City of Brass

City of Brass


Iran’s nuclear ambiguity

posted by Aziz Poonawalla

It seems that every year, there’s a breathless report that Iran is a year ortwo away from having nuclear weapons. Once again:

Two of the nation’s top military officials said Wednesday that Iran could produce bomb-grade fuel for at least one nuclear weapon within a year, but would most likely need two to five years to manufacture a workable atomic bomb.

The time frame … was roughly in line with the finding of a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. That document, which is about to be updated, said that Iran would probably be able to produce a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015, while cautioning that there was no evidence that the Iranian government had decided to do so.

(…) The generals offered a number of significant caveats about their assessment of Iran’s capabilities. When asked, for example, how long it would take Iran to convert its current supplies of low-enriched uranium into bomb-grade material, General Burgess said, “The general consensus – not knowing again the exact number of centrifuges that we actually have visibility into – is we’re talking one year.”

(…) Even if Iran produced a weapon’s worth of material in a year, it would not necessarily mean the country was ready for what experts call “breakout” – renouncing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and declaring, as North Korea did, that the country was now a nuclear power.

I am not a foreign policy or nonproliferation expert, so take this post as purely speculative. But it occurs to me after reading the above that Iran’s nuclear strategy may be inspired by Israel’s policy of “nuclear ambiguity” – to neither confirm nor deny that they possess nuclear weapons, and thus remain free of pressure to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. This gives Israel (and thus, potentially, Iran) all the benefits of nuclear deterrence against its hostile neighbors, but avoids the legal and diplomatic pressures on a nuclear state that come with being a non-signatory to the NNPT (such as India and Pakistan).

Israel’s argument for this is that it is uniquely isolated as a small nation surrounded by “enemies” and thus must rely on any strategic advantage it can. The same argument, however, applies to Iran, which is surrounded on both sides by US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, has hostile relations with a nuclear-armed Israel, and is also facing serious Arab nation hostility and fear (which currently manifests as anti-Shi’a policies, but is also spurring an Arab nuclear arms race.

At Talk Islam, a commenter observed that “the middle east has Israel to bind them together.” While true, the same could be said of Iran – Israel already has diplomatic relations with Egypt, and Saudi Arabia shares Israel’s paranoia about Iran. There’s even reason to be optimistic about Syrian-Israeli relations. Ultimately, Iran is competing with Israel for regional hegemony, Persian Shi’a and Jews in a predominantly Sunni Arab milieu. And while the ignorant masses may hate Israel, their cynical leaders fear Iran more.

Nuclear ambiguity also gives Iran a useful loophole with respect to President Obama’s new nuclear posture. That policy was written with Iran and North Korea in mind, stating that any state that is either (a) non-nuclear or (b) nuclear, but signs the NNPT will be exempt from American nuclear attack, but makes specific exception for any nuclear state that does not sign the NNPT. If Iran’s nuclear status is ambiguous, however, then Iran can legally argue that it should qualify as exempt. This gives Iran additional diplomatic and legal cover.

Ultimately, Iran has as many enemies as Israel does – with the significant difference being that Israel calls the world’s remaining superpower an ally. Therefore all the logic of Israel’s nuclear ambiguity fully applies.

Related: Nuclear policy blogger Page van der Linden has two excellent summary articles at DailyKos, providing a recap of the START treaty and the revised nuclear posture, and a wrap-up analysis of the nuclear security summit. Both are must-read “big picture” briefing articles that really give you a great overview of how momentous and significant the progress made towards a nuclear-free world over these last two weeks.



  • hass

    Iran’s nuclear program started with the support and enroucagement of the United States. Far from seeking ambiguity, Iran has been willing to impose additional restrictions on its nuclear program far beyond its legal obligations, including operating the program as a joint-venture with the US (and idea endorsed by the IAEA and American experts) which would prevent it from even theoretically being used to make bombs — and yet these offers have been ignored by the US. Why? Because the entire nuclear issue is a pretext, just as WMDs in Iraq were a pretext. Otherwise, this whole thing could have been wrapped up already.

  • interpreter

    Iran’s president is evidently one of the demon-possessed kings of the east who start the Battle of Ar Mageddon. It looks like Iran will have a nuclear weapon or two by 2012.
    And Islamic radicals are trying to take over Pakistan which has nuclear weapons.
    Actually the first shot was fired on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry. It was dried up by Saddam Hussein to prepare the way for the Battle of Ar Mageddon (or the Mother of All Battles as the Muslims call it).
    It is our generation (who sees the Euphrates dry up), who are told to watch for Jesus coming as a theif, and not be caught naked.
    In other words, get ready for Ar Mageddon which is also called such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the Earth, and also the Battle of that Great Day of God Almighty.

  • wow

    ” Iran’s nuclear strategy may be inspired by Israel’s policy of “nuclear ambiguity” – to neither confirm nor deny that they possess nuclear weapons, and thus remain free of pressure to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.”
    So let me see, Israel never signed the NPT, and Iran did. Iran broke the treaty, has supported terrorists, and has defied the UNSC.
    YUP, that sounds like an apples to apples comparison to me.
    “Iran’s nuclear program started with the support and enroucagement of the United States. Far from seeking ambiguity, Iran has been willing to impose additional restrictions on its nuclear program far beyond its legal obligations”
    So the US gave Iran the blueprints to a warhead design, to be used for ‘peaceful nuclear energy’? Iran has been willing to make more promises after breaking their past promises? Wow, sure, that sounds like a great deal to me. Iran has BROKEN its legal obligations, and we LEGALLY have the right to invade and even destroy Iran at this point, if deemed necessary.

  • interpreter

    Unfortunately, the US is relying on sanctions to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. It will not work. Ar Mageddon is coming, along with global warming and all the other last plagues.

Previous Posts

is ISIS Islamic? Wrong question.
There is an excellent longform essay on ISIS published in The Atlantic, "What does ISIS Really Want?" that lays out an excellent case fore ISIS being genuinely different in ideology, motivation and ethos than Al Qaeda. The real question boils down to, is ISIS "Islamic" or not - and makes an excellen

posted 11:34:08pm Feb. 17, 2015 | read full post »

The Price of Extremism
This is a guest post by Durriya Badani. The execution style murder of three young North Carolina students, two of whom were hijab wearing Muslim women, raises questions regarding the rise of Islamaphobia in the United States in the form of hate crimes. Some will argue that the motive for the inc

posted 11:26:53am Feb. 12, 2015 | read full post »

Can atheism drive someone to murder? #muslimlivesmatter #chapelhillshooting
Like everyone else, I am in shock at the horrible tragedy in North Carolina last night, where three young Muslim Americans were brutally executed. The police are investigating and the murderer is in custody and cooperating. The family of the victims will hold a press conference soon, until then I am

posted 4:21:58pm Feb. 11, 2015 | read full post »

Halal Italian and Mexican catering in Chicago
This is a guest post by Whitney Gaspar. I am not Muslim. I am not any religion, really. I was baptized as a Catholic to please my grandma and raised as an atheist by my mother. I am spiritual and I believe in God. But that is not why I eat halal. I eat halal because it is logical. It simpl

posted 11:09:45am Feb. 09, 2015 | read full post »

the State of the Ummah, 2014/1436
I tuned into President Obama's 2014 SOTU for a while last week - mainly beca

posted 12:06:37pm Jan. 26, 2015 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.