A second alleged clandestine nuclear research project involved a “process flow chart” for a bench-scale system for conversion of uranium ore for enrichment. However, when Iranian officials were shown the flow chart, they immediately spotted multiple technical errors and these were so clear that the head of the IAEA Safeguards Department, Olli Heinonen, acknowledged in his 2008 briefing that the diagram had “technical inconsistencies.”
It has now been established, almost without a shadow of doubt, that both documents were forgeries, allegedly the work of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service.
Meanwhile, as some Israeli leaders and their supporters in the United States were pushing for an invasion of Iran on the excuse of its nuclear programme, the U.S Intelligence Community (a federation of 17 separate intelligence agencies) assessed in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had ended all “nuclear weapon design and weaponisation work” in 2003.
Yet, instead of welcoming that positive report, the then Israeli Minister of Defence Ehud Barak said that it was a kick to the gut, and many neo-conservatives in the United States also dismissed its findings.
The first lines of the article say the launch was hours before Iran ratified the agreement. So it might actually be proof the agreement will have teeth, and that Iran will follow it.
Yes, testing a missile hours before they pledge not to do it any more is very reassuring. I suppose they were not aware that was part of the deal until they got the paper to sign and by that time it was too late :(
I for one am reassured that the Iranians will do whatever it takes to continue their nuclear program.
Your opinion is contrary to obvious evidence - even if they are hiding nasty things (doubtful considering the swarm of inspectors with highly sensitive testing equipment), they wouldn’t be willing to give up so much.
Yeah, if I’d spent a lot of money and effort setting up for a missile test, I’d want to fast-track it and get the data just before I sign the treaty outlawing it.
A Max Fisher Vox article on how the deal gave the reformist elements in Iranian politics a leg up. Or maybe how failure to get a deal would have set them back a long ways…
I’m a treaty supporter, but I don’t think that’s a useful argument. We makea huge leap when we assume that we can shape Iran’s internal politics to our benefit. I’d consider this an inadvertent benefit, and not something that we can, or should, try to replicate.
I think the view of the administration was that this was a potential bonus, but that the deal needed to be the best option apart from any political repercussions on the other side. Still, it’s a good thing if said political repercussions later turn out to be positive.
Edit: To put it another way, it’ not an argument you can make at the time of the deal, since no one knows for certain how things will play out internally in Iran (least of all people on the other side of the planet), but it’s something you put on the ledger in the ‘how has this turned out so far’ evaluation. Just like if Iran declares in two years that they have the bomb, that goes in the ledger.
