. So does Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations watchdog, who has greeted the report as if it confirms what he has always maintained – that a resolution of the row with Iran is within reach. However, the offers no reassurance; on the contrary, it supports fears that Iran could soon have nuclear weapons. It argues that Iran has been deterred from pursuing them mainly by the fear of US military action, a fear that has now faded.

That may seem like support for the case for tough action against Iran, and yesterday Downing Street and President Bush were keen to emphasise the seriousness of the threat. But it seems that the report’s conclusions will be even more easily appropriated by the doves, partly because ElBaradei has thrown his weight behind that interpretation.

That is regrettable. The report makes clear the seriousness of the threat, not the opposite. But one rider is necessary: the report would have far more power to convince if it included evidence of the weapons programme that it says existed. Such evidence has eluded UN inspections, and there must be a whisper of doubt – which, after Iraq, the US cannot afford – that the US does not possess it in solid form. The National Intelligence Estimate, compiled from reports by US spies, says that Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq. That marks a shift from two years ago, when a similar report concluded that Iran was still pursuing such efforts in secret, as well as the civilian work it openly discloses.

As diplomatic accusations go, this is something like “Did you stop beating your wife in 2003?” But Iran has appeared delighted to be challenged in this way, focusing only on the assertion that it has now stopped a programme whose existence it has never admitted to. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Foreign Minister, said that the report showed that “the current trend of Iran’s nuclear activities is peaceful”.

That isn’t quite what the report says, but it is a pity that it doesn’t say more. The unclassified summary, released on Monday, says that US agencies have concluded that Iran halted work to design a nuclear weapon in 2003 and that they are “moderately confident” that it has not resumed.

Iran, which has always denied military ambitions, says that its current work is designed to make reactor fuel. But alarm has risen because of its long history of concealment, its continued obstruction of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and its mastery of uranium enrichment, which can make fuel but also fissile material for bombs.

It is a mystery how ElBaradei, director-general of the IAEA, can think that the report “will help defuse the current crisis”. He added that the US “has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons programme”. Nor does he, as his reports never fail to say. But the IAEA does have a record of consistent obstruction by Iran; ElBaradei’s latest report said that the IAEA’s confidence about the current state of the work had fallen.

It is hard to see why he can be so sanguine about the view that in the very recent past Iran had hopes of nuclear weapons. Or, come to that, about the deduction that the fear of military attack was what persuaded Iran to stop. In the past four years, Iran has become more confident, and its Government more hardline.

There are many good reasons to argue that diplomatic pressure on Iran could yet reap rewards. But the NIE report does not support that stance in the way that ElBaradei and Iran claim; instead, it is a warning of the result of failure.

Iran never had a nuclear military program as Iran Atomic Energy Organisation, If American known about why they did not published it at that time, If you look at the map today, what do you see, Iran is surrounded by American in Iraq, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, I total agree what they are doing today, they are acquiring technology for a tomorrow solution, I have not heared or seen any Iranian terrorist, I have travelled almost all over the world, all the developing country does not like American and British.

H.A.Dawood, Manama, Bahrain

Iran being a threat to anyone is about as credible as the US "liberating" Iraq. gimme a damn break, you dumb warmongering Yanks.

chris, Norfolk, UK

So even with the so called "threat" from a nuclear armed Israel for nearly 40 years, there has been no real attempt amongst the Arabs, apart from the Iraqis, to obtain nuclear weapons. The Arabs have always known that Israel would use them only as a last resort and that they would act rationally. Since the Iranians have been kicking that idea around the Gulf has been nervous, scared and willing to contemplate owning nukes. I think we can work who the real threat is.

Adama, London,

Iran is not going to spark a mideast nuclear arms race.
It's joining the one Israel started.

jayil, london, uk

Yes, Iran CAN get a bomb. And you Bronwenn Maddox CAN beat your wife. And I CAN jump off my roof. And Canada CAN attack Mexico.

There are few things that can't be done. Because the modal 'CAN' means that an action is possible.

