New ISIS Report Outlines Iran's NPT Violations

The Institute for Science and International Security released a new report on September 29, 2006 outlining Iran’s Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) violations and other outstanding issues related to the country’s nuclear program.

Iranian officials continually underplay or deny charges in International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions that have found Iran in violation of the NPT and its related safeguards agreement. In addition to outlining unresolved issues over Iran’s nuclear program, the ISIS report identifies these specific NPT violations:

According to the IAEA, Iran failed to declare the following major activities:

• Uranium Imports: Iran failed to report that it had purchased natural uranium (1,000 kg of UF6, 400 kg of UF4, and 400 kg of UO2) from China in 1991, and its subsequent transfer for further processing. Iran acknowledged the imports in February 2003.
• Uranium conversion: Iran did not inform the IAEA of its use of the imported uranium in tests of its uranium conversion processes, including “uranium dissolution, purification using pulse columns, and the production of uranium metal, and the associated production and loss of nuclear material.” Iran acknowledged this failure in February 2003.
• Uranium enrichment: Iran failed to report that it had used 1.9 kg of the imported UF6 to test P1 centrifuges at the Kalaye Electric Company centrifuge workshop in 1999 and 2002. In its October 2003 declaration to the IAEA, Iran first admitted to introducing UF6 into a centrifuge in 1999, and into as many as 19 centrifuges in 2002. Iran also failed to declare the associated production of enriched and depleted uranium.
• Hidden Sites: Iran did not declare to the IAEA the existence of a pilot enrichment facility at the Kalaye Electric Company Workshop, and laser enrichment plants at the Tehran Nuclear Research center and at Lashkar Ab’ad. Because experiments at these sites involved the use of nuclear material in equipment, Iran was obligated to report them to the IAEA.
• Laser Isotope Enrichment Experiments: Iran failed to report that in 1993 it imported 50 kg of natural uranium metal, and that it used 8 kg of this for atomic vapor laser isotope separation (AVLIS) experiments at Tehran Nuclear Research Center between 1999 to 2000, and 22 kg of the metal for AVLIS experiments at Lashkar Ab’ad between 2002 to 2003. These activities were ultimately acknowledged in an October 2003 declaration.
• Plutonium Experiments: Iran did not report to the IAEA that it had produced uranium dioxide (UO2) targets, irradiated them in the Tehran Research Reactor, and then separated the plutonium from the irradiated targets. Iran also failed to report the production and transfer of waste associated with these activities and that it had stored unprocessed irradiated targets at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. In later meetings with the IAEA, Iran said that it conducted the plutonium separation experiments between 1988 and 1993 using shielded glove boxes at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center.

House Passes Iran Freedom Support Act

I reported before that on July 27, 2006, the US House of Representatives approved by voice vote to extend the Iran Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA). ILSA was set to expire on August 5, 2006. H.R. 5877, the bill introduced by House International Relations Committee member Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-IL), provided a simple extension of ILSA until September 29, 2006. The Senate also approved the short-term extension before they went to summer recess.

During the House floor debate on H.R. 5877, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen said an extension of the original ILSA would give the House and Senate “the additional time to finalize the text of the Iran Freedom Support Act.” Well, that time has come.

On September 28, 2006, the US House of Representatives passed by voice vote a watered down version Iran Freedom Support Act by voice vote. The bill, H.R. 6198, is a watered down version of the original Iran Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282.

H.R. 6198 still waits Senate approval and it is expected to come up on September 29, before the Senate leaves for election campaigning in the month of October and before the ILSA extension expires.

During the House floor debate on H.R. 6198, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said, "It would be a critical mistake to allow a regime with a track record as bloody and as dangerous as Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Enough with the carrots. It's time for the stick."

Meanwhile, critics questioned the need for unilateral action when the United States was pushing for a multinational approach to Iran's alleged nuclear program. "It is, if you will, a cruise missile aimed at a difficult diplomatic effort just as they are reaching their most sensitive point," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "The timing for this legislation could not be worse."

At a minimum, the timing of this legislation would disrupt on-going negotiations to resolve the confrontation with Iran. This week, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani held talks in Berlin. Set to continue next week, these talks could produce substantive results and show promising signs of success, according to both sides. Javier Solana said of the talks “have been progressing,” and Ali Larijani said the two sides came to “some positive conclusions.” Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice also said the US is waiting the outcome of these discussions.

