Assessing Iran's Nuclear Program
Image Credit: Wikicommons

Assessing Iran's Nuclear Program


The Diplomat's Assistant Editor Harry Kazianis speaks with Matthew Kroenig, associate professor at Georgetown University and Stanton nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, to discuss Iran’s nuclear weapons program:

Please give us your thoughts on the latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program.

The report is significant because an independent international organization has provided detailed evidence that Iran has conducted work on nuclear weaponization. This makes it much harder for Iran to claim that it's only interested in nuclear energy, and shifts the debate from whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons to what to do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Do you feel there is any “smoking gun” that implicates Iran in trying to build a nuclear weapon?

The report describes research and experiments conducted by Iranian scientists that are only relevant to the production of nuclear weapons. They have no other plausible rationale.

In your view, is it Iran’s intention to develop a nuclear weapon outright, or develop the capability to have the” ability” if regional tensions dictate such a move?  Is the “ability” enough of a deterrent alone?

I believe that Iran’s ultimate objective is to have a declared nuclear arsenal. Experts assess that Tehran’s strategic goals are to be able to deter an Israeli or U.S. attack and to become the preeminent power in the region. To achieve these ambitious goals, a latent nuclear capability (what some call the Japan model) isn't enough.

If Iran were to progress to the point of having all necessary materials to develop and deploy a nuclear weapon, how would regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iraq respond? Could a nuclear arms race in the Middle East be a possibility?

I think we are already beginning to see a growing interest in nuclear technology and possibly nuclear weapons in a number of states in the region. As Iran’s program progresses, this interest will only intensify. A regional nuclear arms race is one of the many possible negative consequences of Iran’s nuclear program.

With much talk surrounding a possible Israeli nuclear strike, if Israel were to choose such an option, with much of Iran’s nuclear facilities being deep underground, would they be effective in doing much damage?

Outside military analysts have assessed in public documents that Israel has the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities—even those that are buried and hardened.

If Iran were to gain the ability to deploy a viable nuclear weapon, with its current missile inventory, what type of range would it have? Would U.S. SM-3 Aegis sea based platforms be able to defend against such a weapon?

Iran currently possesses ballistic missiles capable of targeting most of the Middle East and even parts of southern Europe. US ballistic missile defenses could provide protection against an attack from a few stray missiles, but they would be overwhelmed by a larger salvo.

Does Iran have the capability to miniaturize a warhead now or in the near future?

Iran doesn't yet have the ability to fit a warhead on the nose-cone of a ballistic missile. But with additional research, this capability could shortly be within their reach.

Any final thoughts?

The U.S. pressure and engagement strategy seems to have run its course. The United States and the international community will very soon be forced to choose between military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program or learning to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Neither are attractive options.

John Bruni
November 29, 2011 at 19:39

While it is possible to think that Israel has the ability to launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, there are constraints that operate against such scenario. There are the political constraints emanating from Washington; the military constraints of Israel’s strategic reach for such an operation; the environmental constraints of the aftermath of any such military strike (radioactive blow-back) onto the Iranian civilian population and the Gulf Arab states. Living with a nuclear Iran seems the only likely option unless all of these constraints can be overcome. Furthermore, ‘regime change’ in Tehran might not be able to reverse Iranian ambitions either. The nuclear program is a matter of national/cultural pride whether the Iranians are ruled by mullahs or democrats. There would have to be some serious carrots thrown at Tehran to dismantle its nuclear program, something that has come at enormous national cost and sacrifice.

November 29, 2011 at 19:12

Ezekiel mentioned Iran specifically as a nation that will form a coalition with other nations to attack Israel and endeavor to destroy the Jewish State, Ezekiel 38:5 where Iran is referred to as Persia.

Bible prophecy does not mention that nuclear weapons will be used but the prophets do say that the total destruction of the Jewish State is on the agenda of the alignment of nations against Israel in the last days, as found also in the prophetic books of Daniel, Joel and Micah.

The assessment that there could be a nuclear war in the Middle East and soon is close to what Bible prophecy calls for in the last days. Bible prophecy will be fulfilled.

shahriyar Gourgi,....shahin
November 29, 2011 at 13:57

Are we going towards a new Star Wars or Gulf region or era?

Reports of a blast in the province of Isfahan, home to one of Iran’s atomic facilities, adds to a series of unexplained incidents….What happens next?

f murphy
November 29, 2011 at 07:59

We are trying to reduce our nuclear arsenals and they want to build new ones. They do not the stability it takes to maintain nuclear missiles. We don’t want any more wars. But sometimes the best defense is a good offense. They should be banned from developing nuclear weapons at any cost.

Share your thoughts

Your Name
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment

Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief