James Walsh was the Executive Director at the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He was named a Jennings Randolph Peace Scholar by the United States Institute for Peace and won the Hubert Humphrey Fellowship from the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In an interview with Rooz, he notifies: “In September, Iran, at the last minute, announced that it had a new enrichment facility that it had been working on. That was a new violation of its arrangements and so when the IAEA issued its most recent report, it was very angry with Iran.” He emphasizes: “Once you start breaking the rules, when you start hiding things, it’s hard for people to have confidence in your statements.” He believes: “If Iran refuses cooperation with the Agency, if it builds more enrichment plants and takes provocative actions, then it would not be surprising if Israel launches an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
What is your current position?
I am a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Security Studies Program.
You have done research on the nuclear issue in Iran, can you elaborate on it?
My Ph.D. is in security studies and in particular my research focuses on nuclear decision making so I have studied a number of countries over the years. For almost a decade I have studied Iran. I have been to Iran several times (5-6 times) and have met with many Iranians over the years. I have met with Iranian officials visiting the US, in Europe and in Iran itself.
When was the last time you were in Iran?
It was a year ago, in November, a week before the US Presidential elections.
Did you visit any of the nuclear sites?
No, most of the time when I visited Iran, I was giving talks at Tehran University, meeting officials at the Foreign Ministry or the Expediency Council; I did not visit the nuclear sites; instead I talked to officials involved in the nuclear policy and US- Iranian relations.
What do you think is the current stage of the nuclear program in Iran vs. N. Korea?
I think Iran and North Korea are completely different countries. N. Korea has nuclear weapons. At least it has a nuclear device which it has tested twice. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. It concerns people that the country (Iran) may have a nuclear program capable of building nuclear weapons, but no one expects that it would happen in the short term. They are also very different countries in terms of geo-strategic conditions. N. Korea is a very poor country with much stronger neighbors. It has grown weaker and it sort of uses its nuclear program to bargain with the rest of the world. Iran is a very different situation. Iran denies that it wants nuclear weapons or that it has nuclear weapons. While Iran has significant economic challenges that are likely to grow worse in the short term, it is not nearly in the same position. North Korea is in a much tougher situation.
Why do you think there is so much pressure on Iran to abandon its program?
First of all it is Iran that has brought this on itself. Everyone acknowledges the fact that Iran concealed its program and broke its obligations. This goes back to the period prior to 2003, when they received assistance from the Pakistani nuclear scientist Khan which included a blueprint for a nuclear weapon design. So that is pretty suspicious when you think of it. Now Iran has tried to respond to the new IAEA‘s outstanding questions about its nuclear program and some of those issues have been resolved. But as we saw three months ago, in September, Iran, at the last minute, announced that it had a new enrichment facility that it had been working on. That was a new violation of its arrangements and so when the IAEA issued its most recent report, it was very angry with Iran. And then at the last minute, new violations appeared. In some ways I can see why, when I talk to Iranian colleagues, I understand some of the points they are making; they say if we had been open in the years past, in 2003, foreign governments would have tried to stop us. That is probably right. That would have been unfair. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), they are entitled to a civilian nuclear program. But once you start breaking the rules, when you start hiding things, it’s hard for people to have confidence in your statements.
What about these new ten sites? How much do you know about them?
They are announcing that they will build ten new plants. I think it is all too silly if you ask me. Clearly this was in response to the IAEA’s resolution. So it strikes me as a very well thought out idea. The notion that Iran needs 300 or 500 thousand centrifuges is ridiculous. They don’t even have one plant working at the Bushehr. Therefore, the idea that they need these many centrifuges is silly on the face of it. I think it is just posturing and politics. The International community says one thing; Iran feels compelled to respond. I suspect that Iran is going to build 10 new enrichment facilities.
I don’t know what it would do with them if it did. I think it is a distraction from the main issue right now which are the Geneva negotiations; how these negotiations are going to yield to progress. If Iran stops its talks with the IAEA, which the President and the Majlis have threatened to do, if they go forward with these plants, then I think we are on a very dangerous road. And that would be really a big mistake on the part of the Iranian government.
Do you believe Iran and Israel are headed for a confrontation?
I don’t think anything is inevitable. I don’t think that contrary to many American analysts it is inevitable that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. And I don’t think it is inevitable that Iran and Israel will engage in a military conflict. But I think there is a danger of that. If all the parties continue on the present course, I think unfortunately, there is a very big chance of that. Not tomorrow, not a month from now but at some point down the road if Iran refuses cooperation with the Agency, if it builds more enrichment plants and takes provocative actions, then it would not be surprising if Israel launches an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I think it would be a mistake; it would not accomplish anything but that is the road we are currently on if all the parties continue to do what they are doing.
