Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS:  At the United Nations today, it seems all the attention was on the Palestinian bid for UN membership.  President Obama spoke against the move in his speech before the UN General Assembly.  He also hit on other subjects, including nuclear disarmament.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

MULLINS:  The US and Russia signed the so-called New START Treaty, last year in Prague.  They pledged to continue shrinking their arsenals, down to a combined total of about 3,000 active warheads.  But there are an estimated 20,000 nuclear warheads out there.  Most of them are not actively deployed.  Ron Rosenbaum wrote the book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War Three.  We asked him what sway the UN and Washington actually have over the non-active nuclear warheads.

RON ROSENBAUM:  Well, very little.  We’ve been negotiating with North Korea for six years.  And they’re always calling it off and going back to their nuclear weapons production, and then saying they’ll stop if we’ll talk some more.  And then we’ll talk.  The talks go nowhere, and they continue to build nuclear warheads.  Pakistan, you’ve heard of the nuclear arms bazaar, that was run by A.Q. Khan, who was the nuclear scientist who gave Pakistan the bomb.  We don’t even know whether he sold nuclear weapons to nations we may not even be aware of.  And everyone knows that these unstable nations are the ones that are the greatest threat, but still the existence of that many warheads, even in the hands of stable nations, poses the threat of an accidental war, or who knows what kind of relations, hostile or not, we might have in the future.

MULLINS:  What is the best solution that you have heard, given the underlying interests here?

ROSENBAUM: I’m not sure that there is a good solution.  I’ve given attention to the minimal deterrence, or the minimalist deterrence theories of the Federation of American Scientists, who believe that we can reduce arsenals, particularly those nations that have large ones, to less than 100, maybe carried on submarines where we wouldn’t have to worry about a surprise attack taking out our deterrent.  And perhaps some decades, or maybe sooner in the future, we’ll get down from thousands to hundreds.  Whether we’ll ever be able to get from hundreds to dozens, or from dozens to zero, is an open question.

MULLINS:  What about not a nuclear war, but a nuclear crisis?  I mean, take the civilian power plant, the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan.  How does that fit into the overall concerns about not just nuclear weaponry, but nuclear power?

ROSENBAUM:  Well, I’d say it fits in this way.  For years, we’ve gradually grown more used to nuclear power.  It’s kind of safe, no emissions, nothing’s happened since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, maybe it’s all OK.  Same with nuclear weapons.  We’ve gradually, since the end of the Cold War, almost forgotten about them.  But they’re there, underneath the prairies of the Midwest, and in the steppes of Russia.  And so far we’ve been lucky, just as the Japanese were, and all of the nuclear power plant operators were, but they turned out to be wrong.  But I guess we have to cross our fingers and hope that our luck holds with nuclear weapons.

MULLINS:  Has President Obama himself – give him a grade, since he first started talking the talk in 2009.

ROSENBAUM:  He gets A+ for putting it on the agenda initially, and for getting that treaty through, even though he was tortured by Republican senators.  And the treaty was marred by all their unilateral additions.  I wouldn’t blame him for saying oh God, do I have to get back to that again?  But he does.  I think he could do a lot more to put the nation’s attention, focus the nation’s attention on nuclear weapons.  Why not open up the White House and give a televised demonstration of what it would be like to launch a nuclear weapon?  He’d have to open the black briefcase, pick up the phone, dial in his code, and give people a sense that this is real, this is not just something from novels and movies.  This is something the President himself, this nuclear briefcase, carries with him every moment of the day.  I think he could do more to focus the nation on this danger.

MULLINS:  Author Ron Rosenbaum wrote the book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War Three.  He writes a column for Slate as well.  Thanks a lot, Ron.

ROSENBAUM:  Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Watch the slideshow
• Subscribe to our multimedia feed on iTunes

Iran's key nuclear sites

Iran said today it will begin construction of a third nuclear enrichment plant by March of next year. The Islamic republic already has a large enrichment site at Natanz and a smaller one near Qom. Today’s announcement referred to 10 new enrichment plants Iran plans to build. The US and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charges. The World’s Katy Clark talks with Greg Thielmann who is an intelligence expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Download MP3

• BBC coverage
• IAEA reports on Iran
• Iran’s key nuclear sites

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

KATY CLARK: I’m Katy Clark and this is The World. Iran said today it will begin construction of a third nuclear enrichment plant by March of next year. The Islamic republic already has a large enrichment site at Natanz and a smaller one near Qom. Today’s announcement referred to 10 new enrichment plants Iran plans to build. The US and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charges. Greg Thielmann is an intelligence expert at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Greg, some people may think that Iran already has nuclear weapons, but, technically at least, how far off are they?

GREG THIELMANN:  Well, that is one of the questions of the moment, Katy. US Defense Secretary Gates says that Iran could have sufficient fissile material, or the ingredients of nuclear weapons, within a year, and within another year could have weaponized that material. But I’ve spent enough time in the intelligence community to pay very careful attention to words like “could.” We have not been able to document any Iranian production or enrichment of uranium above a 20% level. 90% is required for fissile material.

CLARK:  Does the IAEA, though, have complete access to all of Iran’s facilities?

THIELMANN: It does not have complete access and that is exactly the rub. The issue is can the International Atomic Energy Agency assure the UN membership that Iran has no nuclear weapons program? So, right now we are in a dispute between the international community and Iran on making the Iranian nuclear program transparent enough to dispel suspicions that Iran has a parallel nuclear weapons program.

CLARK: Just how wide is the gap between Iran’s current lack of transparency and any perception that they want nuclear weapons? Is it one of these cases where Iran needs to prove that it doesn’t want it because people are just tending to think the worst at this point?

THIELMANN: I think the weight of expert opinion is that Iran, at the very least, wants to develop the capability to be able to acquire nuclear weapons rapidly. And also after the findings of, not just the US, but various foreign intelligence services, that Iran itself for some 18 years had a clandestine nuclear weapons program that was only halted, the US believes, in the fall of 2003. So, the current focus is on whether or not Iran has resumed that clandestine nuclear weapons program.

CLARK: So, I’m wondering then, bringing it back to the announcement today that Iran is going to begin construction on a third nuclear enrichment plant. Does that announcement only confirm assumptions that Iran wants a nuclear weapons program down the road?

THIELMANN: Well, it certainly does confirm it for many people. If the announcement were made in the way that announcements should be made, that is, information on where it planned to construct, providing the blueprints of that construction, an explanation that showed how this plan fitted in with Iran’s overall nuclear energy development program, that would be a major step toward addressing suspicions that these plants are going to be developed at clandestine locations and would be used to make highly-enriched uranium for nuclear weapons purposes.

CLARK: Greg Thielmann is a former director at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He’s now a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington. Good to speak with you.

THIELMANN: Thank you for the opportunity.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Stephen Kinzer on Iran, Turkey and the U.S. (Feb)
• book info

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston.  Iran’s tough stance on its nuclear program got tougher today.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country won’t agree to talks on the issue if the U.N. Security Council imposes new sanctions.  Then, the Council announced it will vote on fresh sanctions tomorrow.  They’d include tighter financial restrictions and the expansion of a limited arms embargo.  Stephen Kinzer was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times for many years.  His latest book is “Reset:  Iran, Turkey and America’s Future”.  Mr. Kinzer joins us in our studio.  Do you think that there’s a risk that there’s maybe too much attention paid to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says.  Sometimes it feels like this is just pro forma trash talk like in game three or four of the Lakers-Celtics series.

