Der Spiegel this week alleged that Syria is attempting to work towards a nuclear weapon, with varying types of assistance from Iran, Hezbollah and North Korea. If true, this would be a massive story, with significant geopolitical ramifications. Syria has denied the allegations.
Syria is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as is Iran, while North Korea is not. Under this treaty, states are prohibited from developing nuclear weapons and from helping others develop these technologies.
In 2006, the IAEA ruled that Iran is in "non-compliance" with the NPT, namely, Iran's safeguards agreement. If these new allegations are true, Iran would be in blatant violation of this treaty. Given the attempted rapprochement between Iran and the West, primarily regarding its nuclear program, a discovery of this nature would almost certainly cause irreparable damage to ongoing nuclear negotiations. Iran would also face new, harsh sanctions.
The report from Der Spiegel however, is poorly sourced, and experts have claimed that the information contained in the report is in fact, incorrect. The report cites "Western intelligence agencies" as the source for this information, and indicates that Der Spiegel has documents from these sources showing that Syria is working to build a nuclear weapon.
As is the case with any anonymous source, a proper vetting of the information is necessary, yet in this instance near impossible. It would be very difficult to have two separate sources able to confirm this information. Information regarding Iran's nuclear program is notoriously hard to come by. While there have been cases when new and valid information was revealed, there are also many instances of false and misleading information released by the same sources.
It is best to take this report with a grain of salt. It is unclear if the documents held by Der Spiegel are legitimate, or an attempt by the hawkish members of the Western coalition who wish to avoid any reconciliation between Iran and the West, to falsify documents to push their agenda.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Monday, December 29, 2014
Iran and Petroleum Prices
One of the overlooked stories of 2014 was the causes of and the geopolitical implications from the dropping oil prices. Numerous articles were written covering aspects of it, yet so few actually tried to look at the situation from the most broad of perspectives.
As everyone knows, the price of oil per barrel and at the pump has dropped over the last few months, mostly as a result of the relationship between demand and supply changing. Supply has been ramped up, especially by US producers. The United States now produces the most oil it has since 1985, and more than all of the OPEC countries including Saudi Arabia. At the same time, OPEC is also producing record amounts.
Many of the countries in OPEC have oil-dependent economies, and fluctuations in the price of oil affect the way their government operates. The budgets are set to expect a certain price of oil, and if the price drops below this, they will have budgetary problems. Iran in particular is facing difficulties, as the sanctions implemented against the Islamic Republic, combined with a lower price of their most important export has greatly reduced potential revenues.
Even though many of the OPEC countries are now facing possible budget deficits, the cartel agreed to not withhold supply and drive up the price of oil. It appears as though the Saudis and the Gulf Nations are willing to withstand lower prices in the short term, because it damages their bitter rival the Iranians, and OPEC's diminished global influence due to US shale oil producers.
Some have framed this as a purely anti-Iran move, but it is a bit more complex than this. If the OPEC members reduce supply, they are not only working with US oil companies, they are acting in a manner that is only beneficial in the short-term. By working together to keep oil prices low, they will soon drive many of the US shale oil companies out of business.
Fracking (shale oil extraction method) was adopted by American (and Canadian) companies because oil had previously been significantly more expensive, and the fracking process can require a higher break-even point to be profitable. If these companies are allowed to continue to operate (by keeping oil prices high), the damage to OPEC countries will continue. Conversely, if these companies are driven out of business, OPEC has a good chance to regain it's control over world petroleum markets.
The US has long had a policy of utilizing Middle Eastern oil over North American for geo-strategic reasons (see citation in my previous blog). Oil production's increase in North America is striking. Is this a last ditch effort to obtain as much shale oil as possible before the environmentally-damaging process is banned? Is there another "back-up" supply of extractable petroleum or is this the US's last 'trump card' in the oil market?
In some ways this looks like a plot between the Saudis and Americans to damage Iran, Russia and Venezuela financially, but there are quite a few other angles which complicate the situation greatly. Lastly, the insistence by Iran that OPEC cut production, shows Iran's financial woes are very real, and that economic mismanagement by the previous administration in conjunction with external pressures have seriously damaged the economy.
As everyone knows, the price of oil per barrel and at the pump has dropped over the last few months, mostly as a result of the relationship between demand and supply changing. Supply has been ramped up, especially by US producers. The United States now produces the most oil it has since 1985, and more than all of the OPEC countries including Saudi Arabia. At the same time, OPEC is also producing record amounts.