When you were in Iran and talked to Iranian officials, did any of them mention the possibility of an attack on Israel? I mention this, because in the Israeli press, they are constantly talking about it.
I never heard from any Iranian official ever that Iran would initiate an attack against Israel. If you remember, during the recent Gaza incursion by Israelis forces there were thousands of Iranians who volunteered to go fight the Israelis but the Supreme Leader said no, stay home. It seems to me that Iran is not looking for direct confrontation with Israel. Most of it is rhetorical, political not actually military. But Iran has said that if Israel attacks, Iran will respond. That is not surprising. Most countries would respond if they are attacked. But I think in this scenario most likely Israel would initiate the action by attacking the nuclear sites, and naturally Iran will respond.
In your opinion, as a specialist on security and nuclear issues, don’t you think that if the Taliban or Al-Qaida in Pakistan had access to nuclear weapons or the bomb, they would be more dangerous than Iran, even though we know that the Iranian government has acted irrationally and brutally towards its own people?
I think all nuclear weapons are dangerous. I think they are dangerous regardless of who owns them. The Pakistani nuclear weapons are dangerous; so are India’s, the US nuclear arsenal, all of them pose a danger. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, it will make the world a more dangerous place. Now having said that, some dangers seem greater than others; so yes, the Taliban or Al-Qaida, non-state actors, having access to nuclear weapons, would be far more dangerous in part because history suggests that governments as opposed to non-state actors tend not to use their nuclear weapons for fear of others. So if Iran were to get a nuclear weapon, I don’t expect that it would turn the next day and shoot a nuclear weapon at Israel because Israel will retaliate by doing the same and both societies will be destroyed. So, it is even more dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of non-state actors because they will not be deterred. They will use it as an act of suicide or martyrdom.
Should the US continue with the talks? At what point should it give up?
I worry that the US and the Europeans will become frustrated and will give up at some point. I hope that they don’t; the only way this issue will be resolved is through negotiations. Others will suggest sanctions, but that is not going to force Iran in giving up its nuclear program. An attack will be very costly for all but at the end of the day it is only through negotiations in which all parties can achieve their objectives. Iran does have the right to civilian nuclear program; it’s the issue of enrichment that is problematic. I think the US, Britain, and other powers will be happy to accept that the issue is enrichment and that is the one technology that the US has problem with. What we must have in negotiations is a situation where Iran gets to have its civilian program that is entitled to, but that it would not be close to a nuclear weapons program. This requires compromise from all the different parties.
From your visit to Iran and talks to ordinary citizens or the officials, what do you think they want? Why are they (the government) playing this cat and mouse game?
First of all, we have to be careful here; Iran is not just one person. Obviously the Supreme Leader is the most important person but it is not just one person; there are a lot of different people with different ideas. On top of that we have the June 12th elections which have further changed the internal dynamics. And so I don’t think of Iran as having one fixed objective that everyone agrees on. I think there are differences in the nuclear policy. The conservative pragmatists, who are the establishment members of the regime, wanted to work out some kind of negotiations and were able to get something out of them. The hardliners, the more ideological factions within the government, wanted something different. Mr. Ahmadi Nejad favored the Tehran research reactor deal which was negotiated in Geneva but when he returned to Tehran it was criticized by the opposition groups, the green movement, and by anti Ahmadi Nejad hardliners. They broke with him for being too soft, for having brokered a deal with the West, which I find totally ridiculous. It is all politics. Some people in Iran want to have nuclear weapons. There are others who don’t want them. They want to have nuclear capability. My hope is that what Iran decides to have is a peaceful nuclear program that is arranged in a way that gives others in the international community more confidence about Iran’s intentions and those countries also give the same feeling to Iran. Right now everyone is suspicious of everyone else. All sides may have good reasons for their mistrust.
My hope is that we can find a way that all parties despite their suspicions can come to a resolution that does not threaten the rest of the world. But right now that prospect doesn’t look very good. Unfortunately it is not just a technical matter. There is personality, emotions, pride, nationalism and politics, all mixed up in this. I think the West has also made its share of mistakes. Publicly saying that we are going to introduce sanctions has not been a very smart way to handle things. So both sides are making huge mistakes. I hope both can tone down the rhetoric, end the posturing and go back to the negotiation table.
