Why it matters whether Iran’s nuclear program was really obliterated
By: Editorial Board (The Washington Post)
Can you believe this crap? Israel (and Trump) achieved in 12 days what all the 'war-peace-sellout' neocon/neoliberal diplomacy could not achieve in 40 years. The 'nation building' status quo is now bankrupt but the deadwood is trying to save it with nuance.
The neocon/neoliberal status quo can defend itself about as well as Iran can defend a nuclear problem.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Destroyed, degraded or undiminished: What word best describes the state of Iran’s nuclear program after the U.S. struck three uranium enrichment facilities? This question, which has roiled Washington over the past week, is not a merely semantic one. The outcome of the conflict with Iran depends on its answer.
If the U.S. strike “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, as President Donald Trump insists, the United States will have shown that it can destroy at will the regime’s capability of producing nuclear weapons. Diplomacy would still be needed so the United States could avoid having to regularly bomb Iran to prevent it from reconstituting its nuclear program. But Iran would have to come to the table with concessions, including renouncing its nuclear ambitions.
If the U.S. strike resulted in less than total obliteration, though, Iran might sense that it is able to defend its nuclear program against overwhelming American firepower. The amount of damage the United States managed to inflict would determine the degree to which the regime feels capable of resisting American attempts to tame it. Diplomacy could be a necessity, not just a best choice, and negotiations might be more difficult for Trump.
At the moment, the facts aren’t clear. A leaked Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggests the U.S. strike set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, and some senators who attended a classified briefing on the strike left thinking this was the case. But others who attended the same briefing said they believed the strike had done catastrophic damage.
One question is whether the Iranians managed to move some, or even most, of their highly enriched uranium to other locations out of harm’s way. Before the U.S. strike, Iran was believed to have about 880 pounds of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity — far higher than needed for any civilian purpose and close to the 90 percent typically needed to make a bomb. Satellite images showing trucks lined up outside the fortified underground facility at Fordow — the target of those U.S. “bunker buster” bombs — as well as vehicles moving around the Isfahan facility strongly suggest the stockpile was moved. Containers holding the 880 pounds of enriched uranium could fit into a few car trunks. Common sense suggests the Iranians would not have been foolish enough to leave all of their enriched uranium in one spot after Israel launched its first attack on June 13.
The other big question is whether the U.S. strike destroyed the advanced centrifuges Iran needs to refine the uranium it might still have or acquire in the future — or whether other uranium-enriching centrifuges exist at unknown sites hidden from past inspections. With functional centrifuges, the Islamic republic could race to enrich more nuclear fuel. Without them, the regime would be stuck until it could build new ones.
Either way, the technical know-how Iran accumulated over several decades cannot be bombed away.
Fortunately, Trump appears ready to reengage Iran diplomatically — but, so far, Iran is refusing to negotiate, spurning talks with Washington, and its lawmakers passed a bill to suspend cooperation with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (although the president has yet to sign it). The regime is still recovering from two weeks of punishing airstrikes that also decapitated its military leadership and badly damaged its energy infrastructure, and it might be in no hurry to return to talks.
But the talks must resume. Particularly if the United States did not obliterate Iran’s nuclear capability, Trump would be wise to offer inducements even as he reserves the option of further military action — and to keep the objective focused on inhibiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions rather than expanding the goals so much that diplomacy becomes even harder.
If Iran insists on pursuing a civilian nuclear program — which its government asserts is its right — that can be done with international partners, under strict monitoring, with thorough inspections and restrictions on what level of enriched uranium Iran is allowed to possess, if any. If Iran still has a hidden stockpile, it must be forced to disclose and relinquish it. In return, Iran could eventually be offered gradual relief from the sanctions that have crippled its economy and the promise of having its billions of dollars in assets that have been frozen worldwide returned. Of course, all would depend on verification that Iran is not cheating and covertly trying to develop a bomb.
Absent a diplomatic solution, the best-case scenario would require the United States and Israel to play a long-term game of whack-a-mole, continuously trying to find and destroy suspected nuclear sites. And Iran, having been humiliated, would concoct ever more creative ways to hide and protect its nuclear weapons program.
Tags
Who is online
397 visitors
Iran has a choice. Iran can either restart a nuclear program they can't defend - or - Iran can spend money on home defense. With the sanctions in place, Iran cannot afford do both.
Iran can spend money rebuilding it's terror network -- or -- Iran can begin rebuilding its own domestic economy. China won't be happy if Iran doesn't take steps to become a more reliable trading partner.
If the outcome of the 12 day war convinces Iran that they can adequately defend a nuclear program then they're as loony as some the neocon/neoliberal nation builders that screwed up the geopolitical landscape for 40 years. (Hint: that's why Ukraine can never defeat Russia. Neocon/neoliberal nation builders only know how to lose wars.)