But here's the thing- You CAN'T punish people or nations based on what they CAN do. Only what they have done or are doing. You don't punish children because they CAN steal. You punish them if they actually do steal something.

So yes, Iran CAN still build its bomb. You know what? Switzerland CAN build a bomb as well. You want to punish them too?

If Iran attempts to get a bomb, which they are currently not, then we'll talk sanctions and deterrents. Until then, stop fearmongering over hypothetical situations.

I expect more from TIMES.

Bailey, LA, CA USA

El Baradei and the UN don't give a damn if Iran builds nukes. The USA, the UK and their allies do. What further complicates matters is the fact the present regime in Teheran would likely boast of having the Bomb, in order to test foreign reaction, even if its weapons program was going nowhere. Iran would be happy to enjoy the fruits of intimidation and aggression without having to actually use force. As for El Baradei, I suspect he believes Iran has the "right" to possess nuclear weapons because other states already have them. The UN would demand Israel destroy its nuclear facilities before making the same demand of Iran because the existence of Israel "provoked" Iran's actions. Many member states would subscribe to this position while privately regarding it as ridiculous merely to appease Muslim opinion. Should Iran obtain a nuclear bomb, no Sunni state would feel secure without a deterrant force.

Rich , San Francisco, USA

Ms. Maddox (who has never been shy of being critical of the US) has it right. The report doesn't say what many are claiming it does. All it really says is that Iran looks to have at least temporarily back off its program (at least until enriching uranium, what is in many ways the most difficult part). This doesn't mean that they were never interested in nukes (and does not, as claimed, really support the Irani President's claims) or tell us that they won't start up as soon as they have a nice stockpile of enriched uranium.

It does claim that the problem isn't as "imminent" as previously described and if you believe that (I don't feel I am in a position to judge either way) means that one can give sanctions time to work (which I must admit I'm dubious about, given their track record, but its worth a try to avoid military conflict if there is time). However, too many will simply, in a knee-jerk way,
oppose the sanction that may prevent the war they claim to oppose.

David Summers, Menlo Park, CA, USA

When you have a house and it is control by bullies,who does not want to hear from anyone who is not his sizel, and always want to be in control of the house, thats how they always talk.

j, manhattan, ny

Once again the Neocon Hawks apologists blindly trot out the party line. It is pathetic. Simply toeing the line of the US Presidency in this is not good journalism, it is hackism of the worst kind.

Wayne Kinsella, Stratford, UK

Israel has to have its bombs, to support its illegitimate existence. The world can never know peace, until that is proven; and that will require a lot of hard work, by someone. Especially as Britain is as guilty as anyone, in establishing it.

H. Grattan, Johannesburg, RSA

Oliver in Bedford
Israel is a democratic country.
It is surrounded by a lot of undemocratic countries including Iran.
Please don't talk rubbish.
If you don,t want to support a democratic country, why don't you go and live in an undemocratic country and see how free you are to make silly comments.

Marvyn, London, United Kingdom

Some one actually does have a N bomb in the middle east, any reason why there ae no sanctions over it? well we do know why buts its not polite to talk about it is it?

Maas Ramli, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Oliver Chettle is being unrealistic spouting the usual anti - Israel tripe. Israel's existence is yet another consequence of WW2, and given that its neighbours have from inception been intent on its eradication, Israel has every right to a nuclear arsenal. No power is set on Iran's total destruction, despite its fanatical and fundamentalist leadership.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

We can never relax with the US nuclear capability a fact. It is the US that is the major nuclear threat to the world. They built the bomb, they have used the bomb. The Iranian nuclear threat is vacuous. At most it will cause America to take a less cavalier attitude in its manipulations of the Middle East. What could Iran do otherwise in this context than the defensive? They have enough trouble occupying their own country let alone anyone else s. The US, on the other hand, is presently in the business of contemplating occupying any other country if necessary. It is the attachment of the US nuclear threat to the present Iranian context that is the real threat, and we should bear in mind that it can always find some other focus.

