April 9, 2015

Discussion Draft

The Fatally Flawed Nuclear Treaty Framework with Iran

Robert F. Williams PE. NE, retired
The following four pages are a set of talking points that outline the important elements of a Better
Deal on the Nuclear, Economic, and Security Issues in the Mid-East. Each talking point could be
buttressed with several pages of detailed discussion and analysis, but time does not permit this in the
next several days when it is most needed.
Part 1- Evaluation of the present framework
Part 2- Diplomatic, Economic, and technical elements of a better deal.
Part 1- Evaluation of the present incomplete framework for the agreement

Obama should not be allowed to double down on a badly flawed, essentially

unenforceable deal, that fails to address the core issues of mid-east stability (Each points
discussed more later)
There is consensus that Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons, and delivery systems
(When. now, a few months, or 1 year after the phase out of multiple limits and
inspections is all that is at issue among most critics)
There are too many moving parts, too many technical uncertainties, for monitoring
at multiple sites with multiple inventories to be established and workable
monitoring and enforcement cannot be quickly implemented and sufficiently definitive
for matters of war and major sanctions to be rapidly triggered when needed
See more complete analysis, Kissinger and Schultz, WSJ, 4/72014 p. A 13

Some members of the P5+1, and Iran have conflicting objectives that become fatal flaws,
in the sense that they split the unity and the ultimate goal of the agreement measured by national
interest This in turn effects the scrutiny of the efficacy of the agreement to reach its goals.
Russia would love to become a nuclear supplier to Egypt and indirectly Saudi
Arabia, to leverage the world price of oil higher for Russias exports, etc.
Iran is in no hurry to make an agreement since the present course of events appears to
favor Iran. (More centrifuges, more Hezbollah, more countries with insurrection.)
France in particular and Europe in general face a growing Muslim population. Wishful
thinking, or kicking the can down the road becomes more and more attractive
China has great interest in oil and gas diversity, but at a point that stops short of mideast war.
U.K. is pre-occupied with upcoming elections in 2015, that may be indecisive, and
followed by 2016 follow-on, and then votes on their future role Europe in 2017
Germany is pre-occupied with growls from the Russian Bear led by Putin.

The draft agreement with the most optimistic improvements is a formula that
immediately incentivizes a mid-east nuclear arms race.
Iran has an authorized massive infrastructure that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
perhaps others will feel obliged to match. Pakistan, North Korea, others may supply it
if the Big 5 decline.

Williams4064@sbcglobal.net

-1-

R.F. Williams

April 9, 2015
Discussion Draft
Both sides have used the ends justify the means arguments as follows:
Iran: The end, destroying the Great Satan Amercia, is justified by the means,
lying about the elements and intent of the nuclear agreement.
Obama: The end, rapprochement with Iran and stabilizing the Mideast, is justified
by lying about the efficacy, practicality, and potential for conversion of Iran to peaceful
intentions thru this agreement The merit is found only by assertion, and wishful
thinking that defies recent public statements by Iran.

Obama, particularly, and the U.S. generally, because of recent failures in U.S. foreign
policy, lack credibility, either to act or to be a credible guarantor. It will take a while to rebuild
trust. Actions will have to speak louder than words.
(See D Henninger Wall Street Journal, 4/9/2015 p A15, Speak softly and Claim to
Carry a Big Stick which you have no intention of ever using.
Concessions to Iran since 2009, have favored Iran, both actually, and in the opinion of
Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and smaller but still important allies such as
Kuwait, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, and others.
The results of Obamas conflicted policies is very evident in who supports Bashar Al
Assad in Syria, and who is willing to join the ground war against ISIL. Turkeys
conflicted role in supporting the fight against ISIL is just one of many examples.
(In my opinion Turkey is the only nation with sufficient and capable ground forces
to make a meaningful fight against ISIL.)
Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates appear to be providing the resources in the
form of $20 to $40 Billion per year to sustain the Egyptian economy. The US $ 3
Billion

The present framework is so vague it cannot be effectively analyzed, but at the same time has
so many open issues that it cannot be meaningfully implemented or actions taken on violations.
A particularly serious point is the current ability of Iran to conduct ongoing nuclear
research. Laser enrichment of uranium or uranium tails is nearly proven.
The state of measurements, valves, controls, and instruments to quantify the fissile
material inventory is unknown to this author. It is likely to be minimal or non existent.
There is a term Material Unaccounted For MUF, or LEMUF that is a crucial and
very difficult concept to implement if the facility did not consider this from day one.
What is the fissile inventory required for 20 nuclear weapons, what amount of
separative work (SWU), what amount of feed and tails, and how does this compare to
MUF and LEMUF?
There is no sign that the concept has been subject to Black Hat or White
Hatanalysis. U.S. experts from Portsmouth (centrfuges), enrichment and
reprocessing plants, should be asked to estimate the major vulnerabilities of what is
proposed and the likely MUF and LEMUF.
-

How frequently will the material balance be taken and closed? How will the various
uranium forms, solid, liquid, gas, UF6 UO2, intermediates be reconciled. Will
process equipment have to be emptied to reach closure?
Does not the operation of 300 older models, and many new centrifuges at Fordow or
wherever, even though dedicated to medical isotope enrichment provide vital, and
confirmatory data that in principle permits rapid breakout to a significant weapons
inventory?

