Iran acknowledged on Tuesday that it was converting some of its higher-grade enriched uranium into reactor fuel, a move that could help to prevent a dispute with the West over its nuclear program hitting a crisis in mid-2013.
Conversion is one way for Iran to slow the growth in its stockpile of material that could be used to make a bomb. That stockpile is currently projected to reach a level intolerable to Israel in mid-year, just as Iran's room for negotiation is being limited by a presidential election in June.
We assume we know exactly how much enriched uranium Iran has and when they need it. We assume this Iranian decision means the threat is receding at least a bit and for at least a little while.
I don't assume that.
If Iran is converting uranium to fuel use, it is because either they don't need it yet and know they can produce sufficient quantities before they need it; or the Iranians have access to more than we think they have.
Of course, given North Korea's nuclear tests of 2006, 2009, and 2013, I think that our 2007 NIE that said Iran stopped work on nuclear warhead projects can be explained by assuming Iran subcontracted the work to North Korea. We think Iran hasn't made a decision to go nuclear because they have no warhead program. But that is an assumption that is not safe to make, as was finally admitted in early 2009:
When it was issued, the NIE stunned the international community. It declared that U.S. spy agencies judged "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program."
U.S. intelligence officials later said the conclusion was based on evidence that Iran had stopped secret efforts to design a nuclear warhead around the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Often overlooked in the NIE, officials said, was that Iran had not stopped its work on other crucial fronts, including missile design and uranium enrichment. Many experts contend that these are more difficult than building a bomb.
Iran and North Korea have obviously worked together on missiles and probably nuclear technology (North Koreans worked in Syria on a reactor that was probably intended to help Iran's nuclear program).
These two countries are charter members of the Axis of Evil, you may recall.
Iran wants nuclear weapons. If they have not worked on a nuclear warhead program recently, it is because the Iranians don't need a nuclear weapons program right now. Either because they have a design, the North Koreans are working on the design, or the Iranians simply don't think they need to work on it long before they have sufficient nuclear warhead material and appropriate missiles. Why draw a red line for those who might strike Iran if Iran makes too much visible progress?
On the bright side, I do think we have the tools to take down a rogue state's nuclear infrastructure.
And they are getting better:
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS Lake Erie (CG 70) successfully conducted a flight test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, resulting in the intercept of a medium-range ballistic missile target over the Pacific Ocean by a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA guided missile.
If we use our sword to strike Iran and/or North Korea, it helps to have a shield to stop anything that survives the first shots.
And I think the yawns our left has delivered over his drone program shows how prescient I was to predict that President Obama would get the Nobel Peace Prize if he--as opposed to Bush who would have faced charges in the International Criminal Court--actually nuked Iran. Heck, our president was awarded the prize the same day we bombed the moon, if you'll recall.
Let's hope Iran and North Korea assume we can do nothing to stop them. If I had a more suspicious mind, I'd wonder if Hagel's nomination for Secretary of Defense was just to lull Iran. But as in most things, the simplest explanation (that the president wants a tame Republican to gut our defenses) is the best explanation.
