nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

President Rouhani says that Iran is prepared to fulfil nuclear deal commitments

Iran prepared to fulfill nuclear deal commitments, president tells Coveney

Hassan Rouhani says United States must lift ‘illegal sanctions’ during Tehran meeting with Minister. Irish Times,7 Mar 21, 

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani has said his country is prepared to take steps to live up to measures in the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers as soon as the United States lifts economic sanctions.

In a meeting with Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney, Mr Rouhani said: “Iran is ready to immediately take compensatory measures based on the nuclear deal and fulfil its commitments just after the US illegal sanctions are lifted and it abandons its policy of threats and pressure.”

The Iranian leader criticised the European signatories of the historic nuclear deal for what he said was their inaction on their commitments to the agreement. He said Iran was the only country that kept its side of the bargain………. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/iran-prepared-to-fulfill-nuclear-deal-commitments-president-tells-coveney-1.4503539

March 8, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

UN’s nuclear watchdog agency will not be ‘bargaining chip’ in Iran nuclear deal, 

UN’s nuclear watchdog agency will not be ‘bargaining chip’ in Iran nuclear deal,  https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086092 The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency told journalists on Monday that inspections in Iran should not be used as a “bargaining chip” to revive a troubled nuclear deal.

 After speaking to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors, Director General Rafael Grossi told a press conference that while the agency had opened a window of opportunity for diplomacy in Iran, it should not be put in the middle of negotiations between Iran, the United States and other nations over the deal.

On 15 February, Iran announced that it would stop implementing “voluntary transparency measures” in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as the Iran nuclear deal, along with other arrangements in Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.

The IAEA chief said to the 35-nation board that a “temporary bilateral technical understanding” had been agreed upon during his visit to the country last month that would enable the UN agency to “resume its full verification and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA if and when Iran resumes its implementation of those commitments”.

Serious concern

The IAEA chief also raised the alarm that nuclear activities in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly known as North Korea, remains “a cause for serious concern”.

“The continuation of the DPRK’s nuclear programme is a clear violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions and is deeply regrettable”, Mr. Grossi said, adding that the Vienna-based agency was intensifying its readiness “to play its essential role in verifying North Korea’s nuclear programme”.

Reviewing nuclear safety

The IAEA chief also drew attention to the agency’s Nuclear Safety Review 2021, which provides an overview of the agency’s activities and global trends in nuclear, radiation, transport and nuclear waste safety protcols, as well as in emergency preparedness and response.

“This year, it also identifies the priorities in these areas, and provides an analytical overview of overall trends”, he said.

Strengthen preparedness  

Moreover, the UN official flagged IAEA’s work in strengthening global preparedness for future pandemics through its Zoonotic Disease Integrated Action (ZODIAC) initiative on diseases, that jump from animals to humans – the common path for viruses such as COVID-19.

He said the initiative will help to reduce the chance that the next outbreak will wreak “the deadly destruction we are suffering today”.

And Mr. Grossi informed the members that last week, IAEA signed revised arrangements with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to “help Member States respond to emerging challenges from climate change to outbreaks of zoonotic diseases”.

Climate on the table

As the Agency prepares for the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, scheduled for November in Glasgow, Scotland, Mr. Grossi said that he would personally deliver the message that “nuclear energy has a seat at the tables when the world’s future energy and climate policies are being discussed”.

“Almost five years after the signing of the Paris Agreement, governments are becoming increasingly aware that they must shift from fossil fuels to nuclear and other low-carbon technologies, if they are to reach their net zero objectives”, Mr. Grossi said.

The Director-General concluded by assuring that the agency was continuing its work on advancing gender equality, and invited Member States to join a panel discussion with some of the IAEA’s early women pioneers on 8 March, International Women’s Day.

