Iran Press Report Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Saudi Arabia’s nuclear ambition could shake up the region; a collection of analyses from Iranian and Western Media
National coalition asks Trump to stay in Iran Nuclear Deal
Wendy Sherman depicts a dark era following possible Iran Deal termination
Saudi Arabia to go nuclear: thoughts and analyses
The next leader of Saudi Arabia says his country would quickly obtain a nuclear bomb if arch rival Iran successfully develops its own nuclear weapon. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made the statement about a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East to "CBS This Morning" co-host Norah O'Donnell.
Saudi Arabia wants initially to build two nuclear stations as part of its medium term program to wean itself off oil. It plans to build 16 civil nuclear stations over 20 to 25 years generating 16 gigawatts of nuclear energy.
Although Saudi Arabia stresses it wants nuclear technology only for peaceful uses, it has left unclear whether it also wants to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel, a process which can be used in the production of atomic weapons.
Iran immediately hit back at the prince’s comments. “These words are worthless ... because they come from a simple mind full of illusions who speaks only bitterness and lies,” said Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi.
A range of countries including Russia, the US, the UK, France and Japan have been offering to partner with Saudi’s nuclear plans, putting the crown prince in a position to negotiate with the US on any restrictions covering uranium enrichment rights in exchange for US nuclear support.
Reactors need uranium enriched to around 5% purity but the same technology in this process can also be used to enrich the heavy metal to a higher, weapons-grade level.
Simon Henderson, a Saudi expert at the Washington Institute for Near East said: “Can Saudi Arabia be persuaded to forsake, perhaps even temporarily, enrichment and reprocessing in return for choosing US technology for its ambitious nuclear power plans? The wrong business deal could undermine the current fragile status quo and elevate regional antagonisms to a new level”.
Opposition from U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle has historically impeded the kingdom's aims — Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 mandates that Congress review any sharing of nuclear technology with a foreign country.
Now, however, the Saudis have more cause for optimism: the Trump administration has signaled greater willingness to strike a deal than its predecessors.
"Nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia is about more than just electrical power, it's about geopolitical power," Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said in a statement following the crown prince's comments to CBS. "The United States must not compromise on nonproliferation standards in any 123 agreement it concludes with Saudi Arabia."
The U.S. has already achieved a civilian nuclear partnership in the Middle East under what nuclear energy experts call the "gold standard": its Section 123 agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which precludes the country from developing dual-use technology by barring uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing. But the Saudis have made clear that this is not the agreement they want.
The agreement — currently under negotiation and whose parameters are to be outlined by the end of this month — coincides with the Trump administration's ongoing threats to withdraw from or renegotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a 2015 agreement signed with Iran and five other states to curtail its nuclear program while lifting economic sanctions.
The JCPOA contains sunset clauses on uranium enrichment bans. This is not lost on the Saudis, who are unlikely accept anything other than equal treatment with Iran by the U.S. — meaning only limited time restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing.
Iran’s conservative Tasnim news agency in an article titled “empty shells of a crown prince”
writes that the remarks by the Saudi Prince indicates being naïve and inexperienced.
The news agency presents historical facts that contradict the statements made by Mohammad Bin Salman. Here is Tasnim’s analysis of the issue:
According to defense experts, arms superiority is one among many other factors that can contribute to victory at wars. Features such as patriotism, readiness to make sacrifice, bravery, the expansiveness of a land, its strategic position and other field factors are decisive at wars.
History has many examples of how significant the afore-mentioned factors can be. As an example, following the 1789 French revolution, the conservative nations in Europe felt endangered and prepared themselves for an attack on France, but what stood tall against their will was French people’s revolutionary spirit with the help of which Napoleon could conquer vast areas of Europe and Northern Africa.
The US defeat in Vietnam War is another example proving that arms superiority cannot solely translate into victory.
Iran’s 8 year war with Iraq is a tangible example of the insufficiency of military superiority. The Ba’th regime of Iraq under Saddam Hussein had the backing and support of regional countries, some European countries and the US.
By considering the fact the Iraq-Iran war broke out in a short time following the victory of Islamic Revolution in Iran, the question is, with an army that had a long way to regain its integrity, what led to Iran’s victory other than Iranian’s will to make sacrifice?
The Saudi crown prince brags about Saudi Arabia’s military prowess while being at war with the most impoverished Arab nation. Despite Saudi Arabia’s huge arms purchases, the Yemeni forces have been able to stand against the Saudi aggression using their traditional military armaments and old missiles targeting the depth of the Kingdom’s soil.
With all that being said, is it still wise for the Saudi prince to show off his military superiority?
