Your Questions: Ask CBC

How are we to believe the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION scam again. When the UN states that 'the west', is it not the USA they are speaking of or has it changed all of a sudden? History has proven that sanctions do not work. Where has it worked?

Neil Herland: Thanks for your questions Sharon.

You have good reason to be skeptical. Many people felt duped after the U.S. led coalition in Iraq failed to find any weapons of mass destruction. America is still trying to rebuild its credibility when it comes to intelligence and threat assessment. However the situation in Iran is different.

First, the Iranian government is making a public show of its enrichment of uranium and openly admits it is trying to create a nuclear program as quickly as possible. Russia has offered Iran a controlled supply of enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power plants, but Iran insists on developing its own nuclear fuel.

Second, it appears that Iran is trying to produce “highly-enriched uranium.” Most newly built nuclear plants now use low or medium-enriched uranium. But for some reason Iran is pursuing highly-enriched uranium, which can be used to generate power, but is also the key ingredient in a nuclear weapon.

Third, the inflamatory speeches by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he calls for Israel to be wiped off the map are seen as either a direct threat that Iran might be willing to use nuclear weapons; or as proof the Iranian leader is mentally unstable and cannot be trusted with nuclear materials.

Now to your question about whether it’s the UN or the U.S. who is instigating the sanctions against Iran. The newest round of sanctions against Iran were sponsored by the United Kingdom and France. All 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (including China and Russia) supported the resolution. The final vote was 14 countries in favour, zero oppposed and one abstention (Indonesia).

Even Libya, the former pariah state that was itself accused of state-sponsored terrorism for its role in the PanAm bombing over Lockerbie and the subject of UN sanctions, voted against Iran.

Finally, the effectiveness of sanctions has been debated for a long time. The sanctions against South Africa’s apartheid regime during the 1980s are often cited as an example where international trade sanctions isolated a government to the point of change. On the other hand UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the 1990s and the American embargo against Fidel Castro’s Cuba seem to have harmed the general public in those respective countries more than their rulers.

With the U.S. leading the way against Iran,are they not in fact making Iran into a country that is being looked upon as a VICTIM of the U.S.,as it's latest in a long list of targets?

What is Russia's take on this as they have been the suppliers of the things Iran needs?

I have also watched the anger of other countries as they feel the U.S. favours some and comes down hard on others.

Neil Herland: Charlene, you’re right that Iran has successfully convinced many of its citizens that it is the latest victim of U.S. foreign policy.

The Iranian government has turned its nuclear program into a source of national pride and painted the international opposition as being led by the Bush administration. But there are many other voices on the world stage expressing concern over Iran: France and Britain are worried about Iran’s nuclear intentions, and most significantly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), often referred to as the UN’s nuclear watchdog, says it still has outstanding questions about the nature and ultimate goal of Iran’s nuclear program.

Russia is playing the role of good cop and bad cop with Iran. It has supported all the UN Security Council sanctions against Iran, since 2006. At the same time, it is supplying Iran with the materials to build the Bushehr Nuclear Power Facility along the Persian Gulf. International inspectors confirm that Bushehr is a legitimate power project. Russia stands to make a lot of money by supplying this project. Russia sees a real economic opportunity in becoming a key supplier and security guarantor of Iran’s nuclear program.

That’s why Russia is offering to deliver nuclear fuel and then pick up the waste for disposal, in order to be sure nuclear materials don’t get used to create weapons.

On your last point, the U.S. is often criticized for not objecting to the fact Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, while protesting against the nuclear aspirations of North Korea and Iran. Neither Israel nor Pakistan have ever signed the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which means their possesion of such weaspons does not constitute a violation of any international treaty agreement.

What rights Western Nations who possess nuclear weapons have to tell other nations who do not, not to start a their nuclear program to generate electricity? Why is it allowed for us, but it is illegal for others?

Neil Herland: This is a very common question Mehran. Why do some countries get to play in the nuclear club, while most do not?