Many of the countries in OPEC have oil-dependent economies, and fluctuations in the price of oil affect the way their government operates. The budgets are set to expect a certain price of oil, and if the price drops below this, they will have budgetary problems. Iran in particular is facing difficulties, as the sanctions implemented against the Islamic Republic, combined with a lower price of their most important export has greatly reduced potential revenues.
Even though many of the OPEC countries are now facing possible budget deficits, the cartel agreed to not withhold supply and drive up the price of oil. It appears as though the Saudis and the Gulf Nations are willing to withstand lower prices in the short term, because it damages their bitter rival the Iranians, and OPEC's diminished global influence due to US shale oil producers.
Some have framed this as a purely anti-Iran move, but it is a bit more complex than this. If the OPEC members reduce supply, they are not only working with US oil companies, they are acting in a manner that is only beneficial in the short-term. By working together to keep oil prices low, they will soon drive many of the US shale oil companies out of business.
Fracking (shale oil extraction method) was adopted by American (and Canadian) companies because oil had previously been significantly more expensive, and the fracking process can require a higher break-even point to be profitable. If these companies are allowed to continue to operate (by keeping oil prices high), the damage to OPEC countries will continue. Conversely, if these companies are driven out of business, OPEC has a good chance to regain it's control over world petroleum markets.
The US has long had a policy of utilizing Middle Eastern oil over North American for geo-strategic reasons (see citation in my previous blog). Oil production's increase in North America is striking. Is this a last ditch effort to obtain as much shale oil as possible before the environmentally-damaging process is banned? Is there another "back-up" supply of extractable petroleum or is this the US's last 'trump card' in the oil market?
In some ways this looks like a plot between the Saudis and Americans to damage Iran, Russia and Venezuela financially, but there are quite a few other angles which complicate the situation greatly. Lastly, the insistence by Iran that OPEC cut production, shows Iran's financial woes are very real, and that economic mismanagement by the previous administration in conjunction with external pressures have seriously damaged the economy.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Iranian-Russian Nuclear Plant Cooperation
Today it was announced that Russia and Iran intend to build two additional nuclear reactors in Iran with the possibility of building six more. Iran has long stated its intentions to pursue nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels, yet despite this commitment, serious safety concerns persist. As I've written several times (here, here, here and here), Iran has yet to sign the Convention on Nuclear Safety, an incentive-based program intended to improve safety standards at nuclear power facilities. Iran, in fact, is the ONLY country in the world with a nuclear power plant that has not joined the convention. Even Israel, which is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is party to the convention. Iran is located in a seismically sensitive part of the world, and the decision to build further nuclear plants given the safety concerns is troubling.
There are a few reasons why Iran has chosen to work with Russia again. Russia took over the Bushehr project from a German company after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and even though the project was delayed many times and problematic, it has finally been completed. Russia is also one of the leaders from the anti-Western camp, and Iran values this position. There may be better, cheaper alternatives for cooperation on a nuclear power facility, yet for now Russia is the logical partner.
Personally I am still very worried about nuclear power facilities in Iran. The safety issues are well-documented, yet no one is paying attention to the potential environmental hazards. A whistleblower from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran provided a document to The Times which stated that:
Even though there are many problems with Iran's nuclear power plants, the Iranians are continuing to build. I hope that they take steps to address these issues, especially the ones relating to safety. The Iranian ambassador to the UN promised that Iran would be working to join the Convention on Nuclear Safety in January 2013, yet this has not happened yet. The world does not need another nuclear disaster, especially so soon after Fukushima.
There are a few reasons why Iran has chosen to work with Russia again. Russia took over the Bushehr project from a German company after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and even though the project was delayed many times and problematic, it has finally been completed. Russia is also one of the leaders from the anti-Western camp, and Iran values this position. There may be better, cheaper alternatives for cooperation on a nuclear power facility, yet for now Russia is the logical partner.
Personally I am still very worried about nuclear power facilities in Iran. The safety issues are well-documented, yet no one is paying attention to the potential environmental hazards. A whistleblower from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran provided a document to The Times which stated that:
...Bushehr, which began operating last month after 35 years of intermittent construction, was built by "second-class engineers" who bolted together Russian and German technology from different eras; that it sits in one of the world's most seismically active areas but could not withstand a major earthquake; and that it has "no serious training program" or a contingency plan for accidents.This corroborates other claims about problems including cracks resulting from earthquakes, and a broken cooling pump which forced a shutdown of the plant. The plant is designed to sustain up to a magnitude 8 earthquake without serious damage, yet the several meter long cracks mentioned in the previous sentence were the result of a mere 6.4 earthquake.
