The main feature of the Iranian nuclear program, which the US and its allies oppose, is uranium enrichment. This is a very difficult and energy consuming process. The point of enrichment is that natural uranium as extracted from ore cannot be used for reactors or bombs. Uranium has atoms of different masses (called isotopes), which decay differently. The energy for nuclear reactors or nuclear bombs comes from the splitting (fission) of the nucleus of a radioactive atom upon being hit by a neutron. Over 99 per cent of natural uranium is U-238 and it does not fission. Less than 0.8 per cent of natural uranium is U-235, which fissions when hit by a slow neutron yielding energy and two or three additional neutrons. If the percentage of U-235 in uranium is increased ('enriched') to three to five per cent, it can be used in power reactors and is considered 'reactor grade'. The uranium must be enriched to 90 per cent U-235 to be 'weapons grade', i.e. usable as the explosive component of nuclear weapons.

Iran has started enriching uranium through a centrifuge process. The IAEA is monitoring the Iranian uranium enrichment program. Any enrichment over five per cent is obviously not for power reactors. The IAEA has not reported any Iranian enrichment over five per cent. Before the Iranian centrifuges came on line, the IAEA detected minute amounts of highly enriched uranium (HEU) on centrifuge parts and documents that Iran received from Pakistan. They have found no evidence that this HEU was produced in Iran, and accept that the materials were contaminated with the substance in Pakistan. So long as the IAEA continually inspects the Iranian centrifuges, Iran could not use them for producing bomb fuel. If the IAEA were kicked out of Iran, it would take a lot of effort and time for the low-enriched uranium to be enriched from four per cent U-235 to 90 per cent. Iran would have had no experience with such high enrichment and could not be sure that it could do so. The delay before bomb-grade fuel could be produced would give the international community plenty of time to react.

And the US intelligence community, which previously claimed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, last December issued an official report (called a National Intelligence Estimate) that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 with 'moderate confidence' that the program remains frozen, but also with confidence that they are keeping their options open. So long as the IAEA stays on the job, they would not be able to use their known sites (those that Israel might bomb) to produce bomb fuel.

Despite Iran's having no record of military aggression in the last century, they have stated that they will respond to an attack. They would likely find the US fleets in the Persian Gulf (and any Israeli submarines there) to be a threat and attack them. They would probably retaliate against US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would fire conventional missiles at Israel - which may or may not be able to shoot them down. The US would then respond with a massive aerial assault on Iran. Iranian oil would go off the market and the shipment of oil through the Persian Gulf would be shut down. The drop in supply would push oil to $300 a barrel or more. The result would be disastrous.

And what would Israel gain? If Iran had a secret program for producing highly enriched uranium, it would not be affected because its location would not be known. If Iran had a secret program and Israel knew about it, it could easily eliminate it by providing its location to the IAEA, which would then keep it watched. If Iran had no secret program, then it was no threat before the attack.

So now we know that Iran does not have a history of aggression, has not threatened anyone and that it is permanently deterred from nuclearly attacking Israel. We know that the centrifuges, which the West is complaining about, cannot be used to make bomb fuel. And we know that ongoing inspections will maintain this situation.

Given this, a reader publishes a call for Israel (a nuclear power) to wage an aggressive war against a country hundreds of miles away, accepting that the result would be 'world recession, higher oil prices, increased political instability, [and] further terrorist outrages'.

All this because the reader considers that at some time in the future, there would be the danger of another holocaust against the Jews, which Israel deters since its response would kill ten times as many people as the Nazi Holocaust.

Yours,
Doug Foxvog,
Moyola Park,
Newcastle,
Galway

Comments (0) »

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Email

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment