Today's Iran Reading

by CKR

Twenty-two physicists, including twelve Nobel laureates, oppose using nuclear weapons preemptively against Iran, or any non-nuclear power. The American Physical Society reminds us (and George Bush) that

The current U.S. nuclear-use policy, stated in 1995, and reiterated in 2002, reads:

“The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon state-parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state toward which it has a security commitment carried out, or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.”

(h/t to Parvati Roma)

A coalition of charities, faith groups and unions in Britain has warned Tony Blair that any military action against Iran would have "unthinkable" consequences.

Meanwhile, Iran is reported to have set up two 164-centrifuge cascades in its Natanz plant. The reports are from unnamed diplomats, one of whom is said to have been speaking at the IAEA in Vienna, which gives a veneer of credibility to the statement, but we have to be careful to note that this appears not to have been a representative of the IAEA, or the attribution would probably have been different. Although with anonymous sources, who knows?

Iran claimed last year that it would have 3000 centrifuges operating at Natanz by March of this year. At this rate, it will take another eight years or so to have 3000 operating. That number could produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in about a year.

Paul Pillar, who helped to put the National Intelligence Estimate together that the Bush Administration used to justify its attack on Iraq, is feeling some remorse about his part in that and gives us some questions to ask about an attack on Iran.

I'd ask a few more questions: what are Iran's interests and concerns that are supporting its move to a nuclear program, and how could we undercut those motivations? Have contingencies been considered for a purely air attack? What could expand such an attack into requiring ground forces? If a nuclear strike is being considered, why does the administration believe that the damage to Iran's nuclear program will justify being the first nation to use nuclear weapons in a preventive strike, against its NPT obligations?

Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond urge Congress to take preventive action against President Bush's attacking Iran.

we need Senate and House hearings now to put the Bush administration on notice that, in the absence of an imminent military attack or a verified terrorist attack on the United States by Iran, Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country. Those hearings should aim toward passage of a law preventing the expenditure of any funds for a military attack on Iran unless Congress has either declared war with that country or has otherwise authorized military action under the War Powers Act.

The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it, Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings.

The example of Libya's giving up its nuclear weapons program has been invoked by the administration as a justification for its hard line against Iran. Hisham Matar argues otherwise. From what I have heard, Libya's program was very primitive and very likely a financial and strategic liability to Qaddafi; in other words, a nice bargaining chip to put him in a position with the United States where he could walk away from the Pan Am 103 bombing and continue as ruler of his country without worrying about external attempts at regime change.