The international community considers nuclear weapons to be so destructive that in 1968 a worldwide treaty was created to prevent their spread. It’s called Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT for short. One-hundred and eighty-nine countries have signed the NPT, including Canada.

The NPT allows the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear weapons (China, Russia, France, the U.S. and the U.K.). It also guarantees the rights of all other NPT countries to build and maintain nuclear power plants, under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. The IAEA is supposed to safeguard the world from the emergence of new states with nuclear weapons, thus making the world safer, while at the same time permitting the legitimate use of nuclear power plants.

In 1970, Iran ratified the NPT which means it must now abide by the rules of the treaty and submit to inspections and verification by the IAEA. In recent years, the Iranian government has repeately hidden details about its nuclear program from international inspectors and refused to answer certain questions of the IAEA.

That is why the United Nations Security Council has approved 3 sets of sanctions against Iran, including the latest ones this week.

UN inspectors have also discovered traces of unexplained plutonium and highly-enriched uranium at Iranian facilities, which the Iranian government says were the result of scientific experiments. Western powers say the discovery is suspicious and suggests Iran is trying to develop the key ingredients for a bomb. The CIA also claims to have obtained a laptop computer which apparently belonged to the Iranian government. It is said to contain drawings and plans for nuclear weapons. Iran says American intelligence fabricated the information.

Also just to clarify when you say us, Canada has nuclear power plants but we do not have nuclear weapons.

What sort of progress has been made in ‘quieter’ bilateral negotiations between some European countries (including Russia), and Iran, on its nuclear program, in the past couple of years?

Does the United States play a part in these negotiations?

Neil Herland: Anu, the European Union tried a diplomatic dialogue with Iran several years ago but it failed to resolve the questions over Iran’s nuclear program. Russia continues to offer the possibility of providing nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants in Iran, but the Iranians seem determined to create their own domestic program.

While there is much public talk of sanctions, there is an ongoing offer from the European Union to Iran. If Iran is willing to fully comply with UN resolutions and to answer all the concerns of the international community, then the EU will reward Iran with economic guarantees and normalized relations.

What exactly are the sanctions that are being imposed? And how do they effect the production of nuclear weapons?

Neil Herland: I’m glad you asked this Julie.

International sanctions are not applied across the board, they are often targeted to achieve certain goals. In this case nobody wants to cut off the flow of Iranian oil to global markets. That would lead to a potential oil shortage and it would drive up the price of a commodity that is already shattering price records.

So the UN Security Council has come up with a series of limited sanctions designed to stop Iran’s nuclear program:

This week’s sanctions authorize governments to inspect cargo shipments destined for Iran, to make sure they do not contain materials that could be used for weapon-making. It also expand the monitoring of Iranian banks, freezes the assets of more individuals connected to Iran’s nuclear program and it bans a growing number of Iranian officials from travelling outside of Iran.

These sanctions do not cut off shipments of food or medicine to Iran.

I was wondering if these sanctions prohibit Iran from exporting any goods to all countries or it only banns exports of some goods from the counry?

Neil Herland: Ali, these sanctions are focused on what goes into Iran. Not what is exported out. The goal is to make sure that nuclear materials and funding do not enter the country for use in weapons programs.

What interest does such a ridiculously oil-rich country have in nuclear power?

Neil Herland: That is a very common question Benjamin. Iran may be one of the world’s most oil rich countries but it does not have a very efficient processing capacity and so it regularly imports energy from other countries. Most of its electricity is derived from non-oil sources such as natural gas and coal.

Iran says it wants to develop a nuclear power program as an alternative to using fossil fuels.

Knowing that the sanctions do more to hurt the average Iranian. What effect do you think this will have on Mideastern views toward the west.

Thanks.

Neil Herland: Azad, as you know there is no monolithic Middle East view of the West. There are as many opinions as there are people.

Iran’s economy is suffering these days but it is doubtful that two years worth of limited UN sanctions are the cause. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been criticized by both his own clerics and opposition politicians for mismanaging the country’s finances.

