If Iran truly wants only nuclear energy, it should use this program
Mehdi Ghasemi, Associated Press
If Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his parade of official proclaimers truly meant everything they’ve always said about pursuing a nuclear program only for peaceful energy and medical research purposes, then you’d figure Tehran’s elites should be bummed out by their bad timing.
It was back in 2010 that the International Atomic Energy Agency agreed unanimously to create an international nuclear fuel bank to provide non-nuclear nations with low-enriched uranium that could be used for peaceful energy and research programs, but not bomb-making.
The idea was forged back in 2006 by the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative. NTI’s co-chair, former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., solicited philanthropist Warren Buffet to contribute the first $50 million to fund the fuel bank, once other nations contributed an additional $100 million.
If Iran had genuinely wanted to pursue a nuclear program geared strictly toward peaceful ends, a nuclear fuel bank would have worked. But of course, Iran’s goal was never just obtaining non-weapons grade uranium for energy production and research. It was always to be able to enrich its own uranium to weapons grade levels. Indeed, Iran has built a heavy-water reactor near Arak, which could be used to produce plutonium for bomb-making.
So Iran pursued its own nuclear program, with Russia providing its nuclear fuel. And the world’s leading nations, led by the United States, clamped on tough sanctions that have caused Iran’s citizens economic hardships.
But Iran’s leaders endured the world’s sanctions because Iran was always working to either develop a nuclear bomb — or to develop the capacity for building their own nuclear bomb at a future time. The question now is whether Iran now wants to rejoin the world’s community of nations — to bring new life to Iranian citizens. And whether Iran will be willing to accept global inspections and safeguards to assure that it never uses its bomb-making capacity.
Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have already destabilized the Middle East and created new uncertainties. And that is where the U.N. international nuclear fuel bank can provide a lasting, peace-making contribution.
Among the nations that contributed to the now $150 million fuel bank are Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, along with the United States, European Union and Norway. It would not be surprising if those Middle East nations and others from the region become beneficiaries of the U.N. nuclear fuel bank as a way of bringing a greater degree of balance and stability to the region.
So far, the international nuclear fuel bank is a grand idea that has moved toward reality with just glacial speed. Indeed, glaciers are melting faster than the U.N. nuclear fuel bank has been moving. From the time the fuel bank was proposed in 2006, it took four years to get the rest of the world to ante up and get the U.N. diplomats to put themselves into motion. If this were a television show, we’d label their top speed slow motion.
Kazakhstan, which produces more uranium ore than any other nation, has agreed to serve as the world’s nuclear fuel banker, hosting the repository that will be heavily guarded.
At one time, those working on the project thought the U.N. nuclear fuel bank would be up and running this year. Now they are hoping for an Opening Day ribbon-cutting sometime in 2014. Maybe.
In December 2010, when the IAEA voted to begin the nuclear fuel bank, the NTI’s Nunn hailed the decision and warned of its urgency.
“This is a breakthrough in global cooperation to enable peaceful uses of nuclear energy while reducing the risks of proliferation and catastrophic terrorism,” said Nunn. “If every country interested in nuclear energy also chooses to pursue nuclear enrichment, the risk of proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials and weapons would grow beyond the tipping point.”
Exactly three years later this week, our global news media’s big eye is focused unblinkingly on Iran’s nuclear intentions. But we have lost sight of our peripheral but urgent nuclear efforts. Especially the nuclear fuel bank that may someday safeguard us from our next Iran.
Martin Schram is a veteran Washington journalist, author and TV documentary executive. Readers may send him email at martin.schramgmail.com.
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- Letter: Patriots or sheep?
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: New Christmas...
- David Blankenhorn: Berlin boasts a wise use...
- Letter: Police not the problem
- Charles Krauthammer: Battle must be fought...
- In our opinion: Utah sees improvement in...
- Letter: Patriots or sheep? 57
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- Greg Bell: Socialism vs. the safety net 38
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 34
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change... 33
- My view: Torture, morality and the laws... 30