Iran nuclear deal: a summary

    • What is the Iran nuclear deal? The 2015 “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA), sets out rules for monitoring Iran’s nuclear programme, and paves the way for the lifting of UN sanctions.
    • Which countries are involved? Iran, the five members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, UK, US), plus Germany, together with the European Union.
    • What is the UN’s involvement? A UN Security Council resolution to ensure the enforcement of the JCPOA, and guarantee that the UN’s atomic energy agency, the IAEA, continues to have regular access to and more information on Iran’s nuclear programme, was adopted in 2015.
    • Why is the deal at risk? The current US Administration pulled out of the deal in 2018 and re-imposed sanctions. In July 2019, Iran reportedly breached its uranium stockpile limit, and announced its intention to continue enriching uranium, posing a more serious proliferation risk.

March 8, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

The American media sanitises the Biden administration’s killings in Syria

March 6, 2021 Posted by | media, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Iran’s foreign minister says Tehran will offer a constructive plan for nuclear talks

Iran’s Zarif to offer ‘constructive’ plan for nuclear talks   https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/5/irans-zarif-to-offer-constructive-plan-amid-hopes-of-informal

Announcement comes after European diplomatic sources said Tehran recently gave encouraging signs about opening informal talks over the nuclear deal.   Iran will soon present a “constructive” plan of action, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Friday, after European sources said Tehran gave positive signs about opening informal talks about its nuclear programme.

“As Iran’s FM [foreign minister] & chief nuclear negotiator, I will shortly present our constructive concrete plan of action – through proper diplomatic channels,” Zarif said on Twitter.

A French diplomatic source and another European official said on Thursday that Iran had given encouraging signs in recent days about opening informal talks after European powers scrapped plans to criticise Tehran at the UN nuclear watchdog.

Iran has so far refused to take part in a meeting brokered by the European Union between world powers and the United States on reviving its 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran’s nuclear policy is decided by the country’s top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and not the president or the government.

Tehran and Washington have emerged from former US President Donald Trump’s attempts to wreck Iran’s nuclear deal but are locked in a standoff over who should move first to save it. Trump pulled out of the landmark accord in 2018.

Britain, France, and Germany decided to pause the submission of a resolution critical of Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Thursday to not harm the prospects for diplomacy, after what they said were concessions gained from Iran to deal with outstanding nuclear issues.

March 6, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Biden’s illegal bombing of Iranian-backed militias in Syria jeopardises nuclear negotiations

March 2, 2021 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Influence of Biden administration brings peaceful push between India, China, Pakistan

India’s sudden peace push with nuclear rivals China, Pak shows Biden impact, Business Standard, 27 Feb 21, The detente in South Asia shows all three countries responding to initiatives from the Biden administration  After a year of some of the worst fighting on India’s frontiers with Pakistan and China, all three countries are suddenly talking peace as they wait to see how President Joe Biden will shift policy in the region.

India and China’s top diplomats on Thursday discussed plans to disengage troops from their Himalayan border, which last year saw the deadliest clashes since the 1970s. The phone call between Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, which stretched for more than an hour, came shortly after India and Pakistan released a rare joint statement by senior army officials announcing a halt in operations along their border.

The moves reduce tensions in one of Asia’s top flashpoints, where three nuclear-armed countries regularly challenge each other’s territorial claims. While India and Pakistan have fought three wars since Britain left the subcontinent and barely have any trade, tensions between New Delhi and Beijing escalated last year to the point where Prime Minister Narendra Modi banned hundreds of Chinese apps and slowed investment approvals.

The detente in South Asia shows all three countries responding to initiatives from the Biden administration, which is formulating policy toward the region following the unpredictable years of President Donald Trump. Pakistan wants to show the U.S. its not too close to China, Beijing wants to lower the temperature as Biden courts New Delhi and India is hedging its bets as it prepares to host BRICS leaders including Chinese President Xi Jinping later this year………………..

The Biden administration welcomed the announcement on reimplementing the 2003 ceasefire agreement, which it had advocated. “When it comes to the US role, we continue to support direct dialogue between India and Pakistan on Kashmir and other issues of concern,” US State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters.

Previous moves toward peace between India and Pakistan, including a statement in May 2018 after an escalation of cross-border shelling, have dissipated quickly. Whether they can actually build on this and move toward a more permanent peace remains an open question, but at least for the moment the shifting geopolitical winds are providing a seemingly rare opportunity to talk instead of fight.