Williams4064@sbcglobal.net

-2-

R.F. Williams

April 9, 2015
PART 2 -

Discussion Draft

Element of a better agreement in terms of accomplishment and likely success

An agreement with a more meaningful legacy, that addresses more of the major issues in the
mid-east has several attractive and commanding points, but must be tackled NOW, before focus
is lost in haggling over an unworkable framework.

A broader agreement dealing with more types of arms, arms control, size of armies, and
size of irregular armies or militias including elements of asymmetric warfare should be
addressed. Negotiations could lead to new national boundaries, cease fires, arms control and
arms limitation agreements. The realities of ethnic and sectarian diversity should be addressed.
-

This will be a more significant and meaningful legacy for Obama, that every one
will appreciate.
Addressing other major elements for mid-east problems and instability will be a
major talking point deflecting the disappointment in declining the present deal.
A nuclear arms race, beginning almost immediately because of Irans head start,
is a very bad outcome of the present Obama Plan.
We sooner or later will have to address a peace deal for the mid-east. Better now
than later.
A Mid-East Development and Trade Plan, like the Marshall Plan is needed. (MEDO)
-

It is desirable to include adversaries and friends in the same groups if at all

possible. The alternative is a NATO for the mid-east that may be required if
Rationalization of trade, including a replacement for OPEC is highly desireable
Regional infrastructure, and education programs, water desalinization,
universities for 21st century technology, trade schools can supply many jobs.
Funding, from the WTO, the IMF, The new Chinese world bank, others, as well
as a reasonable re-allocation of oil revenues of a period of time may fund the
venture.
Etc etc (time does not permit, or require more elaboration now)
Who to include as direct or associate members needs evaluation. It should not be
bigger than 10 or 13 parties to be manageable and effective. A Separate and
similar organization should be considered for most of Africa.

A Meaningful role for Iran, and other major mid east actors in the UN Security council
like function. Permanent membership would be a major inducement to Iran, and would of
course require equal membership for others. A fundamental objective is to include Iran so that
Iran does not fear that it is being isolated
-

For openers, a Subcommittee of the Security Council, with major rich or well
populated countries with permanent membership, with rotating membership for
others should be organized. A meaningful role for Iran Saudi Arabia and Turkey
My permanent member list would be Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran,
Israel. (Two of the P5, the U.S. and China would be added as my first choices.)
Obvious members with some conditioning on term or voting would include Iraq,
Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrien, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Aden,
Libya, and a few others. An East and West Iraq, a Kurdistan, the restructured
remnants of Syria need to be negotiated.

Williams4064@sbcglobal.net

-3-

R.F. Williams

April 9, 2015
Discussion Draft
Whether the rotating members should include Pakistan, Kurdistan, Turkestan to
the East and North, and whether to include Ukraine and Romania, and perhaps
even Greece, to the West. Pakistan because it is nuclear, needs to be included in
some way. If Pakistan is in, what about India.
Note rather than make this subcommittee too big, a second subcommittee for the Far
East would be equally important. Major members would include China, Japan,
Indonesia, India, and Vietnam, perhaps Austrailia Rotating members would include
Singapore, the Phillipines. (Algorithm include both funders and fundees.)

A mid East Nato (METO) for military purposes if the MEDO for peaceful development
appears likely to be stillborn.
This would prolong the polarization between Iran and it likely vassal states, and
the rest of the Mideast, but could be necessary for a containment strategy
anticipating regional and sectarian warfare and ethnic cleansing. This is
preferable to the staus quo under the present nuclear framework surely followed
by an nuclear arms race.
The METO mid east members are obvious, but must include countries with large
population, significant wealth or resources, and significant technology expertise.
The role of the EU is certainly problematic.
The U.S. might have to choose sides, and make significant contributions in men
and material. The worse alternative is a spreading limited, and then less limited
spreading nuclear conflict in the mid east by 2020 or 2025

Summary- Even if this turns out to be a failure, like Woodrow Wilsons League of
Nations, at least history can say that the world and the U.S. tried to provide a solution
consistent with the magnitude of the problem, and brought focus to all the issues, not just the
issue of nuclear Iran in the mid east.
Note: Please feel free to adopt, and modify these ideas to develop a better plan. The author, as a
retiree, does not have the resources or the staff to serve as a focal point for, or defender of comments.
I nevertheless would appreciate copies of your comments and position, as pdf files, and adopt any of
the ideas you believe have merit in your own work.

Williams4064@sbcglobal.net

-4-

R.F. Williams