Henry Percy, London, UK

"Those peace-loving mullahs have never attacked anyone anyways ! I mean Iraq-Iran war was self-defense ?"

Yes, it was. Please name me the country that Iran has attacked in the last 100 years. Oh no, you can't.

Now, please name me the countries that the US has attacked in the last 100 years. I bet you can't name them all.

Phil, Essex,

"..Cyrus, USA, claims jokingly that Jamaica is 10 years away from building a bomb. Even if that were true, Jamaica is not known as the home base of suicide bombers and terrorists, and is not governed by religous zealots whose sole aim is the destruction or conversion of non muslim states.

tony, birmingham, uk..."

Altough Iran is ruled by religious zealots (who are detested by most of its population, btw), Iranians have never carried out any suicide bombings. Most suicide bombers from the Middle East have actually been Arabs, including those who brought down the twin towers on 9/11. Most of that murderous bunch were in fact from Saudi Arabia, the "friend" of US/UK.

Paul, London,

Thank you, Pablo, for reminding us of the elephant in the room. Israel has been assembling a formidable nuclear arsenal for decades, and the international community has turned a blind eye. Before we invade Iran on the basis of WMDs it might be planning to build, would it not make sense to address the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation in the whole region? So long as Israel has them their neighbours will want them - and for good reason.

Dave Meakins, brighton,

Iran has never threatened me - in fact it's never threatenened anyone. But the rogue nation has done and does do so.

And Israel threatens us all with the "Samson Option" - look it up. Or listen to Israelis - they'll tell you they'll blow us up before they face justice for their crimes.

Andy Dyer, london,

Iran might someday build a nuclear bomb. Far more worrisome is the fact that Pakistan already has nuclear bombs but is teetering on the edge of collapse. Pakistan is the home of a lot of radicals who would love to give terrorists THE BOMB. In spite of this very real, immediate risk, what is the world doing about it? Practically nothing.

We need a better set of priorities. If the US would use diplomacy and show the Iranians some respect, they might not feel the need to have a nuclear bomb for defense. Letâ€™s worry about the unstable countries that already posses this technology.

Gary Maxwell, Lynnwood, Washington state, USA

'It is hard to see why he [Mohammed ElC.] can be so sanguine about the view that in the very recent past Iran had hopes of nuclear weapons.'

Let me clear that up then, Ms. Maddox:

Muhammed is the chief nuclear inspector. And we ain't talking teddy bears (although there seems to be plenty of stuffed idiots out there).

sam, tel aviv, israel

Plutonium? Plutonium?

It is more difficult to make a successful nuclear weapon using Plutonium than one using Uranium 235. However the Israeli Raid on a site in Syria was alledged to prevent development of a Plutonium weapon. It would be interesting if a Physicist conversant with weapons tecknology could shed more light on this question.

Regards Davidka

W D Toulman , Walkington East Yorkshire, UK

There are two dangers here to the common objective of world peace: the first is the stated theme of the above article - the possibility that Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon - and the second is the gradual transformation of the USA's global role from defender of democracy to totalitarian dictator. Bush tore up the UN Charter when he invaded Iraq without a UN mandate. It was not self-defence, because there was no direct threat to the USA. It was dictatorhip. Sorry to have to say that, but the facts prove it.

Now that the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet bloc has receded, the meaning of the word "defence", on the part of the Western powers, has to be carefully examined. So also has the meaning of the word "democracy". Long-standing supporters of the Western Alliance, such as myself, will not be fooled by Republican spin into applauding, or even accepting, a policy of totally illegal, naked aggression against Iran on the part of George Bush Jnr.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Bang on, Bronwen Maddox. The latest info., if anything, is more alarming than ever. That is, it confirms that a bomb process existed despite Iranian denials, until we invaded Iraq and scared it off momentarily. Anyone knows that it's practically no step at all to weaponising uranium once is is enriched to a required level, an activity which Iran seems determined to continue.