“It eases the pressure,” Najmuddin Shaikh, Pakistan’s former foreign secretary and ambassador to nations including the U.S., said by phone when asked about the ceasefire. “Essentially what needs to come ahead is what has been proposed — that there be a resumption of dialogue.”   https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/india-s-sudden-peace-push-with-nuclear-rivals-china-pak-shows-biden-impact-121022600628_1.html

February 28, 2021 Posted by | India, politics international | Leave a comment

The JCPOA nuclear deal from the point of view of Iran

February 27, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Assange’s partner exposes ongoing denial of his legal and democratic rights, 

February 25, 2021 Posted by | civil liberties, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Luxembourg’s continued fight against nuclear power in Europe

“IT’S A CONSTANT BATTLE”: LUXEMBOURG’S FIGHT ON NUCLEAR POWER  https://delano.lu/d/detail/news/its-constant-battle-luxembourgs-fight-nuclear-power/213619

20.02.2021 INTERVIEW BY CORDULA SCHNUERIn March 2011, an earthquake and tsunami off the coast of Japan triggered an explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986 and a stark reminder for environment minister Carole Dieschbourg (déi Gréng) that nuclear has got to go.

How do you remember the nuclear incident at Fukushima?

For me, it was a déjà vu of Chernobyl, which I remember very well. I felt for all the people who lost their homes and livelihoods. But you also immediately think: What would happen if there was a disaster like this at Cattenom, right on our doorstep? It’s terrifying. Nuclear energy always comes with a risk, but public awareness has increased enormously.

Some countries still see it as a cheap, emissions-free source of power. What will it take to change their minds?

It’s a constant battle. Some countries, also in Europe, see nuclear energy as a solution to the climate crisis. That is a fallacy. First, it’s not cheap. Hinkley Point in the UK, for example, will only work out economically at a fixed tariff that is higher than the price for renewable energy. The waste problem hasn’t been solved.

With a nuclear power station, money is locked in for decades and production is centralised. Renewables help make energy more democratic. We want to be more flexible, decentralised and allow people to participate in the energy transition, rather than moving from one energy dependency into another.

The European Commission is technology neutral, leaving it up to member countries to decide whether to use nuclear power. What challenges does this pose?

Luxembourg in recent debates–the EU taxonomy, the European Green Deal and Climate Law–has always tried to keep nuclear wording out of the texts. We must consider scenarios for climate solutions that are 100% renewable. We respect that every country chooses its energy mix. But we cannot accept that Luxembourg public money is invested in nuclear projects as part of EU funds.

Luxembourg still uses nuclear energy in its network. By when would you like to see this phased out?

We are in a free energy market. We cannot dictate to big industrial players where they buy their electricity. What we have achieved is that in the residential domain we are 100% renewable, and that this commitment extends to public players. For the rest, I hope that bit by bit the economic players will pull in the same direction.

You came out strongly against Belgium exploring nuclear waste storage sites near Luxembourg, with the Belgian environment minister citing a “serious diplomatic incident”. Would you react in the same way again today?

I would do exactly the same today. It wasn’t a diplomatic incident. This ministry was officially informed that the consultation procedure had been launched. We are directly affected in the border region and for us that meant we should have been involved from the start, not just informed. There was some disagreement on this, but for us it’s important to respect cross-border cooperation and for us to have our say. One of the potential sites is near our biggest drinking water reservoir; we need to be very clear about this.

France is in the process of exploring lengthening the lifespan of some of its reactors. What do you hope will happen with the Cattenom site in the next ten years?

Obviously, I want Cattenom to close and for there to be no extension. If I look towards the future, the best solution would be a switch to renewables, to new jobs and in favour of a circular economy. It’s about enabling a transition for the people working in this sector, too. Cattenom is a big power station.

We want to think in terms of the Greater Region, and we want to reach our sustainability goals together with our neighbours..