New Reuters/Zogby Poll: Americans Favor Diplomacy on Iran

According to a new Reuters/Zogby poll released on September 28, 2006, a majority of Americans want the United States to increase diplomatic efforts over Iran's nuclear ambitions, while 70 percent oppose the use of US troops to thwart Iran.

Asked the best course of action for the United States in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, 45 percent said Washington should join with allies to increase diplomatic efforts and another 17 percent said the United States should step up diplomacy on its own.

One in four respondents, 26 percent, said they supported the use of U.S. ground troops in Iran, while 70 percent opposed it. Nine percent favored air strikes on selected military targets in Iran.

The Reuters/Zogby poll found 42 percent supported a strike on Iranian facilities if carried out by the Israeli military, with 47 percent opposed.

The national poll of 1,000 likely voters, conducted on September 22-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

I’ve also blogged other polls here.

Pentagon’s Iran Directorate: ‘US broadcasts into Iran aren’t tough enough’

The Pentagon’s Iran Directorate, created in March 2006, “has drafted a report charging that US international broadcasts into Iran aren't tough enough on the Islamic regime,” further indication that some in the Bush administration are pushing for a more confrontational policy toward Iran. According to McClatchy Newspapers, which obtained a copy of the report this week, “the report appears to be a gambit by some officials in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere to gain sway over television and radio broadcasts into Iran, one of the few direct tools the United States has to reach the Iranian people.”

The report was written by Ladan Archin, a regime change proponent who formerly studied with Paul Wolfowitz when he was dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Archin now serves as the Country Director in the Near East and South Asia Department of the Department of Defense responsible for Iran. The report was prepared for an inter-agency committee on policy toward Iran called the Iran Steering Group, which is co-chaired by the National Security Council and the State Department.

But, US broadcasting officials and others who've read the report say its contentions are riddled with errors. The report’s accusations of Radio Farda and Voice of America’s Persian TV include:

• the stations take a soft line toward Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and don’t give adequate time to government critics;
• the stations consistently fail to maintain a balance by inviting informed guests who represent another perspective on the same issue; and
• "neither station is a primary source of news for Iranians."

In February 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a major initiative to “promote democracy” in Iran, including $50 million to increase Farsi-language television broadcasts. The announcement set off a furious bureaucratic battle for control of the funds and the initiative.

World Opinion Does Not Favor Military Attacks on Iran

According to a new 25-nation poll, world opinion does not favor aggressive international measures to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The poll was conducted for BBC World Service, including the USA, the UK and Iraq.

On average across the 25 countries polled, only 17 percent believe that “Iran is producing nuclear fuel strictly for energy needs,” while 60 percent assume that “Iran is also trying to develop nuclear weapons.” This view is held by a majority in 19 of the countries and is especially widespread among Americans (83%), South Koreans (76%), Italians (74%), and Brazilians (72%). In just three countries do more than one in three believe that Iran is only pursuing nuclear energy—Iraq (38%), Egypt (38%), and Indonesia (35%). But even among these countries, substantially more believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons—Iraq (60%), Egypt (54%), Indonesia (47%).

Majorities in every country polled also say they would be concerned “if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons.” On average 72 percent say they would be concerned and just 17 percent say they would not. In only two countries do the number saying that they are not concerned rise above one in three—Indonesia (40%) and Iraq (34%).

However, overall only 43 percent say they are ‘very concerned’ and in only nine countries does this represent a majority. These include the US (72%, very concerned), Great Britain (67%), Australia (67%), Italy (65%), Israel (64%), Canada (63%), Brazil (57%), Germany (57%), and Poland (52%). Consistent with this lack of intensity in concern, even if Iran continues to produce nuclear fuel, very few people favor the UN Security Council authorizing “a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.” On average only 11 percent favor such strikes and in no country is this more than one in three. The highest levels of support were found in Iraq (34%), Israel (30%), and the US (21%).

Even the idea of imposing economic sanctions garners only modest support – on average it is supported by 30%. The most popular approach is using ‘only diplomatic efforts’ – on average this is supported by 39%. Combining the two assertive forms of dealing with Iran—military strikes and economic sanctions--in only five countries does a majority favor the UN Security Council authorizing either of these. These are the US (military strikes 21%, sanctions 45%), Iraq (military strikes 34%, sanctions 29%), Israel (military strikes 30%, sanctions 32%), Canada (military strikes 13%, sanctions 39%), and Australia (military strikes 8%, sanctions 44%). On average, 41 percent favor either of these assertive approaches.