STEPHEN KINZER:  You’re exactly and I’d even go a step further.  I think that Ahmadinejad is very aware that many Iranians don’t like him and that he’s unpopular in the Middle East as well.  He knows that there is one thing that could make him a hero to all Iranians, and that would be to be attacked by Israel or the United States.  That would then turn him into the ultimate martyr.  And I think he’s calculating what I can do, what can I say to be as outrageous as possible and see if I can provoke someone to bomb me.  That’s the way the entire nation of Iran will gather behind me.  There’s no other way.  And I think Ahmadinejad is calculating this very carefully.  We are playing into his hands by reporting every wink of his eyebrows and trying to play him up as this ultimate demon and I think in the long run Iran’s strategic interests actually coincide more with America’s than they conflict with America’s.  And in addition, Iranian society, which is very vibrant and very open and democratic, has much more in common with American society than the societies of any of the countries with which we are now aligned.

WERMAN: What’s the primary way you think Iran’s interests coincide with American’s interests?

KINZER: The most important goal for Iran is a stable neighborhood.  That should also be the most important goal for Israel.  These are two countries, that in that sense are parallel and they are also parallel in the sense that they have a lot of enemies in the neighborhood and a lot of enemies in the world.  Nonetheless, it’s wrong to push these countries into a corner and stigmatize them and make them feel friendless and angry.  Somehow they need to be brought in to a kind of new regional security architecture in which stability in the region, which is the ultimate goal both of those countries in the United States, could possibly be assured.

WERMAN: Well one area where the world seemed to kind of pump helium into Ahmadinejad was just after last year’s contested Presidential election in Iran.  When you were in Iran recently, Stephen Kinzer, did you get a sense that the day of this anniversary, this coming Saturday, is going to be marked by protest?

KINZER: I think there will be protests, but there’s no doubt in my mind that the momentum of the green movement, as the protests were called, has definitely slowed down.  I talked to dozens of ordinary Iranians on the street and the sense I got from all of them was, we tried something last year, it didn’t work, and now we’re just going to go on with our lives.  There’s no point in us getting arrested and beaten, that’s what’s going to happen if we go out and protest.  There will be change, but it’s not going to come soon.  Now in a country with 25 centuries of history, which is ten times more than the United States has, that’s a very understandable attitude.  Nonetheless, in a way it kind of conflicts with the American attitude.  We have the sense that everything has to happen right away.  We also have a sense in America that all problems ultimately have a solution, even if they’re complex.  You just break them down into pieces and you can find a way out.  Iranians have a different approach to life.  They would say that many problems don’t have quick solutions and some problems have no solutions at all.  So there’s a psychological as well as a political gap here.

WERMAN: Now Iran may have a role in the latest crisis with the flotilla of activists headed for Gaza, this boat that Israel took over last week killing nine activists.  The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said this past weekend that Iran could use its Navy to send humanitarian assistance to Gaza.  What do you make of that?

KINZER: I don’t take it too seriously.  I think right now the Egyptians have opened up their own crossing into Gaza.  They are allowing a lot of relief supplies in.  That takes some of the pressure off and therefore the theater of flotillas trying to land in occupied Gaza has diminished in the impact and importance that it has.  I think the flotilla incident, I think it really was a reaction what was happening particularly in Gaza.  When you’re sitting in that part of the world, and you are watching on television every single day, as we in the west do not, what is going on in Gaza?  And every episode is replayed a hundred times in your mind and on your TV screens, naturally anger builds up and that was what was behind Prime Minister Erdogan’s blow up in Davos earlier this year.  That friction between Turkey and Israel has been largely focused on Gaza. So I don’t think this is necessarily a problem that’s afflicting the entire policy apparatus in that region.  I think it’s more about Gaza and if the Gaza situation can somehow be eased, I think some of this tension we’re seeing in recent weeks will also ease.

WERMAN: Stephen Kinzer’s latest books is “Rest: Iran, Turkey and America’s Future”.  Stephen thanks so much for coming in.

KINZER: Great to be with you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Ahmadinejad speaks at UN nuclear conference
• Iran and the nuclear issue

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is The World.  Years of diplomatic deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program may have reached a breakthrough today.  Iran says it will ship low enriched uranium to Turkey.  In return, Iran will receive higher enriched uranium to use in a medical research reactor in Tehran.  That fuel would still be enriched well below the level needed to manufacture a nuclear weapon.  The deal was brokered after 18 hours of negotiations between leaders from Iran, Turkey and Brazil.  But it’s far from certain that the deal will satisfy the international community.  The World’s Jason Margolis has more.

JASON MARGOLIS:  The question is why now?  Why is Iran agreeing to this deal?  That’s what the west is wondering.  After all, the agreement announced today mirrors a deal negotiated in Geneva last fall.  President Obama endorsed that plan, but Iran backed away from the proposal.  Brazil’s President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva suggested a deal is being reached now because of the people doing the negotiating.

INTERPRETER:  We’ve established a relationship of trust.  Politics isn’t possible without trust.  I think we have secured a great achievement that was a great victory for diplomacy.

MARGOLIS: That’s high faluting talk for a bad deal, argues Nicolas Burns at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.  He says Brazil and Turkey have negotiated an agreement contrary to the interests of the United States, Europe and even Russia.

NICOLAS BURNS:  This proposal does not address the real concern about Iran.  It’s still enriching uranium without the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

MARGOLIS: As to the question why now?  Burns argues that the game has changed since a deal was proposed last fall.  Iran has more raw materials.

BURNS:  President Obama and President Sarkozy had announced last autumn an arrangement with Iran whereby up to 70% of Iran’s low enriched uranium would be shipped out of Iran.  That would have made it impossible for Iran to have continued to enrich sufficient material to produce a nuclear weapon.  This agreement, as far as the press reports are concerned, and I’m just looking at the press reports, would only take about 50% of the low enriched uranium out of Iran leaving a lot of material in the country to potentially enrich to a weapons grade level, and to give Iran the prospect of continuing its nuclear program.

MARGOLIS: Iran’s foreign minister said this new deal should lead to cooperation and avoid confrontation. In other words, Iran should not be subject to further U.N. sanctions.  The President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy said the new deal does not change Europe’s position about Iran’s nuclear program.

HERMAN VAN ROMPUY:  Iran has so far refused to engage in serious discussions on reasonable concerns related to its nuclear program.  Iran needs to reassure the international community about the intentions behind its nuclear program.

MARGOLIS: Critics of today’s deal say Iran is simply stalling, trying to avoid sanctions while also attempting to win propaganda points.  Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister, Matan Vilnai, cut to the chase.  He said Iran is intent on getting nuclear weapons.  That Iran is taking steps that are far from benign as the President of Brazil tells it.  Iran is supposed to send details of today’s proposal to the IAEA within a week.  The White House is taking a wait and see approach, but stressed today that Iran has repeatedly failed to live up to its own commitments.  For The World, I’m Jason Margolis.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage of nuclear security summit in DC
• Nuclear Summit homepage
• Iran and the nuclear issue
• Matthew Bell previews the DC summit

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston.  As you just heard, world leaders have gathered in Washington for a summit on nuclear security.  President Obama called the conference to address the threat of groups such as Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear materials.  Iran was not invited, but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is holding his own nuclear summit in Tehran this weekend.  Jim Walsh will be there.  He is a research associate at MIT’s Securities Studies Program.  He says the conferences in Washington and Tehran will both address nuclear issues, but not the same ones.