February 25, 2021 Posted by | EUROPE, politics, politics international | Leave a comment

IAEA and Iran strike three-month deal over nuclear inspections

IAEA and Iran strike three-month deal over nuclear inspections    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/21/iran-pushes-ahead-plan-cut-un-nuclear-inspections

Agreement paves way for diplomatic talks between Tehran and the US over sanctions, Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor, Mon 22 Feb 2021   

The UN’s nuclear inspectorate has struck a three-month deal with Iran giving it sufficient continued access to verify nuclear activity in the country, opening the space for wider political and diplomatic talks between Tehran and the US.

Iran will go ahead with its threat to withdraw this week from the additional protocol, the agreement that gives inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) intrusive powers.

However, following a weekend of talks with officials in Tehran, the IAEA’s director general, Rafael Grossi, announced that he had struck what he described as “a temporary bilateral technical understanding” that will mitigate the impact of Iran’s withdrawal from the protocol, and give the IAEA confidence that it can continue to verify Iran’s nuclear activity.

Grossi added that the move “salvages the situation” and avoids the position of the inspectors “flying blind”. He said the agreement, from which either side can withdraw, gave space for wider diplomatic discussions between the US and Iran to go ahead.

He said the law suspending Iran from the additional protocol had been passed by its parliament and now “exists and is going to be applied. There is less access, let’s face it.”

However, Grossi made clear he felt the new bilateral agreement sufficiently mitigated the impact of the reduced inspections regime, so it was therefore worthwhile for his team’s verification work continuing, at least on a temporary basis. “This is a temporary solution that allows us to continue to give to the world the assurances of what is going on there in the hope that we can return to a fuller picture.”

The IAEA director general added that there would be no reduction in the number of inspectors, and that not all snap inspections would be banned.

Iranian officials have said the agreement will mean that the inspectors will only have 70% of the access they now enjoy, but Grossi declined to put a percentage on the loss of access.

The deal, released late on Sunday night, was met with an immediate backlash in Iran, where furious hardliners convened an emergency session of parliament to demand more details. Some claimed it effectively overrode the law passed by parliament two months ago cutting back on inspections.

Iran’s atomic energy association said it would continue to use cameras to record and maintain information at its nuclear sites for three months, but would retain the information exclusively. If the US sanctions are lifted completely within that period, Iran will provide this information to the IAEA, otherwise it will be deleted forever.

Grossi will have to report the details of his understanding to the other signatories of the nuclear deal, including France, Germany and the UK. All three had warned Iran of the serious consequences of withdrawing from the protocol, and they will need to be satisfied by the IAEA director on the value of the technical understanding.

All sides are involved in brinkmanship designed to bring about direct talks between the US and Iran leading to the US, on the one hand, lifting economic sanctions and returning to the deal, and Iran coming back into compliance with the agreement. Iran has not left the deal, but over the past year lessened its commitments on critical issues such as levels of uranium enrichment and the use of advanced centrifuges.

Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, said in an interview with the state-owned Press TV that Iran was waiting for action from the US, not promises, and said the cutback in inspections had been mandated by Iran’s parliament and could not be overridden until sanctions were lifted. “We need concrete actions, not words,” he said.

The US has offered to attend an informal diplomatic meeting hosted by the EU, also attended by Russia and China, the other signatories to the deal. The US state department has hinted that at this meeting the US would map out an offer on how sanctions and other economic restrictions could be lifted or suspended if Iran returned to compliance with the nuclear deal, including over uranium enrichment stocks and use of advanced centrifuges.

Zarif said Iran would need to know how, if the US returned to the deal, it would not simply walk out again. He said the issue of compensation for the $1tn (£710bn) damage inflicted on the Iranian economy would also have to be discussed.

Hardliners are demanding that any sanctions suspension would need to be verified, something that would prolong a complex process.

The Iranian parliament’s speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, a likely candidate for president, suspended its normal business on Monday to examine the new agreement and MPs 221 to 6 to refer it to the judiciary. He said any side agreement with the IAEA had to be approved by parliament.