Ahmadinejad has stirred anti-Western sentiment by painting the nuclear issue as a patriotic cause and the UN sanctions as an American plot, but there are a number of Middle Eastern and Islamic countries which support the so-called Western view. Last year, Qatar voted in favour of sanctions against Iran and this week Libya did the same.

Clearly they are worried too about Iran’s nuclear program.

Why is the U-S so determined to order everyone else around by deciding what to do and how to do it? How do they get away with it on a global scale?

Neil Herland: After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States lost a great deal of goodwill and credibility at the United Nations.

In recent years, the Bush administration has decided to use the United Nations in order to gain wider support for its policies. This is why the Iranian nuclear file is being pursued by the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

The U.S. may be pushing for a tougher approach towards Iran, but its case is now heard by a very skeptical audience of international diplomats and the key actions are being approved by multi-state institutions, whose members often have cordial relations with Iran. Both Russia and China have defended Iran’s legitimate right to have a nuclear power program and they have been able to water down harsher UN sanctions proposed by Western nations.

Isn't what the Iranian government trying to do perfectly legal? Countries that sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are allowed to develop nuclear energy, right? Nuclear energy is going to be crucial in the fight against climate change. Are western nations trying to hold back a country that is at least attempting to move forward technologically if not socially?

Neil Herland: Iran’s recent nuclear program has been shrouded in secrecy. The International Atomic Energy Agency still has unanswered questions and Iranian officials continue to play a cat and mouse game of giving piece-meal answers and incomplete replies.

By contrast, nearly every other nuclear nation is transparent about its activities. This has created a situation of mistrust between Iran and the Atomic Energy Agency. While Western nations are pressing for sanctions, it’s the IAEA reports that provide most of the evidence of Iran’s suspicious activity.

Finally, the IAEA is headed by an Egyptian Muslim lawyer named Mohamed ElBaradei. His candidacy was opposed by the United States, which wanted a more “pro-American” leader of the Agency. Yet despite U.S. fears, his conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program are increasingly in line with the U.S. view.

My understaning of the situation is that Iran is being sanctioned for what it MIGHT do (i.e. develop nuclear weapons), rather than anything it has done. Even enriching uranium is permissable under international law as long as it is not used to make a weapon.

Are these sanctions on Iran unprecedented, or have there been other times in the past where a country was punished because others feared it might do something illegal?

Neil Herland: The first UN sanctions against Iran in 2006 were not approved because of what Iran might do.

They were passed because Iran had started a nuclear program without providing the usual notification and transparency to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran also publicized its nuclear program, bragged about the accelerated speed with which it was moving forward and threatened to destroy Israel. Those were red flags for the international community.

1. Geographically, where is Iran believed to be doing its nuclear activities that the US and IAEA are so concerned? Is it a highly populated area, that if bombed would see high numbers of civilian casualties?

2. How sophisticated is Iran's air defence capabilities? Could they likely shoot down US or Israeli aircraft on a bombing run?

Neil Herland: Iran’s nuclear facilities are mostly at the construction or planning stage. They are located mainly in the north along the Caspian Sea and to the south near the Persian Gulf.

The uranium enrichment activity of concern to the U.S. and the IAEA is mainly taking place in Natanz, which is more inland and south of Tehran. It would be more difficult to strike Natanz than other locations. The area itself is not heavily populated but the facility is underground and an air strike may or may not destroy it. The Bush administration has avoided talk of an air strike on Iran, though some conservative hawks favour this option. A pre-emptive bombing is openly discussed in Israel among various politicians.

I’m not a military expert so I don’t know how easy it would be for either the U.S. or Israel to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities. In 1981, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s key nuclear reactor in Iraq. However, Iran is geographically farther, its nuclear facilities are spread out and its military defenses are more advanced than what Iraq had back in ’81.

Two years ago the Israeli military’s Chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, was asked how far Israel would go to stop Iran’s nuclear program. He answered by saying “2,000 kilometres.” So it is certainly an option being considered by Israel.