JIM WALSH:  I think President Ahmadinejad is confused on this because the conference in Washington is about nuclear material, not about nuclear weapons.  It’s about taking measures to prevent that material from falling into the hands of terrorists.  The conference in Tehran is going to be on nuclear power and nuclear weapons or disarmament.  And the reason, I think, why they would have this conference is because next month in May there’s going to be the meeting of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  That’s a meeting that happens once every five years and typically at these meetings Iran ends up being a focal point.  So this is a chance for Iran to sort of get ahead of the curve, come up with a message to try to get its act together for the NPT meeting.

WERMAN: And why are you going Jim?  What’s interesting in this particular conference for you?

WALSH: Well the topic, I work on nuclear issues, and frankly, if Iran wants to say that it’s in favor of civilian nuclear energy but is against nuclear weapons, then I think that’s great.  I think that’s what the world wants and it’s a question of making that happen and having confidence that it’s true.  But the more you have officials saying that line; I think the more it’s a constraint on any weapons activities they might have in the future.

WERMAN: Isn’t this what Iran has always said though, we want nuclear power, we don’t want nuclear weapons?

WALSH: They have always said it.  The problem of course is that there continues to be concern and suspicion.  The International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA has gone through rounds of investigations and has said that while Iran apparently is not diverting material from any of its plants to a weapons program, there are other activities that are of concern and they continue to have questions that they feel are unanswered.

WERMAN: And who is invited to the Iran conference and, more to the point, who is attending?

WALSH: Well these conferences are typically large conferences involving many nations.  But I would expect you’ll see people from China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Central Asia, European states and I think there are at least six or seven Americans who may be going and that’s a far larger number than is typically the case.

WERMAN: And a lot of these players are at the conference in Washington.  What do you think the significance is of major players going to both conferences?  Is this a good thing or a bad thing for the White House and its goals?

WALSH: I think it’s good for both countries to attend both conferences.  Again, it’s an opportunity for those foreign ministers to talk to Foreign Minister Motaki and make clear their concerns and possibly also to talk about a way forward, a way where everyone can get what they want.  Where we have confidence that that nuclear program is not going to be used for military purposes, but that they Iranians get what they need which is a civilian nuclear program that they can take some pride in and show off.  If we’re going to resolve a nuclear issue, that’s the only way it’s going to happen where there’s some sort of negotiated settlement and which all sides can feel safe and secure and that’s only going to happen if there is some dialogue between the parties.

WERMAN: Jim Walsh with MIT’s Securities Studies Program, thank you very much Jim.

WALSH: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Music this week by Spunkshine. Don’t forget, we’re aiming for 1,000 fans on Facebook by the end of May!

This week’s tech podcast starts by giving you a bird’s eye view on nukes. In the wake of the new treaty signed last week by President’s Obama and Medvedev, and the Nuclear Security Summit now happening in Washington, we wanted to find out how you keep track of nuclear developments worldwide. Well, one way is with satellites. We have an extended interview with with Kevin Pomfret, Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy. Kevin talks about GeoEye satellite images of nuclear, and supposedly nuclear, sites around the world. Well worth a look.

Here are some more helpful links from this week’s show:

• GeoEye website
• BBC: More from their special series of reports on the global Internet
• BBC profile of “Jihad Jane”
• Discovery Tech Online: Turning CO2 Back into Fuel
• Video: Jim Lovell remembers Apollo 13
• Romeo and Juliet: Such Tweet Sorrow
• The World’s Tech Podcast on Twitter

Remember, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes, or RSS. You can also sign up to receive the podcast each week via email.

Also, tell five of your friends…or enemies…about the ‘cast.

• See satellite images from GeoEye
• Kevin Pomfret’s blog
• GeoEye website

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  One way to keep nuclear materials safe is to monitor them 24/7.  Satellite technology comes in handy for that.  Satellite images also help to verify compliance with nuclear treaties like the one Russia and the U.S. signed this week.  Kevin Pomfret is Executive Director of the Center for Spatial Law and Policy.  He also helped develop the way the U.S. government uses satellite imagery to monitor arms control agreements.  Pomfret says the images are used in a variety of ways.

KEVIN POMFRET:  One way is to monitor what is going on at facilities that the other party in the agreement has said is going to go on there.  Another way is to look at facilities that haven’t been identified and to see what’s going on there, to see if they’re doing things outside the terms of the agreement.

WERMAN: And so for verifying the terms of agreements, I’ve seen pictures of B-52 bombers in the Mojave Desert where their wings are chopped off and it’s an aerial shot.  Is that the kind of thing we’re talking about where both sides get to see these images and literally count up the weapons that have been destroyed on the picture?

POMFRET: That’s part of it.  Part of it is under the terms of the agreement that the parties are required in the open to make sure that they destroy missiles or destroy aircraft or whatever is covered by the terms of the agreement so that the other party can use their national technical means, as it’s called, their satellites to verify what has been done.  But another part of it is to look at places where they have not identified and to see, for instance, if they’re mobile missiles, where they may be hiding them if you’re looking for those types of things.

WERMAN: So this doesn’t rule out human inspections or some kind of documentation of weapons stockpiles?

POMFRET: Not at all.  We’ll have inspectors on the ground, we’ll exchange images or we’ll exchange data about particular missiles and we’ll also have imagery that we can go and look to see that they’re complying with the terms, whether it’s destructing missiles, whether it’s moving missiles and technology to a certain facility, those types of things.

WERMAN: What are the technological limitations, the pitfalls of using satellite imagery instead of other methods for this kind of work?

POMFRET: That’s a good question.  I think one of the pitfalls is that you can rely too much on national technical means, but I think that can be overcome by understanding what it is that you can and can’t do with satellites.  So for instance, resolution is an important limitation, but the quality of the imagery has now gotten to a level where, I’m sure, inside the government agencies, as compared to commercial satellite images that you can get high quality imagery to see what is done.  Revisit has been another limitation, although between the commercial satellites that out there and the government satellites, I’m sure that they’re getting a good deal of coverage and pretty frequent revisit of these facilities.  So although there are limitations, I don’t think that they are as significant as they were say even 10 or 15 years ago.

WERMAN: Now all of this monitoring effort is, of course, to ensure that countries do comply with agreements like yesterday’s START agreement.  How much of a problem, though, is compliance generally when it comes to arms reduction agreements?

POMFRET: It’s an issue.  If we’re not just talking about the START treaty, but if we’re talking about other sorts of treaties having to do with arms control and nuclear proliferation, compliance is an issue.  And I think particularly with countries that we don’t have the access, for instance Iran and South Korea, excuse me, North Korea, imagery, satellite imagery is very critical to understanding what’s going on and understanding what it is that they may be doing or not doing.

WERMAN: Lawyer Kevin Pomfret is on the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium, thank you very much for joining us.