Even though there are many problems with Iran's nuclear power plants, the Iranians are continuing to build. I hope that they take steps to address these issues, especially the ones relating to safety. The Iranian ambassador to the UN promised that Iran would be working to join the Convention on Nuclear Safety in January 2013, yet this has not happened yet. The world does not need another nuclear disaster, especially so soon after Fukushima.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Next Chairman of the Assembly of Experts
With the recent death of Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani following a a several month long coma, a new chairman of the Assembly of Experts will be chosen soon. The Islamic Republic is still undergoing what Matthew Wells called a 'Thermidor', and fighting between Iranian political factions continues. At such a pivotal time, with remaining questions over the health of the Supreme Leader, the chairmanship is increasingly important and all the factions will want the position to go to someone who will promote their agenda.
Acting Chairman Ayatollah Shahroudi is a possibility for the position, along with former Chairman, Chairman of the Majles, and President of Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani. For years there have been poor relations between Rafsanjani and his family and conservative elements of the Islamic Republic, and a return as chairman of the Assembly of Experts is probably too much to hope for for Rafsanjani. Shahroudi is more likely, but it would not surprise me if someone else entirely gets selected.
The Chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts is more than symbolically important, and at this critical time, the decision is an important one.
Acting Chairman Ayatollah Shahroudi is a possibility for the position, along with former Chairman, Chairman of the Majles, and President of Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani. For years there have been poor relations between Rafsanjani and his family and conservative elements of the Islamic Republic, and a return as chairman of the Assembly of Experts is probably too much to hope for for Rafsanjani. Shahroudi is more likely, but it would not surprise me if someone else entirely gets selected.
The Chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts is more than symbolically important, and at this critical time, the decision is an important one.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
ISIS wants Iran's 'Nuclear Secrets'?
Yesterday The Sunday Times published a report indicating that the 'Islamic State' intends to obtain Iran's nuclear secrets, among other bizarre, ambitious and unrealistic schemes. The nuclear one is most interesting for a variety of reasons.
It appears as though this point was either misunderstood by the reporters, or the Islamic State has no idea how nuclear technology works. If the Islamic State wants Iran's 'nuclear secrets' are they referring to nuclear reactors and enrichment, or are they referring to secrets about nuclear weaponry? The report claims that the Islamic State wants nuclear weapons, but no one believes that Iran actually has nuclear weapons, and most do not even believe that Iran has the requisite technologies developed to make a nuclear weapon if they wished to.
So what are the 'nuclear secrets' the Islamic State desires? I cannot imagine it, but do they wish to build a nuclear reactor or enrichment facility? Does the Islamic State have intelligence that Iran has completed experiments such as those alleged to have occurred at Parchin, and that the information relating to these experiments is still accessible? How would they know of these experiments? Is their intelligence on Iran's nuclear research superior to that of the Israelis, Americans, British, Australian etc?
Additionally, IF Iran has in fact conducted these experiments AND the Islamic State somehow knows about them, does ISIS actually plan on making a nuclear weapon? Why would they want to make a more complicated device requiring more time, expense, material and expertise when a dirty bomb would suffice? Do they even have nuclear scientists that could make a proper nuclear weapon?
Disappointingly, the reporters did not examine these claims critically, noting the problems with the logic, nor clarifying some important points. It is not the responsibility of the terrorists to write something logical. It is however the responsibility of reporters to note when something is illogical, or problematic in some way; especially when it is a 'scoop' of this magnitude. Because the reporters and editors were not careful, this story has become much more of a story than it should be.
It appears as though this point was either misunderstood by the reporters, or the Islamic State has no idea how nuclear technology works. If the Islamic State wants Iran's 'nuclear secrets' are they referring to nuclear reactors and enrichment, or are they referring to secrets about nuclear weaponry? The report claims that the Islamic State wants nuclear weapons, but no one believes that Iran actually has nuclear weapons, and most do not even believe that Iran has the requisite technologies developed to make a nuclear weapon if they wished to.
So what are the 'nuclear secrets' the Islamic State desires? I cannot imagine it, but do they wish to build a nuclear reactor or enrichment facility? Does the Islamic State have intelligence that Iran has completed experiments such as those alleged to have occurred at Parchin, and that the information relating to these experiments is still accessible? How would they know of these experiments? Is their intelligence on Iran's nuclear research superior to that of the Israelis, Americans, British, Australian etc?
Additionally, IF Iran has in fact conducted these experiments AND the Islamic State somehow knows about them, does ISIS actually plan on making a nuclear weapon? Why would they want to make a more complicated device requiring more time, expense, material and expertise when a dirty bomb would suffice? Do they even have nuclear scientists that could make a proper nuclear weapon?