These previous polls are also interesting:

• Pew Global Attitudes Poll on Iran and the nuclear question;
• Quinnipiac University poll on American attitudes towards other countries, including Iran. Of note: "The changes since our last poll show that the recent fighting in the Middle East has strengthened Americans' view that Israel is a friend to the U.S. and that Iran, Syria and the Palestinians are not," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute;
• An ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier this year; and
• From the other perspective, this is a Zogby poll of Iranian attitudes.

Pastor Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Preach About Bombing Iran

This goes a little bit out of the realm of my usual posts, but it was just too disturbing not to share. I heard from an office colleague about some pastor going around saying we should bomb Iran and of course, my curiosity was peaked. Ironically, that the same day, John Hagee did an interview with Terry Gross on NPR. Well, here is just a brief background on him I found…there is plenty for fodder. I am worried about what he is saying, particularly because he does have a pretty big following, plus the ear of the White House.

John Hagee is the founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, a non-denominational evangelical church with more than 18,000 active members. He also founder of Christians United for Israel and believes Armageddon is coming soon (and his job is to help usher it in). His most recent book is Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World. While claiming to reach 99 million homes through his television show, he argues that the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West, which according to him was prophesized in the Book of Esther. An exposé of Pastor Strangelove can be found here.

Hagee was interviewed in March 2006 by Human Events Online, a conservative weekly. When asked whether the US should be an aggressor against Iran, Hagee said it “would be shameful for America, with all its military might, to allow Israel to fight our fight!” He goes on to say, “Iran is a threat to western civilization ... not just to Israel. Iran with nuclear weapons will be the world's worst nightmare. America and Europe will be blackmailed to bow to the Islamofacist agenda. The attack on 9/11 proved Islamics have the will to kill us, they are now searching for the power to kill us ... nuclear power.”

He also believes that the Bible prophesizes that Russia will unite with Islamist nations to destroy Israel. In his Human Events interview he says, “Several years ago, former Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, sat in my office and told me that when he was Prime Minister he gave to America's intelligence community photographic proof that Russian scientist were helping the Iranians develop medium range missiles that had the ability to reach Europe and Jerusalem. Russia has been developing its relationships with the Islamic nations. I believe that relationship will develop in the future into Russia providing military leadership for radical Islamic forces against Israel. Russia's payoff is the oil from the Persian Gulf giving it the ability to become a super-power again. The Islamic payoff is the control of Jerusalem.”

Administration Supports Reauthorizing the Iran Libya Sanctions Act

Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 19, 2006. Click here to access his prepared testimony. Below are some highlights related to US policy options for sanctions on Iran:

"There was an 'experts' level meeting in London on September 14 to review the technical details of the elements we want to include in a sanctions resolution. Secretary Rice and I will pursue this discussion of sanctions at the UN General assembly in New York this week and next."

"Representative for the European Union Javier Solana is discussing with Iranian officials a last-minute attempt to convince Tehran to accept the conditions of suspension and agree to negotiations. We support his effort but we will push for the imposition of sanctions if these talks do not produce a satisfactory outcome. The international community is waiting for Iran to give an unequivocal reply to our offer to negotiate."

"In confronting the challenges posed by Iran, the Administration supports legislation that would reauthorize the current ILSA [Iran Libya Sanctions Act] statute for an additional five years. A bill to this effect has been introduced in the Senate: S. 2657."

"I would like to say a word about H.R. 282 [Iran Freedom Support Act], which was passed by the House of Representatives and is pending before this Committee, and S. 333, also before this Committee. The provisions that freeze current restrictions, set specific deadlines for decision-making, that restrict certain waiver authorities, and – in HR 282—that call for divestment of assets and prohibitions on assistance, would narrow the President’s flexibility in the implementation of Iran sanctions and strain relations with allies whose cooperation is crucial to our efforts to change Iran’s behavior. These bills would effectively penalize most severely the very allies critical to maintaining our international coalition against Iran."

"Our message to Tehran remains clear: abandon the quest for nuclear weapons, and establish a full and verifiable suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. If you can do so, the U.S. and others will begin negotiations. If you cannot, you will face sanctions."