POMFRET: Thank you Marco.

WERMAN: By the way, we have some pretty fascinating and detailed satellite pictures of facilities in North Korea and Iran along the lines of what Kevin Pomfret and I just spoke about.  They’ve just gone live at the world dot org where you can check them out.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Read the Nuclear Posture Review (pdf)
• Foreign Policy: Nuclear Posture Review (or Nuclear Public Relations?)

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  The Obama administration says it’s moving away from a Cold War era mindset on nuclear weapons.  The Pentagon today released an official declaration on U.S. nuclear policy.  The so-called Nuclear Posture Review was about a year in the making.  And as The World’s Matthew Bell reports, it represents one step in the Obama administration’s effort to realize the President’s states goal of building a future free of nuclear weapons.

MATTHEW BELL:  Part of the challenge was to take President Obama’s speech in Prague last year, in which he talked about getting to nuclear zero, and then to get U.S. officials to agree on a series of actions to realize that vision.  The review says the administration’s goal is to reduce both the number of U.S. nuclear weapons, and U.S. reliance on its nuclear capability.  It says the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited for today’s threats.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates talked about those threats during a news briefing today at the Pentagon.

ROBERT GATES:  The review rightly places the prevention of nuclear terrorism and proliferation at the top of the U.S. nuclear policy agenda.  Given Al Qaeda’s continued quest for nuclear weapons, Iran’s ongoing nuclear efforts, and North Korea’s proliferation, this focus is appropriate an indeed essential, an essential change from previous reviews.

BELL: There had been a lot of speculation about how the Obama strategy would characterize the role of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  Would the administration renounce first use of nuclear weapons?  Would the review state that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies?  Gates said there was a lot of discussion about these questions inside the government and he said consensus was achieved by describing the “fundamental purpose: of the U.S. nuclear arsenal as one of deterrence.

GATES: We didn’t think we were far enough along the road toward getting control of nuclear weapons around the world to limit ourselves so explicitly and so I think there was general agreement that the term fundamental purpose basically made clear, and other language makes clear, this is obviously a weapon of last resort.

BELL: In a glaring departure from the previous administration, this Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, says the U.S. will not use nuclear weapons to attack a hostile, non-nuclear state that is also in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  That formulation carves out exceptions for terrorist groups and for countries such as Iran and North Korea.  Again, Secretary Gates.

GATES: If there is a message for Iran and North Korea here, it is that if you’re going to play by the rules, if you’re going to join the international community, then we will undertake certain obligations to you.  And that’s covered in the NPR.  But if you’re not going to play by the rules, if you’re going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you.

BELL: This justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal is a profound disappointment for advocates of a more aggressive move toward disarmament.  Jonathan Schell is an expert at Yale University on nuclear issues.  Schell says President Obama isn’t moving fast enough or far enough away from Cold War era thinking.

JONATHAN SCHELL:  His vision is extremely positive and the elements are all there.  The problem is the translation of the vision into concrete action.  That’s what we need to see and that’s what we haven’t seen sufficiently so far in my opinion.

BELL: At bare minimum, Schell says the Obama administration’s policy review should have renounced U.S. first use of nuclear weapons and then, it might have also included a commitment to draw down U.S. nuclear defenses deployed decades ago.

SCHELL: The United States has nuclear weapons in Europe which were put there to guard against the Soviet conventional invasion of Europe.  Well there is no, do I have to say it that there is no Soviet Union and the idea that Russia would do any such thing is just beyond absurd.

BELL: But even critics like Schell might be holding out some hope.  Later this week President Obama plans to sign a new arms control treaty with Russia an next week the President will host a nuclear security summit in Washington with several dozen heads of state.  For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Iran and the nuclear issue

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman, this is The world.  President Obama has scrambled for months to halt Iran’s suspected march toward nuclear weapons.  His cajoling of world power brokers seems to have fallen on deaf ears in Russia and especially in China.  China is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and wields veto power over any resolution sanctioning Iran.  But the administration now sounds pretty confident it will have Beijing’s support for tougher sanctions when Chinese President Hu Jin Tao comes to Washington in two weeks.  Still, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator made his nation’s case today to the Chinese government and he believes China in his side.  The World’s Laura Lynch has more.

LAURA LYNCH:  China sits at the heart of any new efforts to step up pressure on Iran because of it’s power to veto any new actions proposed at the U.N. Security Council.  So, it’s no surprise Chinese officials are getting friendly calls and visits from those on opposite sides of the dispute.  First it was President Obama talking to Chinese President Hu Jin Tao yesterday in an hour-long call urging him to back the call for more sanctions.  Today Mr. Obama spoke to CBS about the importance of building a united front to keep up pressure on Tehran.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  The regime has become more isolated since I came into office.  Part of the reason that we reached out to them was to say you’ve got a path.  You can take a path that allows you to rejoin the international community, or you can take a path of developing nuclear weapons capacity that further isolates you.  And now we’re seeing them further isolated.  Over time that is going to have an effect on their economy.  Now, I have said before that we don’t take any options off the table and we’re going to continue to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond.

LYNCH: But Iran isn’t backing down.  It’s chief nuclear negotiator, Sayed Jalili met with China’s foreign minister today in Beijing.  Afterward Jalili suggested he had won over the Chinese to Iran’s side.

INTERPRETER:  Our Chinese friends say this problem can only be solved through negotiations and peaceful means and that some big countries should give up their incorrect actions.  Pressuring through sanctions will be ineffective.

LYNCH: Although China agreed to three earlier resolutions on sanctions against Iran, up until now it has opposed taking further punitive measures.  A spokesman for China’s foreign ministry Gin Gang, reiterates China’s long time stance of wanting the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program settled through negotiations.

INTERPRETER:  China is highly concerned with the Iranian nuclear issue.  We have been keeping in contact with all the relevant parties to push forward a diplomatic and proper resolution to the issue and make progress.

LYNCH: But the White House says it’s making progress with China Hu Jin Tao has agreed to travel to Washington to participate in a nuclear securities summit in just under two weeks.  Evan Figenbaum of the Council on Foreign Relations sees a slow but steady shift by China.

EVAN FIGENBAUM:  Chinese generally don’t like to be isolated and I think its been clear for some time that the Chinese would move in the direction of not getting in the way of a Security Council resolution.

LYNCH: But Figenbaum says that doesn’t necessarily mean Mr. Obama will be able to claim a diplomatic victory because agreeing to sanctions is one thing, ensuring they are effective is another.

FIGENBAUM:  Even with moderate enforcement, I think there are those who follow the Iran nuclear issue closely who are skeptical that this is going to produce the desired result.  And if it doesn’t, then the issues with China will become much tougher six months down the road.

LYNCH: Tougher for China because of what’s at stake for Beijing.  The country depends on Iran to deliver 11 percent of its ever-growing need for energy.  And China has become Iran’s biggest trading partner, making the economic ties that much more difficult to undo.  For The World, I’m Laura Lynch.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• ‘How We Got Here’ podcast
• Francis J. Gavin: “Same As It Ever Was”

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  Vice President Biden wasn’t just talking to the Israelis today about negotiations with the Palestinians; he also brought up the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN:  We’re determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  And we’re working with many countries around the world to convince Tehran to meet its international obligations and cease and desist.

WERMAN:  The Obama administration had hoped to negotiate with Iran on this issue.  Instead it finds itself spearheading efforts to get the U.N. Security Council to impose stricter sanctions.  Still, as the tough talk on Iran’s nuclear program escalates, there are some voices saying the dangers are exaggerated.  The World’s Jeb Sharp reports.

JEB SHARP:  One of those voices is that of Frank Gavin.  He’s the Director of the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin.  In an op ed that appeared in the Los Angeles Times today Gavin argues that fears about Iran’s nuclear program are overblown.

FRANK GAVIN:  I would prefer a world that Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons.  I don’t argue that they should have nuclear weapons.  But I think on the list of problems we have in the world, it certainly doesn’t rank with some of the others and I think, more importantly, the policies that we might take to try to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons has the possibility of creating a far more dangerous world.

SHARP: Gavin says the West assumes Iran is behaving irrationally when in fact; it’s behaving as any other state would in the same situation.

GAVIN: When you have the largest country in the world pressuring you, when you live in a neighborhood that has several countries, India, Pakistan, Israel with nuclear weapons, when you have conflicts on several of your borders, it’s not irrational that they want these.

SHARP: Frank Gavin thinks the U.S. rhetoric should be much quieter and more matter-of-fact.  We don’t want you, Iran, to have nuclear weapons and if you pursue them there will be consequences.  But he doesn’t like the idea of more sanctions and he thinks threats and pressures could backfire.  He also thinks they help bolster the Iranian regime by giving it an external threat to rally domestic support.  But Jacqueline Shire of the Institute for Science and International Security says one reason it’s important to keep up the pressure for sanctions is precisely to keep open the possibility of talking to Iran.

JACQUELINE SHIRE:  What’s important to remember is that if you completely take sanctions off the table, you’re left with either capitulation or military strike and we don’t want to see that binary choice.  We want to see diplomacy, negotiation, further talks, perhaps some sanctions if that’s necessary, but what we really want to do is get Iran back into the talks with the United States and its European partners.

SHARP: As for military strikes, Shire says you can’t really take that option off the table either.

SHIRE:  There are circumstances under which the United States and maybe other countries in the region, in particular Israel, would consider using military force, perhaps legitimately if it was believe that Iran was on the verge of having and wielding a nuclear device, right?  Because ultimately it’s about our own peace and security, U.S. interests are driven by that.  But that’s not where we are right now, so I think it’s important to, knowing that, focus on the route of diplomacy and sanctions.

SHARP: Even as the U.S. focuses on diplomacy though, there’s a growing recognition that Iran may have a nuclear weapon one day relatively soon.  Frank Gavin says there have been rogue states with nuclear weapons before.  He includes the Soviet Union and Mao’s China during the cold war.

GAVIN: And they were infinitely more rogue than today’s Iran.  The kind of things that Mao’s China did in the 1960′s dwarfs anything that is going on in Iran today.  Yet we learned to live with China.

SHARP: Gavin says that doesn’t mean Iran having nuclear weapons would be a good thing just that it doesn’t have to be the apocalyptic threat people make it out to be.  But that’s still a distinctly minority opinion in U.S. foreign policy circles.  Again, Jacqueline Shire.

SHIRE:  This is not a road we want to go down and I think every effort has to be exerted to prevent that from happening.

SHARP: For its part, Iran continues to insist that it’s not building a nuclear arsenal.  For The World, I’m Jeb Sharp.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• On The World: US missiles and Iran
• Background Brief: Nuclear Standoff with Iran
• The Inheritance: book info

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Shirin Ebadi did see some action from President Obama today.  He extended U.S. sanctions against Iran.  The administration froze the assets of the engineering arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.  The move is a response to Iran’s declaration that it has started the process of further enriching uranium.  Some are calling for stronger measures, possibly even military ones, but the U.S. is already pursuing another option.  Washington has reportedly been engaged in a covert campaign to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.  David Sanger is Chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times.  He says the U.S., Israel and several European nations have all attempted to sabotage Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

DAVID SANGER:  Over the years there have been many efforts to interfere with key elements of the supply chain that’s fed into the nuclear program.  There was a famous incident where the Iranian’s brought in power supplies for the centrifuges that enrich uranium.  And what do you know if the first 50 they brought in didn’t blow up?  Well they had been tinkered with before they made their way into Iran.  The Iranians then adjusted and went off and found some other suppliers.  Increasingly if you look at the Iranian program, they have begun to make more of their own parts by themselves in Iran.

WERMAN: And did U.S. officials confirm that there had been covert tinkering with those cylinders?

SANGER: You know, when I went back to the U.S. officials and described these events, one of them looked at me and said “Boy, what a shame.  Accidents do happen.”  But that’s only part of the effort.  There was, in 2008, a new program under way to disrupt the power grid going into the Natan nuclear facility, which is where much of the enrichment happens.  Its unclear how successful that was and at the time that President Bush left office, the program was still in its – - shape.  But all the indications are that it has continued since President Obama took over.

WERMAN: Now we heard in the previous story about the ongoing street protests in Iran and the instability those demonstrations create, does that sort of atmosphere provide even more opportunity for these sorts of covert efforts?  Or did they jeopardize those efforts?

SANGER: Figuring out to play the opposition movement on the streets in Iran has been one of the hardest problems facing the Obama administration.  On the one hand they are more sanctioned, particularly against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp which runs the nuclear program, but also has been cracking down on the protestors.  At the same time, even the opposition in Iran is an extraordinarily nationalistic opposition.  Many of the opposition leaders support the nuclear program.  So any American policy makers who believe that if the opposition wins the nuclear problem is over, well that may be too hasty a conclusion.

WERMAN: It’s interesting, one of the officials you spoke with admitted that none of these covert efforts are game-changers, so I guess the bottom line is no matter what the United States is engaging in with Iran; the effort to produce nuclear material is marching on, isn’t it?

SANGER: It is marching on, not quite as fast as the Iranians would like.  But remember, a lot of this effort is about buying time.  Initially it was about buying time from the Israelis to keep the Israelis from striking the nuclear facilities and figuring a broader conflict.  But the new factor in all of this is the fragility of the regime facing these protests.  Clearly the administration is hoping that by buying some time, they might see the regime fall of its own weight.

WERMAN: And what do you think about that hypothesis?

SANGER: These are unpredictable things.  Every American President since Harry Truman has been convinced that the North Korean regime would be gone in a few years.  Well guess what, the regime is still there.

WERMAN: David Sanger writes for the New York Times.  His latest book is The Inheritance, the World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Speaking in Washington, he said despite Tehran’s denials, it was clear Iran was working to build nuclear weapons. His remarks came after Iranian state media reported that Iran had started the process of enriching uranium to 20% for use in a medical research reactor.

In an unexpected appearance in the White House briefing room, the President said the US was confident the international community was “unified around Iran’s misbehavior in this area”. He said the new push for sanctions on Iran was “moving along fairly quickly” and should be completed in the next few weeks.

Mr Obama also said he was pleased at Russia’s quick disapproval of Iran’s latest move. But he said it was unclear how China would respond to a new push at the UN Security Council for another round of sanctions against Iran. China, a UN Security Council member, has called for further talks over the issue. China and Russia have been reluctant in the past to support international sanctions against Iran.