Disappointingly, the reporters did not examine these claims critically, noting the problems with the logic, nor clarifying some important points. It is not the responsibility of the terrorists to write something logical. It is however the responsibility of reporters to note when something is illogical, or problematic in some way; especially when it is a 'scoop' of this magnitude. Because the reporters and editors were not careful, this story has become much more of a story than it should be.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Iran has (still) not signed the Convention on Nuclear Safety
This is your bi-monthly reminder that despite promising to join this vital nuclear safety treaty in January 2013, Iran has yet to do so. Yesterday it was announced that Iran is planning on building even more nuclear plants, which would be perfectly fine if we knew that they surpass international safety standards. Unfortunately this is not the case, and Iran continues to endanger the surrounding countries, in addition to its own citizens.
This is nothing new; I've written about why this is a dangerous situation in the past:
Earthquake danger at Bushehr
Iran and Nuclear Safety (or lack thereof)
Iran and the Convention on Nuclear Safety
I hope that whoever is running things in Iran regarding nuclear power, pulls their head out of the sand and signs this treaty before a serious accident happens. This is the last thing that we need.
This is nothing new; I've written about why this is a dangerous situation in the past:
Earthquake danger at Bushehr
Iran and Nuclear Safety (or lack thereof)
Iran and the Convention on Nuclear Safety
I hope that whoever is running things in Iran regarding nuclear power, pulls their head out of the sand and signs this treaty before a serious accident happens. This is the last thing that we need.
Monday, September 8, 2014
The Ayatollah's Health
Today it was announced that Ayatollah Khamenei had successful prostate surgery. This level of transparency from Iran is unprecedented. While speculation about the health of the Supreme Leader is nothing new, an acknowledgment of the Ayatollah's medical situation by the Iranian government is a drastic shift.
Khamenei is paralyzed in one arm due to an assassination attempt in 1981, but this is not his only health problem. In October of last year, Khamenei was out of the public eye for weeks. Some believed that this was due to recurrence of a long term chronic illness. US State Department cables leaked by Wikileaks alleged that Khamenei has cancer, believed to be terminal. In 2007, Khamenei missed an important religious event, and for a while, there were rumors that he had died.
It is unclear if the prostate operation has anything to do with the Ayatollah's other rumored health problems or if this was the problem from the beginning and he will be in better health in the near future. If the Ayatollah is terminally ill, there may be some interesting times ahead as the administrative body tasked with selecting the replacement is currently a bit unstable.
Ayatollah Mahdavi-Kani the head of the governmental body (Assembly of Experts) responsible for electing (and theoretically replacing a Supreme Leader if necessary) is currently in a coma following a heart attack in June. The newest session of the Assembly of Experts was recently convened without Mahdavi-Kani, and a prominent reformist cleric and member of the assembly was also absent. Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President, Speaker of the Majles (Parliament) of Iran, and chairman of the Assembly of Experts, whose family has been systematically persecuted, was pictured today kissing the forehead of Ayatollah Khamenei. Rafsanjani may be back in the good graces of the establishment, and able to influence the selection (possibly even getting himself nominated).
Khamenei is paralyzed in one arm due to an assassination attempt in 1981, but this is not his only health problem. In October of last year, Khamenei was out of the public eye for weeks. Some believed that this was due to recurrence of a long term chronic illness. US State Department cables leaked by Wikileaks alleged that Khamenei has cancer, believed to be terminal. In 2007, Khamenei missed an important religious event, and for a while, there were rumors that he had died.
It is unclear if the prostate operation has anything to do with the Ayatollah's other rumored health problems or if this was the problem from the beginning and he will be in better health in the near future. If the Ayatollah is terminally ill, there may be some interesting times ahead as the administrative body tasked with selecting the replacement is currently a bit unstable.
Ayatollah Mahdavi-Kani the head of the governmental body (Assembly of Experts) responsible for electing (and theoretically replacing a Supreme Leader if necessary) is currently in a coma following a heart attack in June. The newest session of the Assembly of Experts was recently convened without Mahdavi-Kani, and a prominent reformist cleric and member of the assembly was also absent. Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President, Speaker of the Majles (Parliament) of Iran, and chairman of the Assembly of Experts, whose family has been systematically persecuted, was pictured today kissing the forehead of Ayatollah Khamenei. Rafsanjani may be back in the good graces of the establishment, and able to influence the selection (possibly even getting himself nominated).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)