Iran Live Tv

Byline: Paul Kenyon

As international tensions mount, PBS's newsmagazine travels deep into Iran in search of answers to one of the world's most pressing security questions: Are the Iranians secretly pursuing a nuclear bomb? With exclusive access to a U.N. inspection team on a tour of Iran's most sensitive nuclear sites, PBS Frontline/World and BBC reporter Paul Kenyon sheds new light on the state of Iran's nuclear weapons program and the growing suspicions of inspectors.

Find out more about "Going Nuclear" on PBS (check local listings): PBS Frontline/World.

PBS Frontline/World reporter Paul Kenyon was online to discuss his report on Iran's nuclear program.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Alexandria, Va.: The U.S. argues that Iran doesn't need Nuclear Energy, that they have enough oil to produce electrical energy, etc. without going nuclear. What is wrong with a country conserving their resources for the future?

Paul Kenyon: I agree that this has been a U.S. position....but there are two reasons Iran might want nuclear energy too...one is that its in the middle of a population explosion, the other more important one is a strategic argument. It says its oil will fail in 30 years or so and its preparing for that....and yes, what is wrong with that. problem is that in the context of the rest of its behaviour, it doesn't feel quite so innocent....perhaps.

_______________________

Paris, France: Hello Paul, A few years a go the international community declared war against Saddam Hussein. Now organizations say Iran wants to develop nuclear arms. What is the credibility of these accusations? We are in the logic of the new war against Iran, but we don't have confirmation of a nuclear program for producing nuclear arms. Thank you.

Paul Kenyon: Hi, there is no smoking gun, as was the case with Iran. The U.S. government is far more hawkish than Europe on this....they say there is no doubt that Iran has a programme for weapons. In fact, under the Non Proliferation treaty....Iran has the right to nuclear power...and the U.S. and U.K. have an obligation to help it. And at the moment all the evidence we have is that it is engaged in nuclear energy. Problem is though, as scientists will tell you.....the same equipment is used for energy and weapons.....so how do we know they haven't crossed the line. All we know is that their pattern of behaviour has been deception.....and that makes America say ..hey, must be weapons. I ask though whether America is setting a good example by updating and modernising its nuclear arsenal....and making bunker busters.....doesn't that set the wrong example: nukes are important to the most powerful country in the world...

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Some of your video from Iran looks like it was filmed off of a TV monitor. Not very clear images, but they obviously did the trick. In your story you say you dubbed your videotapes in your hotel room. Is that how you copied them --photographing off your hotel TV? If so, that's clever. How did you manage to get the other video out of Iran, if they confiscated most of your tapes at the airport?

Paul Kenyon: Well...good question..two days before we left, I started getting very uncomfortable, as I knew we had been spotted at a number of nuclear sites. So, back at the hotel we rigged up the TV set with a lead into the beta cam and played the pix through there. We then recorded them on a mini DVD which the researcher had brought out with him...made three copies and gave one to the cameraman who was leaving a day before us. It was just an experiment really to see what happened as he left the country. He said it was ridiculous to be so concerned about it, because we had permission from the vice president to do our filming. Anyway, he just walked through the airport without a problem....I think they had a note of our flight but not his. A case of cock up by the security services there.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Exactly what will happen if it is found that Iran does have nuclear weapons, or the components for a nuclear weapon? Will we be invading Iran as well? Or will it be a situation the U.N. will handle?

Paul Kenyon: It would be a situation the U.N. would handle. But from Iran's perspective, once you have nuclear weapons, the precedent is that the rest of the world leaves you alone. Look at Pakistan which always said it was merely developing nuclear energy....there were warnings from the U.N. about taking their programme any further. When in 1998 Pakistan announced it has the bomb....there were some angry words from the world community but that quickly subsided, and Pakistan was welcomed into the nuclear club.....has Iran been watching and thinking they would like the same? I don't think the U.S. would invade because Iran is three times larger than Iraq and has a strong organised military and a missile system that could hit Israel. Israel on the other hand, did take action against Iraq unilaterally in 1981 I think...in the Osirack raid. On that occasion they became impatient with world diplomacy, and, believing that Iraq had a weapons programme, they bombed it themselves. Who knows if they would do the same again. Realistically it will be the U.N. and sanctions though, particularly in the short term.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: It seems that Iran has very little to lose by developing nuclear weapons and a lot to gain. They would be the only Middle East country other than Israel to possess nuclear weapons and could prevent an invasion by the U.S., which many suspect is already in the planning stages. Why should they negotiate?