President Ahmadinejad at the Natanz facility

Iran currently enriches uranium to a level of 3.5% but requires 20% enriched uranium for its research reactor, which is meant to produce medical isotopes. A bomb would require uranium enriched to at least 90%. The US and its Western allies say Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon – a charge Iran has repeatedly denied.

In October, a deal brokered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was thought to have been struck for Iran to send its uranium to Russia and France for enrichment. But last month, diplomats said Iran had told the IAEA that it did not accept the terms of the deal – though there have since been other, conflicting messages. Iran is already subject to three sets of UN sanctions for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

Missile tests

In December 2009 Iran successfully test-fired an improved version of a medium-range missile, state television has said. TV pictures showed the launch of the Sajjil-2 rocket, which experts say has the range to be able to hit Israel and US bases in the Gulf.

In September, Iran was heavily criticized after testing its Sajjil and Shahab missiles which could travel approximately 1,200 miles. Those tests came just weeks after Iran revealed the existence of a previously secret nuclear facility in the mountains near the city of Qom.

More info about Iran’s arsenal of missiles

On Dec 15th, 2009, Iran denied a report in The Times of London that it has been working on a key component of a nuclear bomb. A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Ramin Mehmanparast, said the report had political aims and was part of a psychological war. The newspaper reported that it had obtained documents referring to a neutron source – uranium deuteride – that experts say can only relate to weapons research. Uranium deuteride can be used as a trigger for a nuclear chain reaction. However, Mr Mehmanparast said: “Some countries are angry that our people defend their nuclear rights.” He said that when Western powers wanted to put pressure on Iran, they “crafted such scenarios, which is unacceptable”. He said the report was “baseless”.

Read the story in the Times of London

In November, the head of Iran’s nuclear program has accused the West of provoking his country into launching a plan to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants. Ali Akbar Salehi said a UN demand for Iran to halt work on a recently revealed site had “prompted the government to approve the plan”. Iran’s proposed new plants would be of a similar size to its main existing enrichment plant at Natanz. Salehi, who is also vice-president of Iran, said: “We had no intention of building many facilities like the Natanz site but apparently the West doesn’t want to understand Iran’s peaceful message.” He accused foreign powers of pushing the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to rebuke Iran for covering up another uranium enrichment plant near the town of Qom. The IAEA demanded that Iran freeze the project immediately. The resolution, the first against Iran in nearly four years, was passed by a 25-3 margin with six abstentions on Nov 27.

On the World: Katy Clark on the censure vote
Download MP3

Iran called the move “useless” but Washington said it showed time was running out for Iran to address key issues. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US and some of its western allies suspects Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons. In September, it emerged that as well as its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, Iran had a second such facility near the town of Qom (satellite image).

The IAEA resolution was passed with rare Russian and Chinese backing. Only Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia voted against it. After the resolution, the US said Iran needed to address “the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions”. “Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast called the IAEA vote “a theatrical move aimed at pressuring Iran” that would be “useless”, state news agency Irna reported.

The resolution came a day after the outgoing head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, expressed frustration at Iran’s refusal to accept an international proposal to end the dispute over its nuclear program. The plan envisages Iran’s low-enriched uranium being shipped overseas for processing into fuel. This is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it wants, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.

On The World: Jeb Sharp speaks with Joseph Cirincione, a non-proliferation expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund in Washington about Iran’s nuclear ambitions (Oct 26).
Download MP3

Qom facility

Tehran insists it has the right to develop nuclear energy, but the revelation of a second uranium-enrichment facility in September has once again raised fears that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran revealed its second nuclear plant on September 21st. The IAEA had requested “specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible” after receiving the letter from Tehran admitting to the existence of the plant. Iran has previously acknowledged it has one enrichment plant, at Natanz.

On The World: Katy Clark on Iran announcing the existence of a second enrichment facility (Sep 25):
Download MP3

Iran insists that all its nuclear facilities are for peaceful energy purposes and rejects accusations from Washington and others that it is seeking a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials have denied that the latest plant was any kind of clandestine project. Iran says it does not need to inform the IAEA of any new site until 180 days before any nuclear material is placed in the facility. The existence of Iran’s first enrichment plant, at Natanz, was only confirmed after intelligence emerged from Iranian exile groups several years ago.

In July 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Iran and North Korea will face severe consequences if they do not abandon their nuclear ambitions. At a regional summit in Thailand, Secretary Clinton said the US was prepared to bolster the defense of Gulf allies if Iran developed nuclear weapons. An American Gulf “defense umbrella” would make it unlikely Iran would be stronger or safer with a weapon, Clinton said. She reiterated President Barack Obama’s policy that talks were still an option between Iran and the US, but that “crippling action” could also be considered.

On April 9th, Iran’s president opened the country’s first nuclear fuel production plant, making what correspondents say was a defiant speech. President Ahmadinejad said Iran was open to an offer of fresh talks with world powers, but only if they were based on “justice” and “respect”.

In a speech from Isfahan, Ahmadinejad said Iran had tested two new types of centrifuge with higher capacities at a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. The newly-opened plant in Isfahan will produce pellets of uranium oxide to fuel a heavy-water reactor planned for completion by 2010, the Associated Press reported. This signals Iran has reached the final stage in the nuclear fuel cycle, analysts say.

In March 2009 President Barack Obama offered “a new beginning” of engagement with Tehran in an unprecedented direct video message to the Iranian people. “My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us,” Mr Obama said. Mr Obama’s message was released to coincide with the festival of Nowruz, when Iranians mark the arrival of spring. In it, President Obama said he wanted “to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. He said his administration was committed “to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community”.

Watch the President’s appeal to Iran

An advisor to Iran’s president welcomed Mr Obama’s message but said Washington had to fundamentally change policy. Relations between Iran and the U.S. have been strained over Tehran’s controversial nuclear activities.

In February Iranian and Russian nuclear officials began a test run of Iran’s first nuclear power plant. The test involves dummy rods that imitate the enriched uranium needed to run the Russian-built plant at Bushehr. The test further increased fears in the West about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. An Iranian official told journalists at Bushehr that Iran had increased the number of its centrifuges enriching uranium at another site to 6,000.

The reactor was first started by a German company under the Shah in 1975, but revolution and war stalled work there until the Russians took it on in 1995. Operations of the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor have been long delayed, though it is expected to start generating power later this year.

Iran is currently defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium. It says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The country has pledged not to break its obligations under the NPT and will not use the technology to make nuclear weapons.

However, the Iranian authorities hid their uranium enrichment program for 18 years, and the Security Council says they should stop enrichment and certain other nuclear activities until their peaceful intentions can be fully established.

On July 8th, 2008 the U.S. imposed new financial sanctions on Iranian individuals and companies suspected of involvement in the country’s nuclear program. A senior defense ministry scientist and several companies thought to be linked to Iran’s arms industry were among those placed on the restricted list. The move will ban American companies from trading with those on the list, who will also have their U.S. assets frozen.

It came as G8 leaders called for Iran to halt uranium enrichment work. In April, 2008 the IAEA said it believed Iran is still withholding information on its nuclear program. In a report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tehran’s alleged weapons development studies remain a matter of serious concern.

