The nuclear bomb is much more than a common weapon, it can determine the balance of the powers, it is a crucial point for understanding the international strategic relations: the nuclear bomb represents the possibility for a country to be wiped off the map. Between 1950 and 1990, it is important to replace the atomic bomb in the Cold War context. Each superpower tried to help its allies to defend themselves: it was a real nuclear arms race.
This subject is closely linked to intelligence insofar as the nuclear affairs are always shrouded in mystery: nobody says anything is the current maxim. The misinformation is commonly used. The logical and structured reality of the nuclear affairs is completely hidden. After half of a century of nuclear cooperation, people at large still considers only eight countries have the atomic bomb. Usually, even the legislative power does not know the truth about that kind of affairs. Presidents usually solve the nuclear problems with the intelligence (Irangate case).
Why choosing those two countries? Since World War Two, Middle-East was a crucial stake of international policy. The petroleum factor has influenced a lot the decisions related to that question. Moreover, the evolution of middle-eastern nuclear program has always been much debated. Still today, the story of Iranian nuclear program is a taboo in the western countries. And yet, it started in the 50's with Israel, and even if today Israel and Iran are known as nuclear countries they are not officially considered as atomic powers. But the real question is not of those countries have or do not have the nuclear bomb; it is who gave it to them? It is interesting to see that a Muslim system and the Jewish state both have been armed by the Us with the help of France.
[...] With a tactless strategy that only aroused suspicion, Israel declared alternatively it was a metallurgical research complex, a textile factory or an agricultural station to eventually admit its nuclear research purposes still for “peaceful purposes” as asserted by Ben-Gurion in December 1960. In parallel, association with France became more oppressive with the election of Charles de Gaulle. Less enthusiastic about such a tight nuclear solidarity especially regarding the sensitive situation it implied toward the Arab states, the new French president set up new conditions to the cooperation. After considering merely putting a stop to the partnership with Israel, De Gaulle required in 1960 the reassertion by Israel of its nuclear program's peaceful purposes, the allowance of international inspections and a public declaration from Israeli officials of the existence of Dimona. [...]
[...] (2008) Latest Intelligence Crisis', Intelligence and National Security, 23:3, 371- 180 - Article : Fitzpatrick, Mark (2006) ‘Lessons learned from Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons', The Nonproliferation Review, 13:3, 527- 537 - Article : Beres, Louis René (1997) ‘Getting beyond nuclear deterrence: Israel, intelligence and false hope', International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 10:1, 75-90 - Article “Israel crosses the threshold". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. May/June 2006. pp. 22-30. Retrieved on 2 July 2006. - Avner Cohen and William Burr, Untold Story of Israel's Bomb', Washington Post, April - Online article : Ravenel, Bernard (January 27th, 2004) ‘Israel : une menace nucléaire globale', Association France Palestine Solidarité website : http://www.france-palestine.org/article187.html - Online article : Algazy, Joseph (August 2005) “flou nucléaire” israélien', Le Monde Diplomatique website : http://www.monde- diplomatique.fr/2005/08/ALGAZY/12416 - Lemonde.fr website - Lexpress.fr website Jeffrey T. [...]
[...] But the Iranians were not satisfied by those deals, especially because they were aware that France was also selling weapons to Iraq. In Beirut, France and the US were victims of terrorist attacks. Some American and French citizens had been captured as hostages. Lebanon was occupied and leaded by Syria which was the ally of Iran by admitting those terrorist organizations on the territory. In the US, Reagan was in the middle of the presidential campaign. With the hostages, Khomeini had the advantage. Moreover, Reagan remembered more than anyone the same situation occurred in 1981 between him and Carter. [...]
[...] This factory was supposed to supply more than one hundred of nuclear power stations all over the world. The US wanted that Iran, as a shareholder, had 10% of the uranium enriched by the consortium. Finally, the Iranian had to lend $1billion to France for building that factory. This agreement showed how much the Americans trusted the Iranian. Iran had been welcomed in the very select club of the uranium enrichment. Except the USSR, it was the only non-westerner country in that case. [...]
[...] Then, the US had massively provided weapons in order to give Iran an efficient defence against USSR. The US had invested Iran as the defender of the Persian Gulf. First, the US asked the French to initiate the Iranian to the nuclear technology. Thereby, in the midst 60's, the US provided to the Iranian an atomic reactor. Then, the Iranian pursued their atomic research between the research centre in Tehran (where the Americans and the French helped them) and the French nuclear centre. Since 1956, the French began to train Iranian scientists. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee