Fact Checker
Obama’s claim that Iran’s nuclear program has been ‘halted’ and its nuclear
stockpile ‘reduced’
By Glenn Kessler January 22 at 3:00 AM 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/22/obamas-claim-that-irans-nuclear-program-has-been-halted-and-its-nuclear-stock-pile-reduced/

“Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in
a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its
stockpile of nuclear material.”

–President Obama, State of the Union address, Jan. 20, 2015

This was a bold statement by the president regarding the interim “Joint Plan
of Action” governing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. In
defending the talks against efforts in Congress to pass a sanctions package
if the talks fail, the president made two key points: one, progress on Iran’s
nuclear program has been “halted” and two, Iran’s stockpile of nuclear
material has been “reduced.”

We realize that White House speechwriters probably don’t want to be bothered
with technical issues in such a high-profile speech but here’s a case where
some further wordsmithing was needed. This isn’t the first time. A year
ago, in the 2014 State of the Union, The Fact Checker handed out Pinocchios
when the president claimed that the inspections allowed under the agreement
were “unprecedented.” That’s way too sweeping a statement.

So has progress been halted and the amount of nuclear material reduced?

The Facts

The Iran portfolio is highly contentious and progress in the talks — which
have been repeatedly extended — is certainly open to interpretation. We
should also note that Iran has steadfastly denied it has nuclear-weapons
ambitions.

For the purposes of this fact check, we will rely on the definition of
“nuclear material” by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which includes
low enriched uranium (less than 20 percent, generally 3.5 percent enriched),
highly enriched uranium and so forth. (This graphic helps explain why
20-percent enriched is so much closer to nuclear-weapons material than 3.5
percent.)

The administration, in its official statements, portrays the agreement as a
success. Here’s how Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken described the
progress in a Senate hearing on Jan. 21:

Before the JPOA, Iran had about 200 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium
in a form that could be quickly converted into weapons grade
material. …Today, Iran has no 20 percent enriched uranium. Zero, none. It
has diluted or converted every ounce, suspended all uranium enrichment above
5 percent, removed the connections at Fordow [nuclear fuel plant] that
allowed [Iran] to produce the 20 percent in the first place.

Before the JPOA, Iran was making real progress, as you know, on the Arak
reactor, which, had it become operational, and together with the
reprocessing facility, would have provided Iran with a plutonium path to the
bomb.

Once fueled, the Arak facility would have been very challenging to deal with
militarily. Today, Arak is frozen in place — no new components, no testing,
no fuel. Before the JPOA, Iran had installed roughly 19,000
centrifuges…Today, 9,000 of those centrifuges are not operational.

That certainly sounds like a good news story. But nuclear experts we
consulted said that the president simplified it too much in his State of the
Union address by saying the nuclear program has been “halted” and the
stockpile of nuclear materials has been “reduced.”

Olli Heinonen, who headed the IAEA’s safeguards section during the 2003-2005
talks between Iran and three European powers (United Kingdom, France and
Germany), said “it is true that 20-percent enriched uranium stocks have
decreased, but Iran is still producing uranium enriched up to 5-percent
uranium. The latter stocks have actually increased when you talk about
stocks of UF6 [uranium hexafluoride] and other chemical compounds.”

Moreover, while there has been no installation of new centrifuges, “it
appears that the production of centrifuge components continues. Same with
the Arak reactor. No new nuclear components have been installed, but it does
not mean that the production of those came to halt.”

As Heinonen put it, “the JPOA is just a step to create negotiation space;
nothing more. It is not a viable longer term situation. The nuclear caravan
of Iran continues and sets a step after a step another fait accompli.”

David Albright, who heads Institute for Science and International Security,
said the president’s language was “a little bit odd.” He said that the halt
in Iran’s program from 2003 to 2005 was a more substantial suspension of
enrichment activities. (At the Senate hearing, Blinken acknowledged the
United States and its negotiating partners had abandoned United Nations
Security Council demands that Iran halt enrichment as it was clear “Iran was
not going to give up as a practical matter some very limited forms of
enrichment in the event of an agreement.”)

Moreover, Albright said it was not correct that the 3.5-percent enriched
stock had been reduced; instead it has been converted from one form
(“hexafluoride”) to another (“oxide”), a step that he said was taken largely
for cosmetic (political) purposes. A significant portion of 20-percent
enriched material has also been retained as scrap, rather than converted
into fuel for a research reactor. A key aspect of the talks is to extend the
“break out” period under which Iran could manufacture a nuclear weapon, but
he said as a practical matter the conversion of 3.5 percent to oxide form
would only add about two weeks to the break-out period, since Iran could
reconvert it back into hexafluoride. (Here’s his report on this issue; this
paragraph was updated for clarity.)

In effect, the amount of nuclear material available to Iran has gone up
“about a bomb’s worth during the JPOA,” Albright said.

This is where Obama’s speechwriters went awry. Iran’s stock of low enriched
uranium — a “nuclear material” by the IAEA’s definition — has gone up during
the negotiations, largely as a consequence of the dilution of the near
20-percent material.

“The ‘most dangerous’ would be a better turn of phrase,” said Jeffrey Lewis,
director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute
of International Studies. “I think the speechwriters are trying to explain
something complicated in ordinary language — and maybe not quite sticking
the landing.” He noted that “dilution, as the term implies, results in a
net increase in material although it eliminates what you would call ‘the
most dangerous’ material.” Thus, in his view, it would be misleading to
suggest the threat has gone up in this period because the amount of material
has gone up. But he agreed the amount of nuclear material has increased.

Below is a chart, prepared by opponents of an agreement using Albright’s and
Heinonen’s research, that illustrates Iran’s build-up of nuclear material
since 2009. Advocates of an agreement might argue the trend from 2009 to
2013 highlighted the need for negotiations, and both Albright and Heinonen
say there are slight technical issues with it. (“This graph should say that
material available (red) is UF6 [hexafluoride], which can be used as such
for further enrichment, Heinonen said. “The rest (blue minus red), about 4
tons uranium in various chemical forms, can be reconverted to UF6. Iran has
stated that it is not constructing such a facility. If converted, the
number of “bombs” would be higher”)

http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner_012115_iran.JPG

For the purposes of this fact check, the key period is between 2013 and
2014, when Obama claims the stockpile of nuclear of material has been
reduced— and Iran’s program halted. But note that the amount of nuclear
material that eventually could be converted to a bomb during a “break out”
period has continued to increase.

The Pinocchio Test

Words have consequences, especially in a State of the Union address. The
president could have claimed that “we’ve slowed the progress of its nuclear
program and reduced its stockpile of the most dangerous nuclear material.”
But instead he choose to make sweeping claims for which there is little
basis. Thus he earns Three Pinocchios.