The foreign ministry spokesman, Saeed Khatibzadeh, insisted parliament had been sidestepped in the weekend agreement. The power struggle is not just critical to the prospect of talks with the US, but also how the Iranians may view the presidential elections.

The chairman of parliament’s national security committee, Mojtaba Zolnour, said “the government has no right to decide and act arbitrarily. This arrangement is an insult to parliament.”

February 23, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran talks ‘avert’ impact of nuclear inspection deadline

February 23, 2021 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

Some Iranians and Israelis in full agreement on wanting to stop Iran nuclear deal

Hawks in Iran and Israel agree: Biden’s bid to salvage nuclear deal must not succeed, Guardian, Simon Tisdall     21 Feb 21 With elections looming in both states, and hardliners out to ensure the collapse of the 2015 deal, time is running short for the US president to save it

or sworn enemies, Iran and Israel have much in common. Both are regional powers, projecting their interests beyond their borders. Both are beholden, in different ways, to shifting US policy. Both have secretive nuclear programmes. And both are heading towards national elections – in Israel next month, in Iran in June – that could decide whether cold-hearted enmity turns into hot-blooded war.

The stand-off over Iran’s alleged attempts, which are always denied, to acquire atomic bomb-making capacity has gone on for so long that its dangers are often underestimated. Yet the coming days are crucial. Iran has set 21 February as a deadline for an easing of unilateral US sanctions. If it is ignored, Tehran is threatening to ban snap UN inspections of its nuclear facilities and further ramp up proscribed atomic activities……….

The escalating crisis has brought a flurry of diplomatic activity in recent days, involving Germany and Qatar who are acting as go-betweens. Crucially, the US accepted an EU invitation to join talks with Iran on returning to mutual compliance with the deal. In its response on Friday, Iran’s foreign ministry stuck to its previous position that all sanctions must be lifted before talks can begin

This will not be the last word. But it is a reminder of the sobering – and alarming – reality that powerful individuals and factions on both sides are doing all they can to ensure the 2015 deal definitively collapses. In Iran, hardline candidates and members of the Majlis (parliament), focused on June’s presidential poll, oppose any kind of rapprochement with America.

They include leading presidential hopeful Hossein Dehghan. He reportedly has the backing of Iran’s ultra-conservative supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has sworn never to talk to America. Dehghan accuses Biden of bad faith. “We still see the same policies … as we did from the Trump team: not lifting the oppressive sanctions against the Iranian people,” he told the Guardian

Such scepticism reflects genuine distrust, and fear of another Trump-style stab in the back. But it is also the result of calculation, suggested analyst Saeid Jafari . “Biden’s victory [over Trump] came as a big disappointment to hardliners seeking to undermine Rouhani’s last-ditch effort to save the nuclear accord,” he wrote. They may try to scupper any talks……..

Strong opposition to the deal, however Biden plays it, is evident in Israel, where the hard-right prime minister and close Trump ally, Benjamin Netanyahu, is fighting for his political life. Netanyahu encouraged Trump to ditch the pact, even as Israel has expanded its own nuclear facilities. He vehemently warns against resurrecting it as he woos Jewish supremacist parties in Israel’s fourth election in two years……..

Against all this must be set common sense. Trump’s maximum pressure policy failed miserably. It did not mitigate regional tensions or reduce proxy attacks. Rather, illegal US and Israeli assassinations of high-profile figures increased them. Sanctions have hurt Iranians, but did not topple the regime or change its behaviour. Iran is closer now to a nuclear weapon than in 2016.

Biden’s instinct to try to break this impasse and find a diplomatic way through – supported by the UK, Germany and France – is the right one. But words are not enough. As a sign of good faith, he should swiftly relax some sanctions and unfreeze Iran’s Covid-related $5bn IMF loan request.

