Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Jim Walsh

Aired June 22, 2003 - 09:31   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


SOPHIA CHOI, CNN ANCHOR: And now we turn our attention to Iran. More Iranian students have been taken into police custody amid waves of protests against Islamic clerical rule. Student leaders say since Thursday more than 400 students have been arrested in Tehran and other cities. They were demanding that the president resign for failing to live up to promises of improvement of justice, democracy and social freedom.
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have turned up a notch in recent days. This month, Iran refused to allow U.N. inspectors to take soil samples from a suspected nuclear facility. The U.N. watchdog group urged Iran to be more forthcoming with inspectors.

The U.S. suspects Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, and has reserved the right to stop such weapons. Iran's nuclear chief said, quote, the Americans are always trying to intimidate other countries. Do they think they are the police of the world, that every day they are trying to bully other countries? He goes on to say, I suggest we solve this in a better way and on a more legal manner. Iran is not a country that you can bully.

Joining us now to talk about the Iran threat is Jim Walsh of Harvard University. Jim, it's always nice to see you.

JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Good to see you, Sophia.

CHOI: So Iran is currently building a nuclear infrastructure right in front of the world's eyes. And they're doing it within the parameters of the nonproliferation treaty. It's all legal because they're saying they're doing it for electricity. Why, then, not let IAEA inspectors in to sample the soil?

WALSH: Well, they may yet do that. But you're absolutely right, that the nonproliferation treaty, the NPT, is a bargain. It's a bargain between the countries who have nuclear weapons, like the United States, and others who don't have nuclear weapons. And it says to those who don't have them, if you agree not to get nuclear weapons, then you can have all the fruits of civilian nuclear technology, electricity, medical isotopes, what have you.

So Iran is saying, we want to pursue that path. But to do that, they have to let IAEA in. They've been slow to do so. They put off a couple of visits, but we may yet see IAEA inspectors at some of these facilities that are of special concern. So the whole story has not yet been written here.

CHOI: So given this infrastructure, how soon could Iran have nuclear power?

WALSH: Well, of course, we have to draw distinction between nuclear power, or nuclear energy on one hand, nuclear weapons on the other. And the key issue here is the centrifuge technology. They have what they're calling a pilot plant with about 100 centrifuges, they hope to build 1,000.

What those centrifuges do is they enrich uranium; they make it more concentrated. And once it's concentrated to a certain level, it can be used not only as fuel, but as also the material for nuclear weapons. So the concern is that in two years, three years, five years down the road, that Iran will be able to enrich enough uranium that they might be able to use it for a bomb.

CHOI: Right. And by building this kind of infrastructure, it might take years to get to that point they can quickly turn it into nuclear weapons, not just energy.

WALSH: That's right. Of course, they're not the only country in that position. Japan enriches uranium, has highly enriched uranium, and plutonium. Europe, many European countries that don't have nuclear weapons programs, nevertheless, enrich uranium. And so it is a problem. It's one of those dual-use technologies that always raises red flags.

So our hope is that Iran will sign the additional protocol. This is a new set of rules under the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will allow them keep a better eye on the activities that take place there. And I think ultimately what we want to do is get a deal here, we want to get a deal that says, Iran, if you want civilian nuclear technology, great. But don't go down the path towards enrichment; don't go down the path with reprocessing. Anything else is probably fine.

CHOI: Right. The undersecretary said that while military action is on the table, that that's the last resort. Do you think that the U.S. military might take action against Iran if they don't become more forthcoming?

WALSH: Gosh, I hope not. You know, Iran and Iraq both begin with the letter "I" and they're both in the Middle East. But that's about where the similarities end.

Iran, unlike Iraq, does not have a set of U.N. resolutions against it, it's not in noncompliance, it has many more friends in Europe and Russia than Iraq ever did, and it is a nationalist country that's undergoing its own sort of democratic process. So, Iran is one thing, Iraq was something totally different.

I think it would be a mistake to think that we can just go in there and solve this problem militarily. And I think it's also important to keep in mind, the more we threaten them, the stronger the hard-liners gain in power because they can say, look, we're under threat. We have to clamp down, we have to arrest all the students. So, in some ways, by threatening them and threatening military action, destabilizing them, that is playing directly into the hands of the people that we don't like.

CHOI: But we should also take note of Iran's history in terms of aggression. They're not really aggressive.

WALSH: Well, really, since World War II they have been at what is called a status quo power. And, again, I think it's instructive to compare Iran and Iraq and see how they are very different countries. So Iraq invaded Iran. It wasn't Iran invading Iraq. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iran has really had no -- has not used its armed forces for aggressive military action, as far as I can remember. And so it is, as I say, a status quo power.

To the extent that it's interested in nuclear weapons for military purposes, that is probably for defense rather than offense. It may want a weapon to deter others from attacking it, not to use it to attack others. And that's an important distinction.

CHOI: My friend, Dr. Jim Walsh of Harvard university. Thanks so much.

WALSH: Thank you, Sophia.

