Shortly after release of the unclassified summary of the new Iran NIE last December, commentators such as former Israeli defense minister Ephraim Sneh speculated that the report would sap political will for tough diplomacy aimed at putting a lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. ArmsControlWonk’s Andy Grotto takes a look at recent comments coming out of Russia and sees an opposite trend:
The NIE’s headline finding that Iran abandoned nuclear warhead and weaponization R&D in the fall of 2003 has eliminated the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities for the foreseeable future. This frees up Russia and other countries to toe a harder line against Iran without worrying about legitimating U.S. military action. If this interpretation is true, it means that the litany of pundits and commentators complaining that the NIE plays right into Iran’s hands have it exactly backwards: by effectively taking U.S. military action off the table for now, the NIE makes it easier, not harder, for countries like Russia to send Iran a stronger signal about its enrichment program. After all, Russia (and China, for that matter) do not want Iran to develop the capability to deploy nuclear weapons; until the Iran NIE however, this concern was counterbalanced by a worry that the United States might launch another war in the Middle East.
5 Comments | 
65. February 18th, 2008 hass wrote:
US/EU are explicitly threatening the IAEA over Iran report, and IAEA officials are striking back:
“If the facts are at odds with the policy objectives of some people who are keen to impose further sanctions on Iran, that’s too bad,” the [IAEA] official added.
–Pressure on IAEA over Iran report
66. February 18th, 2008 Sarah wrote:
It’s been hard enough to get Russia and China to sign on to economic sanctions of Iran - what would motivate them to send Iran a “stronger signal” and what form would that take? The U.S. State Department found Iran to be the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world in 2006 - and with good reason. Combined with the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp. was recently designated as a terrorist organization, what will be America’s role be in dealing with Iran?
72. March 5th, 2008 Tiffany Powers wrote:
Two articles in the New York Times published on March 3rd and 4th bring some new information to this topic.
As of Monday, March 3rd a third resolution has been put in place by the U.N. Security Council, signed by both Russia and China among others, to impose economic sanctions should Iran continue to refuse to stop enriching uranium for nuclear fuel. But the new sanction also reemphasizes a condition that should Iran agree to suspend its enrichment-related (including reprocessing) activities, the six main countries – China, Russia, France, Britain, and the U.S. – would then “establish full relations and economic cooperation” (NY Times – Security Council Adds Sanctions).
Last week (February 25) new information was introduced that did not necessarily contradict the NIE conclusion that Iran had halted programs in 2003, but initiated interest in the depth of knowledge and past work of their program, such as in 1990.
The information presented to representatives of the IAEA included sketches and a video, which seemed to be directly from the Iranian military. These few items were meant to be proof that as Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear monitor, said demonstrates that Iran’s secret research on how to make nuclear weapons were of “serious concern” and would be under investigation by the IAEA.
Olli Heinonen, the IAEA’s senior inspector, said of the sketches and video that they demonstrate effort, ““not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon.”
It will be interesting to see any new developments…and if Russia and China will send “stronger signals” to Iran.
(As a side note the NY Times also posted an article explaining that China is reporting another drastic increase in military forces and that the Pentagon release a report claiming that “the outside world had limited knowledge of the motivation behind China’s accelerating buildup and the abilities it was developing” (NY Times – China Plans Steep Increase). Perhaps a military build-up can be considered the start of a “strong signal.”)
Security Council Adds Sanctions
Meeting on Arms Data Reignites Iran Debate
China Plans Steep Increase in Military Spending
73. March 5th, 2008 david wrote:
Most active state supporter of terrorism = who ever we don’t like at the moment.
Gimme a break
80. March 5th, 2008 anon wrote:
Do you care to explain what you mean?