Russia’s Fueling of Iranian Reactor Is Serious but no Cause for Panic
When Russia’s state atomic agency spokesperson announced plans to fuel an Iranian reactor this month, a wave of anxiety rippled through the mainstream media. Fueling the reactor, after all, is crucial to moving the reprobate state’s nuclear program toward an operational level.
Ratcheting up the tension even more were statements by former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who said that after the nuclear fuel was in place, Israel would be constrained from bombing the facility due to fallout from broken and exposed fuel rods. Bolton even suggested that the date that the Russians were going to fuel the reactor was a deadline of sorts. But Middle East expert and PJ Media contributor Barry Rubin dismisses the notion of an Israeli attack now and links to a piece by arms control expert Joshua Pollack, whose analysis shows why Israel has its own timetable and wouldn’t be deflected by such an event.
Experts say the announcement and subsequent fueling are significant events worthy of close scrutiny, but neither is cause for immediate panic.
“It’s highly symbolic,” American Foreign Policy Council Vice President Ilan Berman said from his D.C. office.
Iran has been trying to prove that they’re a de facto nuclear state for a long time and this bolsters their case for acceptance into the nuclear club.
Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom Corp., told the press last week:
The fuel will be loaded on Aug 21. This is the start of the physical launch (of the reactor).
From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation.
The United States asked Russia to delay the startup until Iran proves it’s not developing nuclear weapons, but Russian officials are sidestepping the request by saying Bushehr is a longstanding, contracted project agreement between Iran and Russia that won’t affect compliance with recently agreed upon UN and U.S. sanctions.
Behind the scenes, numerous elements come into play in this scenario. First, Iran is striving for both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Bushehr, fueled by plutonium rather than uranium, is believed to fall into the latter category. So if there is no international outcry over fueling Bushehr — which there probably won’t be due to the fact that the facility is not a cornerstone of Iran’s nuclear program — the future question is: “if we get sacked for one, why not for the other?”
While this article poses some interesting propositions, suffice it to say that the readers would do well to place their bets with Bolton’s assessments.
Whereas Israel’s leaders may very well sit this one out, surely they are aware that they will to target it at a subsequent date in the very near future.The urgent question is – which is more prudent, to attack it with or without the fuel?
If, than any non-descript nit-wits who carry a hurtful plan into action, those who energize the evil are worthy of a far greater smiting, then, the plant would best undergo destructive dismantling while those who are fueling it are still so busy working, setting up the trap for their short-sighted Iranian operatives, . . .
The above article still does not address former UN Ambassador John Bolton’s concern, who said that “After the nuclear fuel was in place, Israel would be constrained from bombing the facility due to fallout from broken and exposed fuel rods.” Freid blows off this idea by simply stating that, “Middle East expert and Pajamas Media contributor Barry Rubin dismisses the notion of an Israeli attack now and links to a piece by arms control expert Joshua Pollack, whose analysis shows why Israel has its own timetable and wouldn’t be deflected by such an event.” Well, how does he know that? Remember, Israel has attacked two nuclear power plants in the past, one in Iraq and one in Syria, and both were attacked BEFORE the nuclear power plants were fueled. If the Russians do fuel the plant, doesn’t that still make Bolton’s concern valid?
As for the Russians, time to start upping the cost for supporting a terrorist state. Perhaps, like Ronald Reagan, we should start considering placing nuclear missiles on NATO soil pointed right at Putin? Perhaps Putin will be more “agreeable” to change his mind if the Baltic States suddenly had NATO controlled missiles pointing at Russia? Or maybe we can start giving massive military and financial “aid” to the former Soviet Republic of Georgia? And, on a side issue, we could always say to Putin that the rebels in Chechnya just don’t look that bad to us anymore as long as they keep killing Russians. I’m sure all of this will get Putin’s attention. Will it stop them from continuing to help Iran? Maybe, but at least it will show the Russians that there is a price to be paid for helping a terrorist state like Iran get nuclear weapons.
I agree LibertyShip but our President has already abandoned Georgia and canceled the missiles aimed at Putin. It’s going to be a long time between now and January 20, 2013 unless this regime is impeached.
We also need to be aware of the US financial position. When Reagan was placing pressure on Russia they had trouble keeping up economically. We cannot keep up with the whole world.
Plus, obama does not care what happens to the US or Israel. His loyalty is somewhere else.
If we deploy nuclear-armed missiles in the Baltics then Russia will reply in kind. And I believe we’re past the age when nuclear weapons can be considered a credible threat, at least in the hands of NATO or Russia. No-one seriously believes NATO will use nuclear weapons against Russia absent a Russian invasion.
If we give military aid to Georgia, or the Baltics, then Russia will complete the contract for S-300′s with Iran and provide lots more military equipment such as anti-ship missiles, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and various other types. It will likely also supply modern weapons to Syria.
If the United States aids Chechen or Northern Caucasian militants not only will we be providing money and weapons to people who have publicly stated they want to wage jihad against us, leading to the likelihood those same weapons will be used against American soldiers somewhere in the world, the Russians can respond in kind with the Taliban. Or Hamas. Or Hezbollah. Or any number of other militant groups that want to fight against US interests.
Srtephanie WTF are you talking about, the red line is being crossed as I write…
To the ppl who are talking about bolton argument I agree that this piece really sidesteps its whole point. I think they assume that since its not a “key piece” of iran plan that israel won’t attack it.
