Since politicians of every stripe seem to be weighing in on the Iran nuclear agreement, I thought maybe the views of a nuclear scientist might be of interest.
In a classic 1958 TV debate, scientists Linus Pauling and Edward Teller argued their views on the proper role of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet threat of nuclear war. Pauling stressed international diplomacy, while Teller took a more aggressive stance, with emphasis supplied by Soviet Premier Khrushchev’s “We shall bury you” quote.
Subsequently, both Republican and Democratic presidents pursued painstaking diplomatic solutions that led to cessation of nuclear testing, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, rigorous inspection protocols, and phased reduction of the thousands of nuclear warheads possessed by the U.S. and USSR. Today’s deliberations over the Iran nuclear agreement mimic those of Pauling and Teller. What seems to be missing is a recognition of the success of the earlier negotiations with the Soviets.
The basic issue with the Iran agreement is not that we trust Iran, but that we do not trust the present regime. As a nuclear scientist for more than 50 years, my perspective is that the present agreement is technically sound and provides the safeguards necessary to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Beyond the pros and cons presented by the politicians and special interests, let me add the following four points.
First, although Secretary of State John Kerry has been the point man in the Iran negotiations, perhaps we should give much more emphasis to the views of a distinguished nuclear physicist, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Of all the negotiators involved in the present agreement, none can match the nuclear physics stature of Moniz.
While I was a faculty member and director of the Indiana University Cyclotron, Moniz served on numerous university and National Science Foundation review and program committees, a role he has played at many of our major university and national laboratories. His keen analysis of both physics and operational problems is a recognized strength and it is unlikely that any serious flaw would escape his detection. Naiveté is definitely not part of his demeanor. I feel confident he would not sign on to this agreement if he felt it unworkable.
Second, with regard to the possibility of Iran operating a clandestine nuclear program, one must also recognize that Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (and others) have developed ultra-sensitive mechanisms for detecting highly penetrating neutrons and gamma rays that would make concealing high levels of fissionable material exceedingly difficult. However, perhaps a more valuable part of the inspections might be derived from interactions between the inspectors and Iranian nuclear scientists, which have the potential of inadvertently (or deliberately) revealing the existence of any clandestine project.
Third, the demographics of Iran must be factored into any decision. With 60 percent of the population born after 1980, many do not carry the baggage of the 1979 Revolution. Dwindling attendance at Friday prayers reflects a growing disillusionment with the conservative clergy and there exists an openness toward Western culture. Also, the influence of the Internet cannot be ignored. Despite Iran’s censorship efforts, the younger generation will learn how to bypass these restrictions. Let’s not risk reversing the tide in favor of the clerics.
Finally, when you distill all the hyperbole out of the nuclear debate, one question remains: What would Iran do with a nuclear weapon if it had one? Israel possesses more than 100 nuclear warheads, a sophisticated launch system and the backing of our thousands of nuclear missiles. Hence, any nuclear attack initiated by Iran would ensure self-annihilation. Despite Iran’s passion for belligerent talk, the Iranian military realizes this, even if the clerics don’t want to admit it.
If Congress defeats the Iran nuclear agreement, the biggest winner will be the hard-liners in Iran — freedom to pursue a nuclear weapon, ineffective sanctions, and closer ties with Russia and China. Let’s keep the upper hand and give diplomacy a chance.
Vic Viola is a distinguished professor in the departments of Chemistry and Physics at Indiana University. He lives in Golden.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
