• Listen to this segment

GUEST: Muhammed Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of
Southern California

In what appears to be a blow to the Bush Administration’s plans for war and sanctions on Iran, a US intelligence report has asserted that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago. The National Intelligence Estimate represents the consensus of all 16 American spy agencies. In October President Bush warned that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons could ‘ignite World War III.’ Reacting to the report earlier this week, Bush called the report “a warning signal,” not grounds for reassurance, and refused to renounce a military option for Iran. His allies, Britain and France lined up behind him. According to British PM Gordon Brown, “the report confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons.” Other reactions to the report were quite the opposite. Mohammed El Baradei, the head of International Atomic Energy Agency, said the report “should help to defuse the current crisis” over Iran’s nuclear program and called for swift negotiations to bring an end to the standoff between Iran and the West. For its part, the Iranian government said it welcomed what it called a United States decision to “correct” its claim of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. An interesting twist on this story comes from Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer writing for TIME.com, who concludes that Bush backed the report’s findings as it allowed him a face-saving way out of an unfeasible war.

Rough Transcript

Sonali Kolhatkar: Joining me in studio this morning is Muhammed Sahimi, a Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Southern California. Welcome to Uprising, Professor Sahimi.

Muhammed Sahimi: It’s a pleasure to be with you, Sonali.

Sonali: Thanks very much for joining us. So, first, this report and its results – were you at all surprised when you heard about it?

Prof. Sahimi: I am actually not surprised at all because all the objective experts, who, instead of listening to Bush Administration propaganda or even listening to what the Iranian government was saying, had been studying the reports of International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran’s nuclear program, knew that there was no evidence that Iran actually had a nuclear weapons program before or after 2003. So, I’m not surprised at all. The National Intelligence Estimate said that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program before 2003 but I interpret that as a concession by the intelligence community to the Bush administration. Because even before 2003 there was no evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. What happened was Iran, in 1983, decided to have an uranium enrichment program and asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to help set it up which Iran was entitled to. The agency actually did send a team to Tehran in 1983 and studied the issue and issued the report saying that Iran does need a program for uranium enrichment and suggested the way the agency could help Iran to set it up. So, Iran was trying to set that up that program in full transparency and with the help of International Atomic Energy Agency. But the United States blocked that effort. Iran, in subsequent years, for at least two years, tried to do that again in full transparency, seeking help with other countries, but each time that it was close in agreement, it was blocked again. So, Iran learned its lesson, decided to quietly set up the uranium enrichment program on its own. But that effort that was quiet until 2003 wasn’t illegal because Iran’s only obligation to International Atomic Energy Agency was that if it set up any nuclear facility for uranium enrichment, the only obligation that it had was to inform the Agency 180 days before introducing any nuclear material into the facilities. And, therefore, Iran duly did that in February, 2003. So, the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had a nuclear weapons program before 2003 only means that they didn’t know what Iran was doing and therefore they interpreted that as Iran having a nuclear weapons program whereas there is no hard evidence that Iran actually had a program before 2003. So, I’m not surprised at all.

Sonali: Now what about the way in which the Bush Administration and its allies and Britain and France are reacting to this report? I mean this is the definitive, you know, consensus of all 16 American intelligence agencies and, yet, the Bush Administration is saying that this should not be interpreted as anything other than a warning signal. The British p.m. is saying that it actually confirms we were right to be worried about Iran.

Prof. Sahimi: Well, as far as the Bush Administration is concerned, the confrontation with Iran and the war that has been waging in the Middle East are ideological wars. And whenever you act according to ideology rather than on the physical facts on the ground, you don’t let physical facts on the ground get in your way and, therefore, you can interpret things any way you want. So, that’s basically what I expected the Administration to say. As for France and England, they have always wanted to find Iran guilty and they have already issued their verdict that Iran is guilty of having a nuclear weapons program, and now that the National Intelligence estimate is against what they had already decided, before deciding based on evidence, they have to face-save and say, well, we were right all along – Iran did have a nuclear weapons program before 2003 and, therefore, there is reason to be alarmed about it.

Sonali: What do you think of the story on Time.com by Robert Baer saying that the Bush Administration, basically, needed a way out of waging war with Iran because it just looked so unfeasible and that he knew of this intelligence report before it was issued – he would have had to have known and that he signed off on it – and now it allows him a diplomatic face-saving way to avoid the Iran war?

Prof. Sahimi: I think it’s plausible. The report by Robert Baer is plausible. The fact of the matter is there was increasing evidence from all sides that a military attack on Iran would not lead to anything other than chaos and war and bloodshed in the Middle East. Iranians would have reacted to any military attack and they would have reacted strongly. The price of oil is already close to $90 per barrel and, therefore, any military attack would have raised the price beyond anybody’s imagination. Iranians would have reacted by attacking U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and oil fields in Saudi Arabia. They do have a lot of assets spread throughout the Middle East to strongly react to any military attack. At the same time, we know that there has been some report that even the military brass was against a military attack on Iran. Admiral … Fallon, the …of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has been quoted as saying that no war in Iran will happen on his watch. So, given the opposition within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military brass, and given the impracticality of staging any military attack on Iran and achieving the goal that …supposedly had, I would not be surprised if the report by Robert Baer is actually true.