That maybe true but one must also remember iran is in a huge propaganda war… israel pretty much must choose to attack before the plant goes online or suffer 10x worse PR when iran throws up hundreds of fake reports about the billions of ppl dying from rad poisoning because the evil jews bombed they’re nuke plant.
Bolton is very much right in that they’re is a deadline being set as a result of the plant starting. The question is if israel considers this site important enough to attack or not…
I don’t believe Israel has the means to take out mountains under which the bomb factories are hiding. She might be capable of destroying the government along with all Tehran, but that has terrible dangers. There are a lot of countries with nukes in that general neighborhood, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and they don’t have to passively sit and smile as the radiation clouds head their way.
As for Iran, they may be crazy but they’re sane-crazy. Martyrdom is only for the little people; they will use their newly acquired nukes as an umbrella to keep themselves safe from attack while they carry out ever more mischief against their neighbors and against the West. Initially the Russians will find this a delightful joke but won’t be so happy when it backfires on them, as some day it will.
Our best bet is to become energy independant, using our own or natural allies fossil fuels while building a hardened and more efficient electrical delivery system. Fossil fuels are critical fro transportation needs. The technoilogy exists for efficient transfer to natural gas which is in abundance on the North American continent. Modern nuclear energy is the best bet for high energy demands necessary for manufacturing and extractive industries, delocalized solar could supply small energy demands such as homes and small facilities. There is no reasonalble shortage of fisile fuels which can be mined or extracted from seawater. Bio mass and the like is much more valuable as a supply source for chemical feedstocks. With cheaper energy supplies we can rebuild our own industrial base. If instead of throwing up roadblocks based on fears, lets name the problems and resolve them. Untold billions will be redirected away from unfriendly countries to our natural allies.
What on earth does that have to do with the topic of this article?
First off, the VVER-1000 reactor being built at Bushehr uses low-enriched Uranium as its fuel, like pretty much every civilian power reactor in the world. Reactors aren’t flex-fuel, it’s possible to convert a plant to burn Plutonium, but it’s not easy.
Secondly, operating a civilian power plant has no bearing on nuclear weapons; especially if the fuel is being supplied by an outside party. The rapid and efficient release of nuclear energy is deemed somewhat detrimental in power plant design. The only intersection between power production and weapons production is at the core’s end of life. At that point the spent fuel is now laden with Plutonium, which is relatively easy to extract. So the big question isn’t where the fuel came from, it’s where does the spent fuel go.
Finally, Mr. Bolton is incorrect that the fueling of the reactor would mark a deadline in its destruction. Unspent nuclear fuel is not very radioactive. It consists primarily of U-238 with a half-life of 4.5 billion years (the longer the half-life the less radioactive the material is) with a small (~3%) amount of U-235 with a half-life of 704 million years as well as a minuscule amount of their decay products, which are more radioactive but much rarer. The real danger to people comes from the fission products, which are only formed when the reactor is operating. Obviously the longer the reactor is operating the greater the risk. After the reactor is fueled the pressure vessel must be sealed, the containment building must be sealed, the coolant loops filled and purged, the control systems tested, and the safety systems tested. Only then will the reactor be started. This process would take several weeks, if not months. Most of them could be skipped, but it would run the risk of delaying the extraction of plutonium (assuming this reactor is part of their weapons program) because of safety shutdowns.
There is a strong odor, not just a whiff, of wishful thinking here.
The point is NOT that Bushehr is peripheral to Iran’ bomb-making stategy (phew, that’s all right then).
The point is Russia’s mad, cynical determination to help Iran towards its nuclear ambitions. Support for sanctions? Don’t make me laugh. Russia’s principal foreign policy objective is a crude, unfocussed desire to discomfort, wrong-foot and unsettle the US in any way it can – the same objectives as the USSR, minus the ideology.
Foolishly, Russia thinks that it can avoid the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, believing that the grateful mullahs will never allow their nukes into the hands of Russia’s (sunni) insurgencies. But a nuke going off in a western city? Well, we lost 20 million in the great patriotic war. Do them good. Make us more powerful.
No-one should be fooled by Putin and his baby-doc president, Medvedev. Putin is a grub, who should not be trusted an inch.
This all sounds like what happened in the world just before the 2nd World War. Our politicians said don`t worry Hitler and his Nazi Party will not attack anyone. We all know how that worked out. The world was lucky then because America was a strong industrial nation and stood to help people. Now America is not an industrialized country and we are screwing are allies!
Oh, goodness. Russia’s delivery of anti-aircraft missiles to Iran shouldn’t raise any concern. I don’t think there’s any reason for concern until the nuclear weapons are actually being bolted on the missiles that will deliver them to their target.
Actually, shouldn’t panic there either, come to think of it: there shouldn’t be any real concern until the missiles are airborne and on their way to their chosen target.
But wait! Don’t panic! Until they actually ARRIVE at their target, the people in the area immediately around the target will actually be having a completely normal day, so why on earth would you want to panic and get everybody all upset?????
Reference to Hitler’s “peaceful intentions” by another commenter is right on. But of course, many of these journolists don’t know understand the reason for those quote marks.
snork it has everything to do with it! Remember the Persian Gulf?