On March 3rd, 2008 the UN Security Council voted in favor of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Fourteen of the council’s fifteen members voted in favor of measures including asset freezes and travel bans for Iranian officials. Indonesia abstained.

This third sanctions resolution adds to resolutions adopted in 2006 and 2007. It calls for the foreign assets of 13 Iranian companies to be frozen, and imposes travel bans on five Iranian officials. It imposes a ban on the sale to Iran of so-called dual-use items – which can have either a military or civilian purpose.

The five permanent, veto-wielding members of the council – the United States, France, Britain, China, and Russia – all supported the resolution. The non-permanent members – none of whom possesses the power of veto – all backed it, except Indonesia, which abstained, saying it remained to be convinced of the necessity of the sanctions.

In a statement before the vote, Iran’s envoy to the UN, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, described the resolution as politically motivated, illegal, and illegitimate. He insisted Iran’s nuclear program “has been, is, and will remain, absolutely peaceful”.

President George W. Bush said in December 2007 that Iran should reveal the full extent of its nuclear program, or risk further international isolation. The National Intelligence Estimate released on Dec. 3rd said that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But Mr Bush said Iran still had “more to explain” about its past actions, and that it must cease uranium enrichment.

Click here to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (2007)

Iran’s nuclear program

Iran has been developping the technology of enriching uranium. This process involves converting uranium ore into a gas. The gas is then spun through centrifuges to separate the richer parts that can be used as fuel in a nuclear power station.

Western countries are concerned because this technology can also be used to get an even higher level of enrichment, and this highly enriched uranium can be used in the development of a nuclear bomb.

Iran hid important parts of its nuclear program for many years. In December 2002 satellite photography confirmed the existence of sites at Natanz (uranium enrichment plant) and Arak (heavy water plant). The United States has accused Tehran of “across-the-board pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.” Iran denies that, but it agreed to inspections by the IAEA.

The UN Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment activities while talks take place about its long-term plans.

Is Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon?

Iran says it is not. It says it is simply exercising its right under an international treaty on nuclear weapons known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT bans Iran from developing a nuclear bomb but does allow the country to develop civilian nuclear power. That includes developing nuclear fuel needed to power nuclear stations.

What does the IAEA say about Iran?

The IAEA has Iran’s fuel enrichment plant under its surveillance and says in its latest report in February 2009 that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium, though IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says this is not at such a high rate as earlier.

The IAEA also says that, following a detailed examination, it had found that Iran has accumulated more low-enriched uranium than had been thought – more than 1000 kilograms. This is regarded as enough basic material from which to make a nuclear device. However the uranium would have to be enriched further and the IAEA is watching. It says it has found no evidence that Iran has diverted material for weapons purposes.

The IAEA also reports that Iran is not cooperating with its request for an answer to questions about possible studies on nuclear warheads carried out in the past.

Jan 10, 2006: Iran removes UN seals at Natanz plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.

Feb 4, 2006: IAEA votes to report Iran to UN Security Council. Iran ends snap UN nuclear inspections the next day. Ten days later Iran restarts small-scale feeding of uranium gas into centrifuges at Natanz after a 2-1/2-year suspension.

Apr 28, 2006: IAEA report submitted to Security Council confirms Iran has disregarded UN demands to suspend enrichment.

Jul 31, 2006: Security Council demands Iran suspend its nuclear activities by Aug 31st. In a resolution, council makes legally binding demands on Iran and threatens sanctions.

Aug 26, 2006: Iran launches new phase in Arak heavy-water reactor project.

Aug 31, 2006: IAEA announces Iran has not met deadline to suspend its atomic fuel program and has resumed enriching small amounts of uranium.

Oct 6, 2006: Six world powers say they have agreed to discuss sanctions to punish Tehran for failing to halt uranium enrichment but are still open to negotiations.

Nov 14, 2006: A confidential IAEA report says that Iran is pushing ahead with uranium enrichment and still stonewalling agency investigations despite the risk of UN sanctions.

Dec 23, 2006: UN security council adopts sanctions against Iran, passed unanimously, which ban the supply of nuclear materials

Mar 24, 2007: UN security council widens sanctions against Iran, with new resolution.

Apr 9, 2007: Iran says it has “joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.”

May 23, 2007: IAEA report says Iran is continuing to defy UN demands to stop enriching uranium.

Dec 3, 2007: National Intelligence Estimate suggests that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003

Jan 22, 2008: Permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany agree new draft resolution of fresh sanctions against Iran

Mar 3, 2008: UN Security Council adopts a third round of sanctions against Iran

Sep 21, 2009: Iran reveals existence of a second uranium-enrichment facility at Qom

Nov 27, 2009: IAEA votes to censure Iran over its nuclear progam

Iran’s key nuclear sites

Qom – uranium enrichment plant
The facility is believed to be on a mountain on a former Iranian Revolutionary Guards missile site to the north-east of Qom on the Qom-Aliabad highway, Western diplomatic sources say. Construction on the secret facility started in earnest in mid-2006. It is believed that the plant is not yet operational. It is believed to have facility for 3,000 centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Iran wrote to the International Atomic Energy Agency saying it intended to build a plant to enrich uranium to 5% – not enough for a weapon. It told the IAEA it was already under construction but provided few details.

Bushehr – nuclear power station
Iran’s nuclear program began in 1974 with plans to build a nuclear power station at Bushehr with German assistance.
The project was abandoned because of the Islamic revolution five years later, but revived in the 1990s when Tehran signed an agreement with Russia to resume work at the site. Moscow delayed completion on the project while the UN Security Council debated and then passed resolutions aimed at stopping uranium enrichment in Iran.

In December 2007, Moscow started delivering the canisters of enriched uranium the plant needs. Earlier in the same month, a US intelligence report said Iran was not currently running a military nuclear program. There are two pressurised water reactors at the site.

Isfahan – uranium conversion plant

Iran is building a plant here to convert uranium ore into three forms:
• Hexafluoride gas – used in gas centrifuges
• Uranium oxide – used to fuel reactors, but not the type Iran is constructing
• Metal – often used in the core of nuclear bombs. The IAEA is concerned about the metal’s use, as Iran’s reactors do not require it as fuel.

Natanz – uranium enrichment plant

Iran resumed uranium enrichment work at Natanz in July 2004, after a halt during negotiations with leading European powers over its programme. It announced in September 2007 that it had installed 3,000 centrifuges, the machines that do the enrichment.

This is the facility at the heart of Iran’s dispute with the United Nations Security Council. The Council is concerned because the technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used to enrich the uranium to a much higher level to produce a nuclear explosion.

Arak – heavy water plant

The existence of a heavy water facility near the town of Arak first emerged with the publication of satellite images by the US-based Institute for Science and International Security in December 2002. Heavy water is used to moderate the nuclear fission chain reaction either in a certain type of reactor – albeit not the type that Iran is currently building – or produce plutonium for use in a nuclear bomb.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  Iran announced today that it has launched a research rocket into space.  What makes this launch unusual is the passenger list.  The rocket is carrying a mouse, two turtles, and about a dozen worms.  The announcement of the Iranian launch came two days after President Obama made clear his intention to scrap NASA’s Back to the Moon Program.  John Pike is Director of Global Security dot org.  That’s a defense information website based in Alexandria, Virginia.   John, it’s been a tumultuous week for those who think about space travel.  President Barrack Obama is asking off government support for U.S. manned space flights beyond earth’s orbit, and the Iranian’s are sending worms and a mouse into space.  Is this what space travel has come to?