Sonali: I want to remind our listeners – I’m speaking with Muhammed Sahimi. He joins us in studio. He is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Southern California and we’re talking about the latest U.S. Intelligence Report that revealed that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program in at least a few years. And, despite that of course, the Bush Administration, at least publicly, claiming that they were right to be worried about Iran. What about the reaction from within Iran? It must be a, sort of, a triumphant time in Iran, particularly from the government, right now. I understand there’s a lot of discussion on the state television, you know, saying, look, we were right after all.

Prof. Sahimi: Yes, of course. In fact, I talked to state television, the English language part of it yesterday and they were elated about the new report. Iran’s foreign minister, …, had a hard time hiding his happiness about the new report and President Ahmadinejad, this morning, declared that this is a triumph for Iran and Iranian people. So, they have been saying that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. They have been saying that we don’t have any weapons program; they have been saying that there’s a religious verdict against making nuclear weapon in Iran and, therefore, they have been saying all this all along. But, as I said at the beginning of what I said, we didn’t have to listen to what they said. All we had to do was study the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the only objective source of information on Iran’s nuclear program, that declared report after report, that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapon program, secret or (unintelligible) weapon program and all there is is all those declared facilities that are under monitoring and inspection of the Agency. So, if we wanted to base our judgment on the Agency’s report, we could have reached this conclusion a long time ago and not just this past week.

Sonali: Now, I know that you mentioned earlier that the U.S.’s war plans for Iran have an ideological basis but still how do you respond to, you know, Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor, saying that this new Intelligence Estimate shows that international pressure has had an effect on Iran – look, we applied pressure and Iran did actually respond to it?

Prof. Sahimi: That’s actually not true. Because, suppose that Iran did have a nuclear weapon program – a secret nuclear weapon program – and it stopped it in 2003. In 2003, there was no economic sanction against Iran; in 2003, there was no pressure on Iran. In fact, in 2003, Iran and the European Union were negotiating about how to settle this issue and Iran had agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program as a result of the negotiation with the European Union. So, making the claim that it was the pressure of sanction and it was the pressure of international community that Iran (stop) its nuclear program is totally not credible. Yes, if the National Intelligence Estimate had declared that Iran stop its nuclear weapon program last month or a few months ago, then we could have thought that there is some credibility or it’s plausible that Iran did it. But the fact that they said they did it back in 2003 which, coincidentally, is the same time that Iran announced to the International Atomic Energy Agency the existence of uranium enrichment program which was carried out according to its obligation to the Agency because Iran wanted to introduce nuclear material into the facilities tells me that there is no credibility to what Stephen Hadley has said.

Sonali: Now, assuming that the Bush Administration does still intend to create a case for Iran, what impact will this intelligence report have and could it, in your mind, effectively squelch any military feasibility? I mean, given what happened with Iraq, that the use of flawed intelligence was the excuse for invading Iraq, this time they are not going to be able to use the issue of an intelligence report, it seems.

Prof. Sahimi: Absolutely not. If the administration tries to come up with some sort of excuse for a military attack on Iran, it will be totally isolated, not only in the international community, but even within the United States. I think it will make it practically impossible to get authorization from the Congress for staging any military attacking on Iran. All the presidential candidates have already criticized President Bush very harshly about his rhetoric and about, you know, using things as the start of World War III if Iran acquires even the knowledge for making nuclear bomb, which, by the way, is very absurd and ridiculous claim because, if you go to the Internet, you can easily find all the information that you need for making a nuclear weapon so, acquiring the knowledge is not any excuse for attacking a country like Iran. So, I believe the new National Intelligence Estimate would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the administration to find any excuse, any justification whatsoever, to try to attack Iran.

Sonali: Professor Sahimi, on the same note, what about the sanctions on Iran that the United Nations, that European officials were seeking at the United Nations Security Council? Will this report, do you think, also impact their efforts to have new sanctions on Iran?

Prof. Sahimi: Yes, I think it will make it more difficult to, particularly, convince China and Russia to go along with new sanctions. In fact, China’s Ambassador to the United Nations was saying yesterday that we are reading this report very carefully because this is a new date, this is new information, and in the light of new information we may have to revise our stand in regards to Iran’s nuclear weapon program. Remember, Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, just said a few weeks ago, that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran has any nuclear weapon program and, therefore, there is no reason for ratcheting up the pressure on Iran and trying to impose new sanctions. With this new estimate, which is, by the way, by 16 U.S. Intelligence organizations, it would be far more difficult to convince, at least, China and Russia, to go along with new sanctions.