Another example is the utmost failure of Saudi Arabia in Iraq and Syria were the terrorist groups funded and supported by the Saudis and West were trapped and eliminated in those countries.
The Saudis talk of becoming nuclear doesn’t make sense at a time when the closest ally of the US is against it. Israel firmly disagrees with any Arab countries’ becoming nuclear, fearing that the weapons could fall at the hands of ultra conservatives and endanger the existence of his regime. Despite his strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the Israeli Prime Minister advised Trump to not let the Kingdom get access to nuclear technology.
With all that being said, what is Mohammad bin Salman’s valid path to nuclear technology? It is worth noting that there is still not a single nuclear plant inside Saudi Arabia.
Sources: Tasnim News Agency, CBS, the Guardian, CNBC
118 former military officials and policy makers have signed a statement titled
“Keep the Iran Deal–10 Good Reasons” urging Donald Trump to stick to the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement.
The statement has been issued by National Coalition to Prevent an Iranian Nuclear Weapon President Trump should maintain the U.S. commitment to the Iran nuclear deal. Doing so will bring substantial benefits and strengthen America’s hand in dealing with North Korea, as well as Iran, and help maintain the reliability of America’s word and influence as a world leader.
Ditching it would serve no national security purpose.
Maintaining Rigorous Implementation of the Agreement Enhances U.S. and Regional Security
Here are the reasons:
1. Iran will be prohibited from exceeding severe limits on its nuclear program under continuing, unprecedented international monitoring, preventing it from moving toward a nuclear weapon for the duration of the agreement.
2. Direct U.S.-Iran communications will be better maintained for crisis management if the nuclear agreement remains in place.
3. North Korea could not claim that the U.S. abrogates agreements without cause and would be more likely to negotiate an end to its nuclear program.
4. Other states in the region would have significantly reduced motivation to develop nuclear weapons if Iran’s program remains under intense scrutiny and restrictions.
The Agreement Enhances U.S. Stature and Leadership
5. U.S. relations with major European allies, who all oppose U.S. withdrawal, would be preserved for advancing U.S. national security interests beyond the nuclear deal.
6. The U.S. will build credibility and retain influence with its negotiating partners to ensure strict implementation with the agreement, be able to lead efforts to strengthen it, or garner strong support for imposing additional sanctions if necessary.
7. Iran will be denied the opportunity to blame the U.S. should it renew its nuclear program in response to a U.S. withdrawal.
8. U.S. political and diplomatic influence would not be eroded, improving the U.S.’s ability to advance the resolution of regional conflicts. There are no military solutions to the conflicts in the Middle East.
Maintaining the Agreement Provides Opportunities to Decrease Tensions in the Region
9. Iranian hardliners who claim the U.S. can never be trusted would be proven wrong and their influence weakened.
10. Russia and China would have greater difficulty moving closer to Iran politically, economically, and militarily which could lead to increased transfers of conventional weapons and a Russia-Iran strategic alliance.
Source: NY Times, Fars news
Wendy Sherman: Nixing the Iran Deal isolates US not Iran
Wendy R. Sherman, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs and the United States’
lead negotiator for the Iran nuclear program, presents her analysis on how scrapping the Iran Nuclear deal would lead to United States’ isolation.
Sherman starts with harsh criticisms thrown at John Bolton attacking his hard line ideas on Iran, North Korea and the Iraq war. She further stresses on the importance of sticking to the Nuclear Deal and how it could prevent Iran’s path to nuclear weapons and stop potential arms race in the Middle East region, while adding that Iran has totally lived up to its commitments under the deal.
Criticizing Trump for being so committed to killing the deal, former nuclear negotiator adds that the termination of the deal would lead to Iran’s uranium enrichment and Islamic Revolutionary Guards increased activities and influence in the region making things more difficult for Israel and the US edging them closer to war.
Wendy Sherman believes that a military confrontation will be hard to stop with Bolton leading the National Security Council and that the termination of the deal will “pound yet another nail into the coffin of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Sherman says that in case of deal termination, Mr. Trump may get some level of compliance thanks to the reach of American banking sanctions, but he will also spawn distrust and resentment, and push other countries closer to China as a more reliable financial partner. “
Killing the Iran deal will also be an early blow to the forthcoming nuclear negotiations with North Korea,” She added.
In conclusion the former undersecretary of state says that Mr. Trump will not isolate Iran by nixing the deal; he will isolate America and lead its partners and allies to consider China and Russia as more dependable, predictable partners, even absent Western values.
Source: NY Times, IRNA, ISNA
