Increased chances of Iranian conflict does not equal increased radiation threat
Normally I would welcome any reason to extol the virtues of brushing up on your nuclear and radiological-related preparedness planning. However, I strangely find myself wanting to push back on some nuclear-alarmism that I’ve come across lately from usually professional and restrained quarters.
To be clear before I begin: I believe nuclear terrorism has been and remains a real threat; that a dirty bomb is a question of when and not if; and that the two are entirely different animals that look similar in the same manner that one’s house cat may occasionally remind you of a lion in the wild…but not really.
The meme I suspect is emerging is that heightened tensions in the Middle East, in particular the increased threat of conflict with Iran over it’s nuclear program, is increasing the chances that the U.S. will either be the victim of a nuclear or radiological attack or that we may be involved in treating radiation-related casualties originating from hostilities in the Middle East. The mistaken perceptions involve current Iranian capabilities and the results of any possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, particularly by Israeli forces.
First capabilities: no evidence has been made public that Iran has enriched uranium beyond 20%. While that gets them a lot closer to having the material for nuclear weapons (it is a strange fact, but enriching uranium up to 20% is more difficult than taking it from 20% to 90% and above, which is generally considered weapons grade; as Harvard’s Graham Allison has put it: “In effect, having uranium enriched at 20 percent takes Iran 90 yards along the football field to bomb-grade material.”), it does not give them a nuclear capability at this moment. Barring work at a secret enrichment facility, this means that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon to use (whether directly or through allied terrorist groups) against any potential attacker.
Yes, this could change in the future through any number of potential scenarios. Yes, there are serious concerns for U.S. national security if Iran was to become a nuclear state. The most likely of these would not involve Iran directly attacking the U.S with a nuclear weapon. Many others have sunk their teeth into this topic and debated various outcomes.
A dirty bomb could be a possibility, but in taking stock of that particular threat the pieces don’t point toward any special Iranian capability. Neither the low-enriched or high-enriched uranium that Iran is producing, or any of the stages of pre-enriched material, would make particularly effective dirty bomb material. Uranium is not highly radioactive, in fact one can handle highly enriched uranium with nothing more than a simple gloved hand. In other words, the Iranian nuclear program does not add to their capability to carry out or assist others in carrying out a dirty bomb attack.
An Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could potentially embolden, radicalize, or otherwise incentivize terrorists to carry out a dirty bomb attack. One can imagine a desire to carry out some sort of event involving radiation in retaliation. Yet the particulars of Iran’s nuclear program do not affect the odds of this occurring, nor would the products be particularly helpful.
If homeland security officials at all levels want to prevent a dirty bomb attack, in addition to planning and exercising to respond and recover from any such incident (deterrence through denial of goals), they can take stock of the radioactive sources in their own jurisdictions and connect with the owners and licensees about security and safety. Every big city has potential dirty bomb ingredients without the necessity of terrorists attempting to smuggle in Iranian radioactive sources.
The second layer of concern seems to center on the possibility that hostilities between Iran and Israel, and maybe the U.S., would involve populations being exposed to high levels of radioactivity. However, at this point in Iran’s nuclear development that is also unlikely.
Despite the bluster out of some corners, Israel is not going to use nuclear weapons it does not officially acknowledge having to destroy a nascent nuclear capability the goal of which is contested by various world powers. Nuclear weapons are political weapons that are best used to deter nuclear attack and invasion. It is often pointed out that a reason Iran might want to either develop a breakout capability or the weapons themselves is that they witnessed what happened to Iraq and Libya and what has not happened to North Korea.
An Israeli nuclear strike on Iran without direct nuclear provocation would likely result in their achieving North Korean-like pariah status. Instead, if they decided it was in their national security interest to strike the Iranian nuclear program it would involve conventional weapons. These bombs may cause dispersion of nuclear material, but as I mentioned before the uranium involved would not be highly radioactive and the effects would be more toxic and less radioactive.
Would there be detectable raised levels of radiation in the surrounding areas following such an attack? Likely. Are we talking about an Iranian Fukushima? Probably not.
Israel could decide to bomb the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, but this would do little to stop any weapons program as light water power reactors are poorly suited for the production of plutonium for bombs and this particular one is under stringent IAEA safeguards. In addition, it would earn the ire of potentially sympathetic Gulf nations who may bear the brunt of the radiation released.
Following any strike by Israel on its nuclear program, Iran is judged likely to attack Israel with missiles. Whether launched from Iranian territory or by allied groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, some of these weapons may be targeted at the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona. It is possible that the reactor would sustain enough damage to release radiation, but these facilities are not soft nor large targets. The relatively unsophisticated missiles involved would have to be lucky in both hitting the target and achieving enough damage to release any radiation. Only in the worst case might there be a call to evacuate any casualties to the United States due to radiation injury.
So to end this already too long foray into predicting the results of events that may never occur, let me just reiterate:
- homeland security officials at all levels should worry about the security of radioactive sources within their jurisidcitions and make sure that they are prepared to respond and recover from any dirty bomb attack;
- yes Dorothy, a nuclear terrorist attack is possible, if not likely, and should be regarded as a national catastrophic event planned for on a regional basis including non-traditional partners (in FEMA-speak this is a MOM event requiring a WOC response);
- in the short-to-medium term, events regarding Iran’s nuclear program will not directly impact the risks of a radiological or nuclear attack upon the U.S.
