In the next sentence, while calling the weekend talks "a last-ditch bargaining session," the Times grudgingly managed to report that the talks would resume in ten days "albeit at a lower level." The remainder of the lengthy report maintained the gloomy undertone while reminding readers that Israel had already bombed nuclear reactors in Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007) and seemed ready to bomb something in Iran any time it felt the need. The suggested target was the heavy-water reactor that Iran has long had under construction (and is still a year or more from completion) near the city of Arak. The Times explained that Israel should attack Arak soon, before it was loaded with nuclear fuel, after which blowing it up would risk an environmental disaster. The Times did not mention that the heavy-water reactor is legal under international law, specifically the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (ratified by Iran and the U.S. in 1970).
The only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East is Israel
The only state in the Middle East that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty is Israel, which is widely assumed to have a nuclear weapons arsenal of 75 or more warheads. Israel consistently refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, even after proliferation has been achieved, arguing that the treaty is contrary to Israel's security interests. Israel's nuclear weapons development was made possible in part by a nuclear reactor provided by France. Officially, Israel has said its nuclear program is "designed exclusively for peaceful purposes." But as a former chairman of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission observed, "There is no distinction between nuclear energy for peaceful purposes or warlike ones."
In September at the United Nations, Iranian President Rohani called on Israel to sign the non-proliferation treaty, a call that the 120 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement have been making for years, to no avail. Addressing the UN General Assembly, Rohani also called for worldwide nuclear disarmament (as reported in Haaretz):
"Hours ahead of a planned meeting between Iran and major powers on Thursday [September 26], Iranian President Hassan Rohani told the General Assembly that use of nuclear weapons is a "crime against humanity' and called on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"In a rare direct reference, Rohani said that "Israel, the only non-party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in this region, should join thereto without any further delay,' according to AFP".
"Rohani said 'the world has waited too long for nuclear disarmament,' Al Jazeera cited him as saying, claiming that states with nuclear capabilities should take responsibility for phasing out nuclear weapons"."
Allowing open inspections is a sign of good faith
Rohani also referred to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear inspection agency with which Iran has had an uneasy relationship for years, saying that "all nuclear activities in the region should be subject to the IAEA comprehensive safeguards." The IAEA, charged with enforcing the non-proliferation treaty, signed a new Joint Statement on Framework for Cooperation with Iran on November 11 under which the parties agreed "to strengthen their cooperation and dialogue aimed at ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme through the resolution of all outstanding issues that have not already been resolved by the IAEA."
Rohani's call for IAEA inspection of "all nuclear activities in the region" clearly includes Israel which has never allowed the IAEA to inspect anything, and has no obligation to do so as a non-signer of the non-proliferation treaty. As long as Israel can sustain mortal fear of Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons, it's own nuclear arsenal is safe from serious international pressure. In this regard, Israel is a rogue state, so it's little wonder that Israel, and Israel's supporters, especially in the United States, appear committed to blocking any deal with Iran other than substantial Iranian surrender to Israeli demands.
Whatever the shortcomings of Iran's cooperation with the IAEA, that agency has made numerous inspections and reports over the years none of which have demonstrated more than the potential for developing nuclear weapons that any nation with nuclear power has. This has been true for 60 years, since the Eisenhower administration in 1953 decided the Atoms for Peace program was a good idea and started handing out nuclear reactors to developing countries that included Pakistan and Iran. And for the next 25 years, the U.S. also supplied weapons-grade Uranium as fuel for these reactors, since the U.S. weapons program created a surplus of the stuff that had to go somewhere.
Nuclear non-proliferation is also form of restraint of trade
It wasn't until 1968 that the non-proliferation treaty was first signed, by which time Britain, France, and the Soviet Union all had nuclear weapons and India was close. Pakistan was also committed by then to developing its own deterrence to the Indian bomb, an arms race summarized by Jeremy Bernstein in the New York Review of Books for November 21. Bernstein, a noted American physicist, writes that India's first successful test in 1974 was due in great part to Canada, which provided a heavy water reactor that could run on low level natural Uranium, but which produced plenty of fissile Plutonium for a bomb.
The Iranian heavy water reactor near Arak was the focus of one of the French objections to the proposed treaty. In August the IAEA that Iran had not reporter adequately on the reactor since 2006, which left the agency unable to say whether Iran had the capability of diverting Plutonium from the reactor for use in nuclear weapons. The November 11 Joint Statement from IAEA and Iran promises to resolve this issue, but does not set out a timetable for doing so. In a blogpost the same day, Bernstein outlined the basis for serious concern about this reactor (once running reliably, it could likely produce enough Plutonium for one or two bombs a year) and concluded:
"By going ahead with a heavy water reactor, Iran seems to be saying it is determined to have the capacity to produce plutonium--and leave open a path to making a bomb. But it is very difficult to read the real intentions of the Iranians. Perhaps the fact that real negotiations have begun offers some hope that a tragedy can be avoided."
"Real negotiations" is exactly the process Israel is determined to avoid. As news of a possible treaty signing broke, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted with unmitigated opposition and a veiled threat of military response: "This is a very bad deal and Israel utterly rejects it". Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and to defend the security of its people."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