Sonali: Now, the lead-up to the war with Iraq showed that the media can have a pretty serious impact in helping government create the case for war. Have you had a chance to take a look at the mainstream media coverage of this intelligence report? What is your assessment, in general even, of how the mainstream media has been covering the U.S. push towards war with Iran?

Prof. Sahimi: I’ve been following what the mainstream media has been saying and I must say that I still find big faults in what they report. For example, they don’t question the assertion that Iran had a secret nuclear weapon program before 2003. Where is the evidence for it? We have never seen any hard physical evidence that Iran actually had this program before 2003. This is another aspect of what the mainstream media does. They just go along with whatever the administration say. So, it is important, in my view, to have programs like yours, for example, that tries to bring the best, most complete and most objective information to the view of the public.

Sonali: At the same time, it seems as though the mainstream media has taken this report quite seriously. The Washington Post had a front page article – their article was headlined, “A Blow to Bush’s Tehran Policy”. This is not a report that is disappearing into the back pages of the newspapers.

Prof. Sahimi: Oh, I agree, I agree. I mean, there is no question. Because, they have been confronted with stark facts. The 16 U.S. Intelligence Organizations say Iran stopped its nuclear weapon program in 2003, and this is almost 2008 so, that means almost five years ago Iran stopped its program. So, this is not something that can be ignored and, as you said, this is not something that is going to disappear tomorrow or the next week. But, at the same time, as I said, the mainstream media do not look at the report critically and critique those aspects that seem to be based mainly on assertions without presenting any evidence including that fact that the National Intelligence Estimate says that Iran did have a nuclear weapon program before 2003 without presenting any hard evidence.

Sonali: Finally, Professor Sahimi, what next? What do you think the Bush Administration is going to do next? What do you think the Iranian government is going to do next? And, on that latter question, it seems as though Mahmoud Ahmadinejad really doesn’t have to do much else except sit and watch the Bush Administration back off.

Prof. Sahimi: I think the Bush Administration will try to convince the members of the United Nation Security Council to go along with the third round of sanctions against Iran. But, I believe it will be much more difficult to do it. Iran, on the other hand, has been saying for a long time that Iran’s nuclear dossier should be returned to International Atomic Energy Agency rather than be at the United Nations Security Council and once it is there, which, in my view, is its rightful place, it should be there. It shouldn’t have been sent to the United Nations Security Council because Iran’s nuclear program never posed any threat to international peace and security. Once it is there, then negotiations can start. Iran has hinted that if its nuclear dossier is returned to the Agency, it will be willing to seriously consider a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment program in return for serious negotiation to reach an agreement. So, I believe the Iranian government will insist on that and I believe the Bush Administration will insist on imposing a new round of sanctions on Iran because it claims that these sanctions are having an effect and the Iranian government is changing its behavior.

Sonali: And inside Iran, what about civil society groups? Particularly those who are active in opposing their own government – is this basically going to create more space for them to now not have to worry about a U.S. attack? Or has it just made the government stronger?

Prof. Sahimi: Well, Shareen Abadi, the Iranian lady who won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, announced the formation of a peace group a few weeks ago and this peace group is basically a broad coalition of many political parties, journalists, university students, poets, writers and so on, to oppose the nuclear program of the government of President Ahmadinejad. I believe this will make them stronger in the sense that they would say, look, there is no urgency, the international community now is convinced that this is a peaceful activity, we can afford to suspend the uranium enrichment program that we have for a short time in order to create more trust between Iran’s program and the international community. And, in fact, that is what they have been saying for the past several weeks. So, in that sense, I believe, it will provide the political cover for Iran’s NGOs and moderate and reformist political group to pressure the government of President Ahmadinejad to back down from its insistence on continuing the uranium enrichment program without any temporary suspension. So, in that sense, it’s also good news for Iranian NGO in my view.

Sonali: Well, Muhammed Sahimi, I want to thank you very much for joining us today.

Prof. Sahimi: It was a pleasure to be on your program.

Sonali: Professor Sahimi is Professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of Southern California. We’ve been discussing the U.S. Intelligence Report on Iran. And for Sonali’s subversive thought for the day, I coincidentally have a quote from Shareen Abadi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, who once said: “No American soldier should be allowed to set foot on Iranian soil regardless of the criticism we have of the Iranian government.” That’s Shareen Abadi and that’s Sonali’s subversive thought for the day. You’ve been listening to Uprising. Gabriel San Roman is our assistant producer. Teddy Robinson is our engineer and also helped to direct today’s show. You can hear an audio stream of today’s show after 10 a.m. on our website at uprisingradio.org. Our email is mail@uprisingradio.org. Cds of the show are available at pacificaradioarchives.org or by calling 1-800-735-0230. I’m your host and producer, Sonali Kolhatkar. Thanks for listening.

Special Thanks to Julie Svendsen for transcribing this interview