Ann Playfair, Woodstock, NY

ItÂ´s never mentioned the 200 isreaeli ogivas... Why?

Pablo, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Here we go again, same old fear mongering excuse from the USA money barons. What are they after stealing this time? Oh yes enriched plutonium that will do nicely. Iran is not the country we should be afraid of especially when nearly all of the bombs that have fallen for decades have 'made in the USA' stamped on them.

See'r, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion

Obviously it is all about controlling middle east for evident strategic/economic reasons.
Bush administration is just orchestrating the usual campaign to terrorize the public opinion and justify an aggressive foreign policy as a defensive one. It would seem harder than usual after the Iraqi disaster, but unfortunately there are always plenty of journalists happy to oblige.

Lorenzo , Bristol, UK

Cyrus, USA, claims jokingly that Jamaica is 10 years away from building a bomb. Even if that were true, Jamaica is not known as the home base of suicide bombers and terrorists, and is not governed by religous zealots whose sole aim is the destruction or conversion of non muslim states.

tony, birmingham, uk

Amazing sophistry from Maddox. "long history of concealment"? Didn't you forget to add: due to an international embargo on Iran imposed by the US after the Khomeini revolution which meant it had to go underground? What this in fact proves, is that if there had been dialogue from the very beginning, there would be no nuclear problem with Iran now. The very policies of the US are causing the confrontion. Why? Because the US is in a phase of trying to take the worlds oil resources by force. Its called armed robbery.

David Sketchley, Sevilla, Spain

Plutonium, plutonium ,plutonium: no enrichment necessary, home produced since the days of the Shah and bought off the shelf from NK--why no mention?

jonathan pressburger, hua hin, thailand

Does the writer care about Israel's illegitimate bombs, which are probably the main reason why Iran even considered developing a bomb? If America wants to halt nuclear proliferation, the only way it can show it means it, is to force Israel to destroy its nuclear arsenal. Israel - and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. - are the true destablising factors. Our connection with the U.S., and by association with Israel, is the only thing that involves us in this issue.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

Yup. I'll sleep better knowing the NIE says it is "moderately confident" Iran has not resumed its suspended 2003 Nuclear program.

I mean the NIE guys correctly predicted India and Pakistan would have nukes maybe in 2010 ? oops ok they missed that one... but didn't they correctly identify Iraq'a WMD in 2001 ? oops ... ok it wasn't a slamdunk afterall. But hey maybe this won't be strike three ?

Those peace-loving mullahs have never attacked anyone anyways ! I mean Iraq-Iran war was self-defense ? and who cares about those Argentine terror victims.. they deserved it !

The mullahs are smiling and we had better smile too and pray.

Petras Vilson, Ottawa, Canada

"It is hard to see why he (ElBaradei) can be so sanguine about the view that in the very recent past Iran had hopes of nuclear weapons."

He can be so sanguine because ElBaradei is hostile to Western interests & sympathetic to Iranian ones. Israel has rightly called for Baradei to be sacked & who can blame them? This is the man who told the world there was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons when he knew that Iran had been in possession of nuclear warhead blueprints since 2005. This is the man who fired the IAEA's chief inspector Chris Charlier when Iran demanded it & who has been far more vocal in opposing any kind of action against Iran than he has in putting pressure on that country to comply with international nuclear law. If Iran could have selected its own man to head the IAEA they could not have found a more sympathetic figure than the blind, toothless ElBaradei.

Rob, Bournemouth, UK

So Iran is only interesting in making reactor fuel ? How many nuclear power stations do they have ? If the answer is none, what do they need fuel for ?

Forest Elf, Nanaimo, Canada

Actually, ElBaradei and the IAEA say that there is no evidence that Iran was EVER pursuing a nuclear weapon. Not now, not in 2003, never.

And they're right.

It is claimed that Iran is "10 years away" from building a bomb. So is Jamaica.

Cyrus, New York City, New York, USA