CHOI: Take care.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired June 22, 2003 - 09:31   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOPHIA CHOI, CNN ANCHOR: And now we turn our attention to Iran. More Iranian students have been taken into police custody amid waves of protests against Islamic clerical rule. Student leaders say since Thursday more than 400 students have been arrested in Tehran and other cities. They were demanding that the president resign for failing to live up to promises of improvement of justice, democracy and social freedom.
Tensions over Iran's nuclear program have turned up a notch in recent days. This month, Iran refused to allow U.N. inspectors to take soil samples from a suspected nuclear facility. The U.N. watchdog group urged Iran to be more forthcoming with inspectors.

The U.S. suspects Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, and has reserved the right to stop such weapons. Iran's nuclear chief said, quote, the Americans are always trying to intimidate other countries. Do they think they are the police of the world, that every day they are trying to bully other countries? He goes on to say, I suggest we solve this in a better way and on a more legal manner. Iran is not a country that you can bully.

Joining us now to talk about the Iran threat is Jim Walsh of Harvard University. Jim, it's always nice to see you.

JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Good to see you, Sophia.

CHOI: So Iran is currently building a nuclear infrastructure right in front of the world's eyes. And they're doing it within the parameters of the nonproliferation treaty. It's all legal because they're saying they're doing it for electricity. Why, then, not let IAEA inspectors in to sample the soil?

WALSH: Well, they may yet do that. But you're absolutely right, that the nonproliferation treaty, the NPT, is a bargain. It's a bargain between the countries who have nuclear weapons, like the United States, and others who don't have nuclear weapons. And it says to those who don't have them, if you agree not to get nuclear weapons, then you can have all the fruits of civilian nuclear technology, electricity, medical isotopes, what have you.

So Iran is saying, we want to pursue that path. But to do that, they have to let IAEA in. They've been slow to do so. They put off a couple of visits, but we may yet see IAEA inspectors at some of these facilities that are of special concern. So the whole story has not yet been written here.

CHOI: So given this infrastructure, how soon could Iran have nuclear power?

WALSH: Well, of course, we have to draw distinction between nuclear power, or nuclear energy on one hand, nuclear weapons on the other. And the key issue here is the centrifuge technology. They have what they're calling a pilot plant with about 100 centrifuges, they hope to build 1,000.

What those centrifuges do is they enrich uranium; they make it more concentrated. And once it's concentrated to a certain level, it can be used not only as fuel, but as also the material for nuclear weapons. So the concern is that in two years, three years, five years down the road, that Iran will be able to enrich enough uranium that they might be able to use it for a bomb.

CHOI: Right. And by building this kind of infrastructure, it might take years to get to that point they can quickly turn it into nuclear weapons, not just energy.

WALSH: That's right. Of course, they're not the only country in that position. Japan enriches uranium, has highly enriched uranium, and plutonium. Europe, many European countries that don't have nuclear weapons programs, nevertheless, enrich uranium. And so it is a problem. It's one of those dual-use technologies that always raises red flags.

So our hope is that Iran will sign the additional protocol. This is a new set of rules under the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will allow them keep a better eye on the activities that take place there. And I think ultimately what we want to do is get a deal here, we want to get a deal that says, Iran, if you want civilian nuclear technology, great. But don't go down the path towards enrichment; don't go down the path with reprocessing. Anything else is probably fine.

CHOI: Right. The undersecretary said that while military action is on the table, that that's the last resort. Do you think that the U.S. military might take action against Iran if they don't become more forthcoming?

WALSH: Gosh, I hope not. You know, Iran and Iraq both begin with the letter "I" and they're both in the Middle East. But that's about where the similarities end.

Iran, unlike Iraq, does not have a set of U.N. resolutions against it, it's not in noncompliance, it has many more friends in Europe and Russia than Iraq ever did, and it is a nationalist country that's undergoing its own sort of democratic process. So, Iran is one thing, Iraq was something totally different.

I think it would be a mistake to think that we can just go in there and solve this problem militarily. And I think it's also important to keep in mind, the more we threaten them, the stronger the hard-liners gain in power because they can say, look, we're under threat. We have to clamp down, we have to arrest all the students. So, in some ways, by threatening them and threatening military action, destabilizing them, that is playing directly into the hands of the people that we don't like.

CHOI: But we should also take note of Iran's history in terms of aggression. They're not really aggressive.

WALSH: Well, really, since World War II they have been at what is called a status quo power. And, again, I think it's instructive to compare Iran and Iraq and see how they are very different countries. So Iraq invaded Iran. It wasn't Iran invading Iraq. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iran has really had no -- has not used its armed forces for aggressive military action, as far as I can remember. And so it is, as I say, a status quo power.

To the extent that it's interested in nuclear weapons for military purposes, that is probably for defense rather than offense. It may want a weapon to deter others from attacking it, not to use it to attack others. And that's an important distinction.

CHOI: My friend, Dr. Jim Walsh of Harvard university. Thanks so much.

WALSH: Thank you, Sophia.

CHOI: Take care.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com