Iran: Nuclear World Order
DEVELOPMENTS
Iran’s recent test launch of nine long-range missiles is making its neighbors nervous. To make matters worse, attempts to dissuade Iran from enriching uranium (the process by which mined uranium is developed into fuel for nuclear power and nuclear weapons) haven’t worked. Several world leaders from the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia offered Iran trade deals and other incentives in exchange for a vow to stop uranium enrichment. Many of these leaders fear that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons under the guise of peaceful (or civilian) nuclear power development. Iranian officials claim their development of nuclear power is permitted under international law. Who is right?
BACKGROND
Nuclear power provides great benefits which can support a country’s growing demand for electricity. As compared to coal-fired power plants, nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide. Nuclear power plants are cheaper to fuel than fossil plants such as natural gas turbines. As compared to other alternative energy sources, nuclear plants last an average of eighty years compared to the twenty-year lifespan of a windmill. All of these factors have made nuclear power an appealing alternative to coal and other fossil fuels (but one need only recall the disasters at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island to understand why some may be concerned about the safety of nuclear power). France leads the world in this area, generating 78% of its electricity from nuclear power. And although Iran, a major oil exporter, has profited from the rising cost oil, its leaders understand that its oil supply is finite. Oil can’t support the economy forever, but civilian nuclear power can help Iran export more oil without drawing on its own supply.
But Iran’s demand for civilian nuclear power is not the true concern. The international community already supports the spread nuclear technology for civilian purposes. This goal has been incorporated into the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NNPT). But this same treaty also aims to restrict the spread of nuclear technology for military weapons. The difficulty for the IAEA, the international watchdog group responsible for monitoring the spread of nuclear technology, is determining Iran’s motives. Because the elements, equipment and process for developing a nuclear weapon are almost identical to development of civilian power, it is often difficult for weapons inspectors to be positive about the true purpose of any nuclear enrichment facility.
Nuclear power plants work by harnessing heat from the fission of uranium atoms. During the fission process, a neutron hits the uranium atom and splits it, releasing a great amount of thermal energy which is either used to produce steam or heat gas. The steam or heated gas is then used to power generators and produce electricity. In most cases the uranium ore used in the fission reaction is run through a centrifuge, spinning at speeds high enough to enrich the uranium by 2-3%. But, if multiple centrifuges are allowed to run for years instead of months, then it is possible to enrich uranium up to the 90% needed to make a nuclear weapon. Therefore, weapons inspectors must figure out how long these centrifuges have been running in order to determine whether the uranium enrichment is for peaceful or military purposes.
In the meantime, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares that Iran’s uranium work will go on. He expects to be taken at his word that Iran has no other nuclear purpose than to fuel nuclear reactors.
But many Western leaders, including allies of Israel, are not convinced. The Iranian president’s increasingly aggressive comments towards Israel have sparked concern. In 2005, President Ahmadinejad declared that Israel “must be wiped off the map” and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy [Israel]. The recent announcement that nine Iranian long-range missiles could reach Israel and U.S. troops in the region has received a lot of attention by U.S. and Israeli defense officials. Although, some have said that the test launch was in response to Israel’s military exercises a week prior, Iran’s action have been met with more alarm and strongly worded statements of disapproval by U.S. government officials.
The challenge for the international community is to fix the in framework (under the NNP Treaty) that is supposed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Any country can leave the NNPT without real repercussion. In fact, North Korea left the treaty in 2003, although it is still developing nuclear weapons technology and may have even sold that technology to other states. Pakistan, another country outside the NNPT regime, has been accused of leaking nuclear technology to “rogue states” and maybe even terrorist groups, but little has been done to reign in this program. Finally, Israel, which never signed the NNPT, is known to have nuclear weapons and has been entirely shielded from the IAEA inspections process. These and other inconsistencies, challenge the credibility of an international framework aimed at reprimanding Iran for pursuing uranium enrichment.
ANALYSIS
The debate over the U.S. policy towards Iran will only heat up as the presidential campaign heads into the final stretch. Both candidates were quick to issue forceful statements declaring how they would respond to Iran’s nuclear development if they were president. McCain and Obama seem to agree on the end goal of compelling Iran to abandon its push for nuclear weapons, but disagree on the means to achieve it. Whereas Obama is in favor of engaging the Iranian government with the help of international pressure, McCain believes that isolating Iran until it agrees to give up its nuclear development is the first step towards negotiation.
But while the candidates announced what they would do as president, Israel may not wait long enough for either to be sworn in. Israel’s defense minister said that Israel is ready to act against Iran if threatened. President Bush recently announced that he may approve a possible Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Speculation about an attack on Iran has not only caused petroleum prices to rise, but raised concern about further destabilization in the Middle East, and the likelihood of an Iranian response against Israel and the U.S. Faced with this new reality, advocates for diplomacy and negotiation are slowly running out of time.