JOHN PIKE: Well, unfortunately in instances [PH] like this, yes.  You know, I mean, when I was a kid it was all boldly go where no one has gone before, and we were going to have moon bases and all that other kind of stuff.  And, you know, it just seems to be kind of petering out ending with a whimper, not a bang.

WERMAN: Let’s get back to this Iranian passenger manifest as it were.  Why turtles, a mouse and worms?

PIKE: Well, I think because number one they actually do have a space program.  Number two, these are the types of things that the Americans and Russians did early in their program and I think that the Iranians are just kind of going down the list and checking off.  Everything that the Americans have done well, you know, we’re going to do it as well to show that Iran is a big country and can do everything the super powers do.  And it achieved exactly what they wanted it to do.  With us talking about it, their people noticed that Iran has rockets that can be used both for space flight and as weapons.

WERMAN: Are other nations, you know, picking up the ball that Washington seems to be dropping?

PIKE: Well, it’s hard to say, of course.  Certainly when you look at some of the things they Chinese are doing, you always have to worry that we’re only going to find out about a Chinese mission to the moon after the thing has actually been launched.

WERMAN: What about the opening for increased international cooperation on space exploration?  Do you see any sign of that being on the up swing?

PIKE: We’ve certainly seen a continuation of international cooperation on the international space station.  Whether there are any new opportunities for extending that either adding more partners like China to the space station, or developing an international partnership for deep space flight.  No one really seems to be talking about that right now.

WERMAN: So John, people have been on the moon.  There’s talk of sending people to Mars maybe although fuel for return would be in short supply.  Remind us, though, how far out there has deep travel exploration gone?

PIKE: Well, human space flight has gone to the moon about a quarter of a million miles away, robotic space missions, our flying beyond the orbit of Pluto, billions of miles away.  Unfortunately, to get to the nearest star you’re going to have to have an awful lot of zeroes beyond that.

WERMAN: Right and the Hubble went how far?

PIKE: Well, the Hubble has remained in low earth orbit, but it has seen back to the dawn of the universe, which would 01214 billion light years away.

WERMAN: Right, and Voyager, that’s the one that went up past Pluto?

PIKE: That’s currently flying beyond Pluto several billion miles away from the earth.

WERMAN: Wow, that’s a long place to go to.  So, John, final question.  Apparently, according to press reports from Russia, Russia has no plans to go to the moon.  So in your opinion the next man or woman to set foot on the foot where are they going to be from?

PIKE: Well, I hope that the next human being to land on the moon is going to be from planet Earth. I don’t think they’re going to be Russian. And it doesn’t look like they’re going to be American.  Maybe they’ll be Chinese.  Maybe it will be from a country that doesn’t exist right now.

WERMAN: Are you getting a sense that nobody is interested in going any more?

PIKE: Well, I just don’t have the sense that the moon has the political attraction that it did during the Cold War when there was a space race that was the exciting safe alternative to the Arms Race.  Sending people to the moon is expensive, and in the absence of a clear political payoff it just isn’t going to happen. So I think that the footsteps and flags that the Americans put on the moon four decades ago I think they’re going to be lonely for quite some time to come.

WERMAN: John Pike, Director of Global Security dot org.  Good of you to join us again.  Thanks a lot.

PIKE: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review 2010
• Background Brief: Nuclear Standoff with Iran

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is the World. The Pentagon says it’s expanding land and sea based missile defense systems in and around the Persian Gulf.  The moves are intended to counter what the U.S. considers a growing missile threat from Iran. The buildup comes as President Obama is pushing for a new round of sanctions against the Iranians over their nuclear program.   The World’s Matthew Bell reports that the military expansion seems to be part of an evolving policy toward Iran, one that emphasizes the stick more than the carrot.

MATTHEW BELL: The Pentagon is reported to be speeding up plans to put Patriot defensive missile installations in four Persian Gulf states.  They are Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.  The U.S. plan is nothing new.  It would be a continuation of something the Bush Administration started, but the timing is significant given the Iranians’ confrontation with the West over their nuclear program.  Muhammad Sahimi is an Iran expert at the University of Southern California.  He says boosting U.S. anti-missile capabilities in the region goes hand-in-hand with the Obama Administration’s efforts at diplomacy.

MUHAMMAD SAHIMI: Some may call it gunboat diplomacy, but it is definitely part of the maneuvers that the Administration is going through hoping that the hard liners in Tehran will come around and reach an agreement.

BELL: Sahimi says Iran’s hard line leadership is already under enormous internal pressure.  It’s confronting a vigorous opposition protest movement.  On top of that, it’s facing the possibility of yet another round of economic sanctions.  Still, Sahimi says stepping up U.S. military capabilities in the Gulf might not be a good idea.

SAHIMI: This will only increase tension in that region. It will only add to the hostilities that Iran may have toward the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, and in the long run, it doesn’t contribute anything to peace and the stability in the region.

BELL: Other experts see the Obama Administration making a pivot on Iran, away from diplomacy and engagement and toward a tougher approach. Robert Kagan is an international relations expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

ROBERT KAGAN: The Administration is now, especially starting in February when France takes the seat at the U.N. Security Council, the Administration is going to be pressing hard for international sanctions on Iran.  And I think that they are preparing for what is going to be a tense period.

BELL: Kagan applauds President Obama’s apparent shift to a tougher line on Iran, and he says anti-missile systems send an important message to Washington’s Arab allies.

KAGAN: Clearly, it’s an attempt to reassure them that the United States supports their defense.  I think it’s also a way of continuing to get their allegiance as the situation gets more tense in the region. I think they don’t want the powers in the region, especially the smaller powers, to start thinking that they have no choice but to accommodate Iran.  I think that when you provide American security assistance to countries, the idea is that you should stick with the United States, and the United States is going to be capable of helping defend you.

BELL: This is also about sending a message to Israel, says Aaron David Miller.  He’s a former State Department advisor on Middle East issues and currently a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

AARON DAVID MILLER: The notion of reassuring the Israelis and trying to create a measure of determination and seriousness on the part of the Obama Administration to constrain or at least rule out the need for Israeli military action against Iran I think is quite high.

BELL: But Miller says the Israelis might be willing to hold off on a pre-emptive strike against Iran for only so long.

MILLER: If sanctions don’t work, if diplomacy fails then it seems to me as matters drift, they will invariably drift to the very real possibility of an Israeli unilateral military strike.

BELL: It’s not clear how Iran might respond in the near term to new and improved U.S. missile defense assets in the region.  Barbara Slavin is the author of a book about U.S./Iranian relations called, “Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies.”  She says the U.S. military moves should come as little surprise to Tehran.

BARBARA SLAVIN: Iranian actions, its nuclear program, missile tests and so on have clearly led to anxiety on the part of the Gulf States. And so this is to be expected I think if you’re Iran, and I would argue that the Iranian leadership is more focused right now on internal developments than it is on anything outside.

BELL: Slavin says the political uncertainty inside Iran makes it difficult to predict the government’s next move.  For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.