This is just a short bit on the mainstream criticism of the recent
Iranian nuclear deal. Most of the points I raised several months ago are still
valid, and I won’t be bringing them back up.
As President Obama touched on in his Q&A on Wednesday;
most of the critics do not seem to be taking a long-term view of these negotiations
or the deal. Those that can see past their own egos are approaching the situation
from a view that Iran will act in a similar fashion to the DPRK and renege on
its agreements as soon as it has received some minor benefit. My assessment (and
apparently that of the rest of the western world), is that Iran will act
rationally.
The Iranian government has every reason to wish to interact
with the rest of the world in a positive economic fashion. Iran has
considerable mineral/oil wealth, as well as a robust technology industry [1].
Because a significant portion of the Iranian economy depends on being able to
interact with the rest of the world, the international sanctions placed on them
were particularly effective. Unlike the DPRK, where isolation is the status
quo, the Iranian people rejected the hardliners and elected Rowhani, who
campaigned on fixing the economy through negotiation to remove sanctions. The Iranian
people place the blame for the sanctions and economic damage not on the west,
but on the actions of their government, and the election results showed that.
Barring a dramatic shift in that attitude, there is no logical reason for a
moderate president (or a supreme leader who wishes to stay in power) to act
irrationally after the agreement is in place.
There has been some legitimate criticism based on the vague
wording of the final agreement; the Institute for Science and International
Security (ISIS) [a] has raised concerns that the Iranians might be able to hold
on to some of their LEU stockpile by holding it in oxides. [2] This would
fundamentally change the agreement, which is based on Iran holding 300 kg of
LEU (barely a 3rd of a bomb). As I read their logic, this comes from
a hypothetical bending of the agreement to avoid declaring Iranian
non-compliance after technical difficulties. While this is a bit of a leap,
ISIS certainly has the credentials to make that leap, and their logic has been
backed by other nuclear policy experts. [3]
This puts us in a situation where there are technical points
and counterpoints; for example, does the inspection regime protect from Iran
holding/using a larger stockpile? Is Kuperman right in asserting that the
Iranians only need 8kg of WGU to make a warhead? These are questions that need
to be discussed and answered as congress prepares to vote on the agreement;
however I have yet to see a single critic or reporter raise these points.
There are several possibilities for why it hasn’t been
brought up. One is that most of the information the US has on Iran’s actual ability
to convert Uranium oxides into LEU/WGU is highly classified. In preliminary
briefings, US Senators and Representatives may have been told as such and are
not discussing it publicly. There are some flaws in that scenario, the biggest
being hat there are think-tanks writing about the issue, and I was able to do
research on the topic, and I don’t have any kind of security clearance. What is
most likely the real reason for the lack of discussion is that complex nuclear
security issues do not translate well to sound bites.
It’s unfortunate, but I feel that the thought process of most
of these politicians is “gee wiz how do I get the most emotional response from
the voters? Can I get a more emotional response than Ted Cruz?” [b]. Claiming Armageddon
is on the way elicits an emotional response, far more so than any kind of
discussion that makes people think about high school chemistry. Problem: you
can’t have a serious discussion about nuclear weapons programs without talking
about a lot of very advanced chemistry, physics and engineering. Anything else
is a silly side-show. The fact that most American (and Israeli) politicians and
media outlets seem to insist on running on with said side-show is depressing.
Even Obama’s Q&A session was annoyingly simple – plainly dumbed down to
make sure nobody felt left behind.
My advice to those involved in the debate would be to avoid
that. Don’t dumb down your material to suit the audience. Educate your audience
to understand the materiel. This is a complex topic, and it does not get easier
simply because you don’t understand it. Forming an opinion on something you don’t
understand is dishonest. Legislating on that opinion is plainly irresponsible,
and that’s if nuclear weapons aren’t involved.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-fatal-flaw.html
[a] Not to be confused with the International Secret
Intelligence Service
[b] Was originally Donald Trump, but I really don’t like
giving him attention…dammit
No comments:
Post a Comment