Skip to main content

What the IAEA Knows

IAEA_image Here’s a story that started off making us upset at the IAEA and then made us rather more upset at the international players trying strong arm tactics against it. If nothing else, it provides an object lesson in how U.S. news handles conflict between national interests and international bodies.

---

The United States and some of its allies are applying pressure on the IAEA to present information it has about Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions:

Iran has charged that the documents, many of which came from American, Israeli and European intelligence services, are fabrications. The [IAEA], according to current and former officials there, has studied them with care and determined that they are probably genuine.

So why is IAEA keeping further information to itself?

But agency officials say that Mohamed ElBaradei, the departing director general, resisted a public airing, fearing that such a presentation would make the agency appear biased toward the West in the effort to impose what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently called “crippling” sanctions. Dr. ElBaradei, who has argued for allowing Iran to maintain a token capacity to produce uranium under strict inspection, has said that the evidence does not create an airtight case against Iran.

And what might the IAEA know beyond what it says publically?

The evidence collected by the agency suggests that each [of two Iranian projects] centers on elements of designing and delivering a nuclear weapon, though the United States said in a National Intelligence Estimate published nearly two years ago that it believed those projects were halted, at least temporarily, in late 2003.

We should note that the New York Times was far too gullible in favoring U.S. rather than IAEA and U.N. assessments of Iraqi nuclear capability, so consider that as an element. See, for example, how Reuters handled this detail:

But the IAEA has no evidence showing undeniably that Iran has a bomb agenda, he said, and IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei was loath to publish the summary for fear it could be used for political ends and make the agency look biased against Iran.

This catches the implication the Times just misses: IAEA will lose considerable authority if it rats out members (who provide it with a lot of confidential information) to whichever superpower comes knocking. Dr. ElBaradei’s reticence seems utterly comprehensible.

Second, IAEA is a United Nations agency. If The U.S. and Europe don’t want to work through that august body, it’s likely because non-western countries – of which there’s a fair few, including China and especially Russia - will probably block any attempt to bully the agency.

---

Now, this may sound like we’re fully on IAEA’s side, but really, it comes down to the right way to get a desired result. In this regard, President Obama seems to have a few ideas.

Next Wednesday, American and European officials are scheduled to meet to discuss their next steps on Iran, and President Obama has said he will use the opening of the United Nations General Assembly later in the month … to press for far tougher sanctions.

We suspect Obama will make far greater use of the U.N. to achieve international goals than his predecessor. Let’s see how that goes: we suspect that what IAEA knows will fade in importance as this story goes forward.

We’ve never seen a heavily photoshopped version of the IAEA logo, so this gaudy if striking variation – from here (Theodore’s World – very pro military) - get points for bringing the agency into the 23rd century.

Comments

LarryD said…
"But the IAEA has no evidence showing undeniably that Iran has a bomb agenda, he said, and IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei was loath to publish the summary for fear it could be used for political ends and make the agency look biased against Iran. This catches the implication the Times just misses: IAEA will lose considerable authority if it rats out members (who provide it with a lot of confidential information) to whichever superpower comes knocking. Dr. ElBaradei’s reticence seems utterly comprehensible. Second, IAEA is a United Nations agency. If The U.S. and Europe don’t want to work through that august body, it’s likely because non-western countries – of which there’s a fair few, including China and especially Russia - will probably block any attempt to bully the agency. --- Now, this may sound like we’re fully on IAEA’s side, but really, it comes down to the right way to get a desired result."

And the IAEA's supposed function is? Item 4 from their mission statement:

"verifies through its inspection system that States comply with their commitments, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements, to use nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful purposes."

A State that is trying to sneak past the non-proliferation regime will make things as ambiguous as possible. If the IAEA can not, or will not, sound warning unless confronted with undeniable evidence, then its verification function only serves as cover for the States that aren't brazen about their attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …