New York's Senators Rush to War

By Frank Brodhead

In mid-February a Resolution was introduced into the US Senate “Regarding the Importance of Preventing the Government of Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Capability.”  “Well, what’s wrong with that?” one might ask.  Who in their right mind would want Iran [or, indeed, any country] to have “nuclear weapons capability?  That sounds very dangerous.

Yet this Resolution can be seen as one in a series of congressional acts that increase the chances of war with Iran by limiting the scope of diplomacy and signaling Israel that if they attack Iran’s nuclear program sites, the United States will have its back.

Let me explain why this Resolution, co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand of New York, is so threatening to peace.  (You can read Senate Resolution 380 at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:S16FE2-0044:/.) 

The keyword in the Resolution is “nuclear capability.”  Though it sounds clear enough, it isn’t.  As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has pledged not to make nuclear weapons.  All intelligence services – including those of the US and Israel – agree that Iran does not have nuclear weapons.  Also, the 16 US intelligence agencies have stated several times that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon; and this was recently confirmed by US Secretary of Defense Panetta and other US officials.  No weapons.  No program. But what about a nuclear weapons “capability?”  That is the trick question.

Basically, any country that has a nuclear power program has a “nuclear weapons capability.”  Japan has this.  So does Brazil.  So does Argentina, and several other countries.  There are many good arguments that nuclear power is dangerous and harmful, and should be abandoned and outlawed.  But under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, all signatories to the Treaty are guaranteed the right to develop nuclear power.

The problem lies in just this: that to develop a nuclear power program, including the technology to take raw uranium and prepare (“enrich”) it to be useful in nuclear reactors, is to go partway down the same path that you would use if you wanted to build a nuclear weapons program.

During the presidency of George Bush II, the US position was that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium at all.  Iran disagreed, saying that it had the right to enrich uranium for a nuclear power program, and went ahead and did it.  By the end of 2009, President Obama had moved the US position from “no enrichment” to “no weapons program,” because “enrichment” was a done deed. In practice, ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program is for power, not weapons, requires intelligence agencies and UN inspectors to pay very close attention to Iran’s “intentions,” prepared, for example, to flag any Iranian nuclear activities that appear to be diverting enriched uranium to some other purpose.

Because so many of the processes that a country would use to develop nuclear weapons are identical to those that are strictly for nuclear power, there are obviously grey areas.  And because the United States, Israel, and other countries have been threatening to take military action against Israel if it doesn’t play comply with UN/US resolutions, we have reached a state of strong mutual distrust.  It is hard to determine motives (“Is this about nuclear power or about nuclear weapons?”) when war may be just around the corner.

This, then, is the great danger of Senate Resolution 380.  Though it is “nonbinding,” if passed it would telegraph the Israelis that, no matter what President Obama says, the US Congress is on board with the Israeli, not the Obama, position on Iran’s nuclear program.  The subliminal message is that if Israel attacked Iran militarily, arguing that Iran had developed a “nuclear capability” and this was justifiable grounds for war, the US Congress would give political support to Israel and pressure the Obama administration to support Israel militarily. This adoption of the more warlike Israeli position should be unacceptable to all Americans, and especially to those who want to see the conflicts in the Middle East resolved peacefully.