Paul Kenyon: I agree..that is a good thumbnail analysis. The history of these developments is that world threats stop once you have a nuclear weapon. America currently has nuclear weapons pointing at Iran, you could understand the Iranians wanting to defend themselves particularly as their neighbour has been invaded and two decades ago they had an American puppet leader. I think the debate about how the world could live with a nuclear Iran is a good one. There is no evidence I know of to show that Iran is expansionist, but of course it sponsors Hezbollah which is of some concern. There is good reason for them to negotiate though....they have already been offered membership of the world trade organisation....and if you think about it, if U.S. offered to drop sanctions.....Iran would probably take it. That would be worth more to them in the short term than the amount they have spent on nuke energy programme.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: From what you learned, is the Iranian nuclear capability too spread out or hidden for the Israelis to destroy it if they attempted to?

Paul Kenyon: I think that's a good point. The sites I went to are as follows:

Natanz is in the middle of the mountains, buried under metres of earth and steel. It is strategically placed well away from all other sites. The other, Esfahan is close to one of the prettiest and most historic cities in Iran, and again buried....some of it under mountains. The other, Kalaye, is in Tehran itself. I've spoken to several nuclear experts who say there is no scientific reason to place each site so far from the next...they would normally be close together....they have been set out like this purely to make attack more difficult.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: From what you saw, do you think a military option (e.g., pinpoint bombing) to take out the critical nuclear sites is possible?

Paul Kenyon: Am I talking to Don Rumsfeld ?

Well, two of the sites were buried underground specifically to make them more difficult to attack, and the other is in Tehran. However, hiding them, doesn't necessarily demonstrate guilt. It is a useful insurance policy when U.S. and Israeli foreign policy are so unpredictable....even if they really are nuclear energy sites, they know that U.S. and Israel will worry enough to consider attacking anyway....and I think they are probably correct...some hawks in the U.S. are seriously talking about it. Is it possible? well, I would think the U.S. bunker busters would probably do it...but the consequences would be unimaginable...

_______________________

North Carolina: One of the principle arguments against Iran having nuclear technology is that they may supply a nuclear device to terrorists that may be used against either the U.S. or Israel. But given the fact that Iran has had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction for over 15 years and have not, as of yet, provided terrorists with a chemical or biological weapon of some form to be used against Israel or the U.S., how legitimate is this concern that they will do so once they have nuclear technology? I'm sure they are well aware and fearful of the consequences should they act overtly using a WMD in any form.

Paul Kenyon: What can I say.... I agree with your analysis. If Iran supplied nuclear technology to Hezbollah it would be traced back to them swiftly and Iran knows that would be suicide. I think the U.S. media have hyped up the Iran suspicions far more than in Europe.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is it possible that Iran's aggressive behavior towards the U.S. is a result of its government and people reacting to "too much" U.S. influence in that country and in the region? Looking at Iranian history and their revolution, much of their anti-U.S. sentiment was driven by an animosity to U.S "imperialism" and oil interests in the region; could their current aggressive style be understood in a similar manner?

Paul Kenyon: I think you are right. Although, the people I met randomly on the street were almost universally against the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. When the security services were absent, people would whisper things like "oh, we would love to come and live in the U.S. or the U.K."...even some of those shouting "death to America" at the revolution celebrations came over and said something like that. I think it is a case of the government pushing in one direction and the people pushing a different way...but silently because of the obvious threat to them if they spoke out. Also, tragically, one educated man on the street said to me "please tell the U.S. to bomb us soon, we need to get rid of this regime, and there's no other way".

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Looks like Iran will not give up their program. What are the prospects for a military conflict with the United States?

Paul Kenyon: I'm sure Iran will not cease its programme permanently, you are right. But has the U.S. really got the stomach for a conflict with a country three times larger than Iran with a population of 70 million, and with missiles big enough to attack Israel. It just wouldn't make sense. But then, that hasn't stopped them before. I also donut think the U.K. would back it this time...public opinion here wouldn't allow it and Blair is already electorally wounded after Iraq.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: So Mr. Kenyon,

Why are you as concerned about all those nuclear weapons in the Negev desert of Israel? I don't see you scouring Israel to look into them. Are you aware of Scott Ritter's article about the coming U.S. attack on Iran which would be right in accordance with what JINSA/PNAC operative Richard Perle said yesterday. He called for an invasion of Iran.

Paul Kenyon: We don't need to look for them in the Negev desert, because we already know that Israel, with U.S. financial help, has nuclear weapons. One of my colleagues made an hour long programme for the BBC only two years ago which identified Israeli workers at some of their weapons plants. We did Iran because of the uncertainty. Perle's invasion of Iran is seriously ill-conceived...Iran is three times larger than Iraq, it has seventy million people, it has a strong and organised army, and the U.K. would not support the US in such an act. Air strikes would be met with Iranian aggression against Israeli interests. I just can't see it....but then I couldn't have forecast Osirack.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: What are the Iranian government's goals in developing its military abilities? Are they frightened that Iraq may rise against them again? If they are not expansionist in terms of seeking to conquer other countries, do they believe they have duty to promote Shia Islam to other countries? What does the Iranian government want from the rest of the world?

