Analysis: Iran's Nuclear Program Has Been an Astronomical Waste

Lasrick writes: Business Insider's Armin Rosen uses a fuel-cost calculator from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to show that Iran's nuclear program has been "astronomically costly" for the country. Rosen uses calculations from this tool to hypothesize that what Iran "interprets as the country's 'rights' under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty is a diplomatic victory that justifies the outrageous expense of the nuclear program." Great data crunching.

Comments

Iran is not trying to save money

[mi]

Iranians are not trying to make or even save money.

They are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Economists need not apply...

Re:Iran is not trying to save money

[Beck_Neard]

> They are trying to build a nuclear weapon

Prove it.

So far everyone who has tried to prove this claim - including the CIA and Mossad - has come up short.

There's simply no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. At most, they might be retaining the ability to develop a nuclear weapon in the future should the need arise.

Don't get me wrong. The mullahs are no saints. The Iranian regime is tyrannical and brutal. But realize that the propaganda machine is using the WMD line to trance you into gearing up for war, just like they did for Iraq. And you know the scary part? Even after you said you'd never be fooled again, IT'S WORKING.

What price is Freedom?

[quenda]

They still hear the "Axis of Evil" speech, and would rather be North Korea than Iraq today.

Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Their strong desire for a deterrent weapon is understandable.

Re:Stuxnet

[vikingpower]

Quite decisive. One of my customers is Siemens, who built and delivered the centrifuges that were spun to death by Stuxnet. I am not allowed to give numbers here, other than the fact that more than half of the centrifuges were destroyed, basically doubling the lenght of the gas enrichment process. Not to mention the great cost and difficulty of repairing the centrifuges with their own, somewhat primitive technology.

Now for the most interesting bit: successors of Stuxnet, stealthier than their ancestor, may still be lurking in some parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, says my well-informed source @Siemens.

Re:Nope!

[jandersen]

Is there any other way for a Middle Eastern country to earn our respect, other than to be able to nuke us?

Ironically, Iran is the Middle Country most likely to deserve our respect for things other than having nuclear capabilities. When you look beyond the demented ravings of some of their past leaders, they are on a significantly higher level than their neighbours in many respects. As far as I now, they do actually have a somewhat functional democracy, a rather good education system etc. I have always felt they have deserved better than the press they have tended to get since Khomeiny toppled the puppet shah; they are not saints, by any means, but neither are they devils incarnate. They could be our friends in the longer term, unlike for example IS.

Re:They are looking forward

[AmiMoJo]

There are around 600 churches and nearly 400,000 Christians in Iran. If they were really interesting in attacking "infidels" they would start with them.

Iran considers the US a rogue state that illegally invades its neighbours and murders innocent civilians. Any way you frame it, they are not entirely wrong about that. Once you strip away the propaganda it's easy to see how they have quite legitimate security concerns.

Don't ignore recent history

[Required Snark]

Remember that during the Iran/Iraq war Saddam Husein's regime used poison gas against Iranian troops and civilian populations.

After Iran sent chemical casualties to several Western nations for treatment, the UN dispatched a team of specialists to the area in 1984, and again in 1986 and 1987, to verify the claims. The conclusion from all three trips was the same: Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. In addition, the second mission stressed that Iraq’s use of chemical weapons appeared to be increasing. The reports indicated that mustard and tabun were the primary agents used, and that they were generally delivered in bombs dropped by airplane. The third mission (the only one allowed to enter Iraq) also reported the use of artillery shells and chemical rockets and the use of chemical weapons against civilian personnel.

How did they get this capability? Countries from all over the world helped them, including the US, France, England, Germany and China.

As part of Project 922, German firms such as Karl Kolb helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. One of the contributions was a £14m chlorine plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German company; the plant was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility" the plant would be used to make mustard gas. The guarantees led to UK government payment of £300,000 to Uhde in 1990 after completion of the plant was interrupted by the first Gulf War. In 1994 and 1996 three people were convicted in Germany of export offenses.

France also provided glass-lined reactors, tanks, vessels, and columns used for the production of chemical weapons. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. 75,000 shells and rockets designed for chemical weapon use also came from Italy. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United States exported $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce Department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program. Austria also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.

So given this history, is it irrational for Iran to want to get the biggest baddest weapon of mass destruction they can, no matter what the cost? A rational cost analysis is irrelevant under these circumstances.

A significant number of the world's major powers

Re:Nope!

[allcoolnameswheretak]

This.
I've also always wondered why the U.S. put all its money on the Arab countries instead of Iran. Iran at least has basic level of Democracy with presidential elections. Irans youth is, in general, more progressive and open minded that in most other islamic countries.
The U.S. big ally and arch-enemy of Iran, Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a practically an absolutist monarchy practicing extremely conservative interpretation of Sharia law. It's also interesting to point out that many high-profile terrorists, such as Osama bin Ladin, were Saudi Arabians. I wouldn't be surprised if elements in Saudi Arabia's government secretly support or at the very least condone IS in Syria and Iraq. They seem pretty single-minded about supporting Sunni Islam against everything Shia.

Re:Nope!

[oobayly]

I was talking to a colleague following the terrorist attacks last week in France, Tunisia and Kuwait. His wife was talking about going on holiday somewhere and he said "fine, as long as it's not a Muslim country". We then progressed on to how it was sad that the region that was the cradle of civilisation is now well behind the curve.

I also added that Iran is probably one of the safer Muslim countries to visit nowadays, which is ironic to say the least. He's still not convinced about going to Tehran for his summer holidays though!

Re:Really?

[PopeRatzo]

Barry M. Rubin

Horse shit.

Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.

Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel

[Karmashock]

You're forgetting that everyone in the region hates Iran... except syria... and syria is falling apart.

Iran economy is in shambles, they have no friends that are standing, and their activities are agitating the saudis, egyptians, Jordians, etc...

Iran is fucked. Be Kasparov for second. War game this out 10 moves in advance.

You'll see it is already checkmate on Iran.

If they continue with their nuke program... best case... the rest of the middle east which mostly hates them will get nukes about five minutes later... at which point what has Iran accomplished?

The US is not going to nuke Iran... but the saudis might... the egyptians might. The jordanians might.

The Iranians have overdosed on their "great satan" propaganda. They've destroyed themselves. For nothing.

Imagine a different world. A world where Iran wasn't going out of its way to be a dick head. Think of how wealthy they would be? They're a generally well educated and hard working country for the region. They could be an industrial power in the middle east. The Germany or Japan of the region. And look at what they are instead? A minor oil exporter and pistachio nut exporter... which the US is undercutting in both cases by producing lots of oil and lots of pistachios.

And what did they get in return for sacrificing all of that? Nothing. Power? None. Respect? None. Leverage? None. Diplomatic support? None.

They sacrificed everything for nothing.

Go through the world and show me how many countries have prospered in dicking with the US?

Is that Zero?... so... why do it? Besides fetal lead poisoning leading to chemically induced retardation... I'm at a loss as to what they think they're doing.

Yes yes... history... colonialism... so what? What relevance does that have on 2015? Oh that's right... none. The US was at war with the British Empire for about fifty years. Then the British stopped trying to reconquer us and we became buddies.

The Iranians should be trying to make friends with the US. It would mean an end to sanctions. It would mean military security. It would mean trade opportunities. Technology sharing...

They'd very rapidly become a great power.

But they've got such a raging hate boner that they can't see they're destroying themselves. FOR NOTHING.

Re:Nope!

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

This. I've also always wondered why the U.S. put all its money on the Arab countries instead of Iran. Iran at least has basic level of Democracy with presidential elections. Irans youth is, in general, more progressive and open minded that in most other islamic countries. The U.S. big ally and arch-enemy of Iran, Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a practically an absolutist monarchy practicing extremely conservative interpretation of Sharia law. It's also interesting to point out that many high-profile terrorists, such as Osama bin Ladin, were Saudi Arabians. I wouldn't be surprised if elements in Saudi Arabia's government secretly support or at the very least condone IS in Syria and Iraq. They seem pretty single-minded about supporting Sunni Islam against everything Shia.

Basically significant segments of the Iranian government and a good number of the population (not necessarily a majority, but enough to have influence) have anti-Americanism as their raison d'être. Khomeini hated America for supporting the Shah and he passed that hatred down to his disciples. His disciples continue to be the true powers in Iran. These people have merged religion with anti-Americanism so to them, not being anti-American is like rejecting Islam. It will probably be decades before enough time has passed for mullahs to come into power in Iran who have no personal animosity towards America. Consider too that among people old enough to remember the Iran hostage situation that there is some severe hatred towards Iran so that makes it difficult for the US to make friends with Iran as portions of US power (some people in Congress and various government agencies) will never trust them because of that.

To be honest, the US would probably like to be friends with Iran, but the mullahs can't and won't allow it. The US really would be better off backing the Shiites like Iran as they are somewhat less troublesome to deal with than the Sunnis, but they can't publicly say that because the Sunnis have the numbers. Numbers of followers alone make it in the US's best interests to try to deal with Sunni governments, many of which hate the US and do things that support terrorists indirectly if not directly. The Saudi government has been pretty good friends with the USA, but unfortunately they support a version of Islam that over time has become more and more intolerant of non-Muslims and is directly or indirectly responsible for groups like ISIS and Al Queda. The Saudi rulers need US support to stay in power and the US needs them lest Saudi Arabi turn into an even bigger headache for the US than Iran.

The US governments under George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had unrealistic expectations of Middle Eastern democracy. The idea was that if given the opportunity to freely elect their leaders that they would be so grateful to the USA that they'd become our best friends. Instead it has become apparent to me that if given a free choice, the majority of Muslim voters will willingly vote to take away their own rights under oppressive religious governments and those that hate the US will come out of the shadows and work to attack the US. The only country that went through the Arab Spring and maybe came out on the better end was Egypt and they had to beg the military to overthrow the legally elected government.

Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel

[painandgreed]

"it's all about Islam."

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner. You wins the internet. I wish the rest of the world would fucking get it. You can't rationalize radical religious convictions.

Well, until you realize that those religious lines are conveniently following ethnic lines that have existed much longer than islam. The main driver in the middle east is sunni-shia politics which equates to arab-persian politics. The west is just an issue to be dealt with after the shia issue has been dealt with ti the IS.