Paul Kenyon: I believe the Iranian government wants to sit at the top table. As I've said before, Pakistan gained its position through a weapons programme disguised as one for energy, so there is a precedent. I really don't think there is a history of Iran being expansionist...but there is the Hezbollah issue of course.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: In the early/mid 80's, when Israel discovered that Hussein was attempting to undertake a nuclear program, they nipped it in the bud with a strategic bombing of the facility. Whether by Israel or even the United States, now that we are in the region, why not follow the same course with Iran?

Paul Kenyon: Because Iran does now have a missile called a Shahab three, which I am told could possibly travel to the edges of Israel with a conventional warhead. Also, what about evidence....? There is no evidence Iran is doing anything it shouldn't...just a suspicious pattern of behaviour, but if we start going around using "suspicion" as a justification for attack, imagine the world situation then. it is worth noting of course that the U.S. doesn't use aggressive language towards North Korea now it has announced it has a weapon. Instead, its engaged in diplomacy, whereas it is not talking to Iran at all...only the U.K., France and Germany are.

_______________________

Pauling, N.Y.: I wonder if you saw many/any Russians around the nuclear sites? I understand that they are fairly active in helping the Iranians.

Paul Kenyon: I didn't see any, but they have been active in helping out at a nuclear reactor in a place called Bushre. However, they did this because it can only be used for power.....it does not enrich uranium there. the Russians helped build it (as the Germans did before the revolution) with a view to selling Iran ready-enriched uranium....which in effect reduces the risk of Iran making weapons.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Thank you for your reply, Mr. Kenyon. Sorry if I have been somewhat abrupt in my additional replies, but I am British as well as American and am sick and tired of seeing British and American soldiers die and get horribly wounded in Iraq for Mr. Pearled's agenda. Please get a copy of James Bamford's excellent new book ('A Pretext for War') which just came out in paperback (see the 'A Clean Break' agenda which is discussed by Mr. Bamford on pages 261-269 and on page 321 as well).

Paul Kenyon: Will do, thanks for that.

_______________________

Baton Rouge, La.: Wouldn't one of the other dangers to having Iran produce nuclear weapons is that they can then become the distributor of said weapons to other points of the globe? That's the crux of the controversy with the Pakistani nuclear weapons chief who leaked his knowledge to Iran for its program development. If they develop the program and produce a nuclear weapon, their bargaining power for entry into the WTO just goes way up.

Paul Kenyon: Yes I agree.... and the Khan network is a scary example. let's remember that we still don't know precisely who he sold to apart from Libya north Korea and Iran....but we were shown hard drives with the information for a whole nuclear programme....and the U.N. is concerned that now its out there in electronic form, we cant put the genie back in the bottle....that's more worrying than Iran in many respects.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Is there a cultural bias or a racist dimension to the nuclear non-proliferation issue?

Paul Kenyon: How do you mean?

_______________________

Munich, Germany: One of the most incriminating facts about Iran's nuclear program is the cooperation and assistance given to Iran by Dr. Abdul Khan, the man formerly in charge of the Pakistani nuclear weapons development.

In your travels in Iran and elsewhere, did you hear any accounts of efforts by Iran to obtain nuclear secrets through deceitful means?

Paul Kenyon: Iran admitted to us, via a former diplomat, that it bought the bulk of its programme from an "underground network" but kept denying it was khan. However there is ample evidence it was part of khan's network. In fact I think the deal they did was in Malaysia but involved an arm of the khan network.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Do you consider it a mistake for the U.S. to indicate it may make pre-emptive strikes on sites developing nuclear weapons? Does this increase the danger that a country, such as Iran, may decide it is going to be struck and therefore they have a right to make a preemptive strike themselves, say on Israel?

Paul Kenyon: It's possible but unlikely because Iran would prefer to play the whole thing diplomatically. For a country saying it is not interested in nuclear weapons to launch what would be seen as a pre-emptive strike against Israel would lose it the support it has from many countries away from Europe and the U.S....problem is we always think through that prism: U.S. and U.K. interests...however....even South Africa is sympathetic to the plight of Iran at the moment, as are several other neutral countries.

_______________________

Paul Kenyon: That's it thanks....

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

COPYRIGHT 2005 Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group

Get Skiing &Snowboarding Packages. - Sponsored Link
Ad - View Package Specials &Book Now!