Time is short. Proving peace works may be the only way to halt the fatal advance of warmongers in Israel and Iran.  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/21/hawks-in-iran-and-israel-agree-bidens-bid-to-salvage-nuclear-deal-must-not-succeed

February 23, 2021 Posted by | Iran, Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons — they’re illegal 

February 22, 2021 Posted by | politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

U.N. nuclear watchdog found uranium particles at two Iranian sites

Reuters 19th Feb 2021, The U.N. nuclear watchdog found uranium particles at two Iranian sites it inspected after months of stonewalling, diplomats say, and it is preparing to rebuke Tehran for failing to explain, possibly complicating U.S. efforts to revive nuclear diplomacy.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN2AJ269

February 22, 2021 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

The world came much closer to nuclear war than we realized in 1983.

Apocalypse Averted, The world came much closer to nuclear war than we realized in 1983.   https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/able-archer-nuclear-war-reagan.html-19 Feb  21, BY FRED KAPLAN

Newly declassified documents reveal that in November 1983, at the height of Cold War tensions, the United States and the Soviet Union came closer to nuclear war than historians—and even many officials at the time—have known until now.

The revelations aren’t mere details of history; they also hold relevant lessons for how leaders should think and act in ongoing crises in hot spots around the world today.

The documents, released this week by the State Department historian’s office, focus on a massive military training exercise known as Able Archer, in which NATO simulated the transition from conventional to nuclear conflict in the event of a war in Europe.

It turned out, top Soviet leaders thought that the war game was real—that the U.S. and NATO really were about to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR—and top Soviet military commanders took steps to retaliate.

In one of those steps, the new documents reveal, the commander of the Soviet 4th Army Air Forces in Eastern Europe ordered all of his units to make “preparations for the immediate use of nuclear weapons.” As part of that order, crewmen loaded actual nuclear bombs onto several combat planes.

Much about the Able Archer war game was first made public just six years ago, when, after more than a decade of legal battles, the National Security Archive, a private research organization, obtained a lengthy, extremely classified U.S. intelligence report detailing exactly what NATO forces did, and how Soviet commanders responded, during the exercise.

But the fact that the Soviets armed their aircraft with nuclear bombs—a discovery based on U.S. and British intelligence intercepts of Soviet communications at the time—has not been declassified until now. The new fact elevates to a higher level the danger that the world briefly faced, even though—unlike with other nuclear near misses, such as the Cuban missile crisis—almost nobody knew it at the time.

The Able Archer crisis might not have been a near miss—it might easily have escalated to a shooting war—had it not been for a single American officer, Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, the intelligence chief for U.S. Air Forces in Europe, who saw the Soviet moves, interpreted them correctly, and stopped what might otherwise have been a deadly escalation.

Most U.S. officers viewed Able Archer as a typical war game, nothing that would throw Soviet officers into a panic. But Perroots saw that, in fact, it was something different. It was a lot bigger than most of these games, involving a fleet of cargo transport planes flying 19,000 soldiers in 170 sorties from the United States to bases in Europe. And it was more realistic as well. The cargo planes maintained radio silence. B-52 bomber crews taxied their planes to their runways and loaded them with dummy bombs that looked remarkably real. The Strategic Air Command raised its nuclear alert levels to the highest level. The Soviets were monitoring all of this, of course, as they generally did and as the U.S. commanders knew they would. But they reacted in ways that they never had before—in ways similar to how they might have acted if the U.S. were gearing up for a real attack—including, as we now know, loading nuclear bombs on aircraft in Eastern Europe.

Ordinarily, when the Soviets took such actions, U.S. intelligence agencies would notify senior military officers, either on the scene or back in Washington, who would respond with similar actions, if just to let the Soviets know that we were watching what they were doing and were ready to repel an attack.

When Perroots informed his boss, the commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, Gen. Billy Minter, of the Soviets’ “unusual activity” at the start of Able Archer, Minter was about to respond in the usual way, but Perroots advised him to hold off. He recognized that the Soviets were probably reacting to what we were doing—and any further escalation on our part would worsen the situation, might even trigger war. Let’s wait and see what happens next, he suggested.

Ordinarily, when the Soviets took such actions, U.S. intelligence agencies would notify senior military officers, either on the scene or back in Washington, who would respond with similar actions, if just to let the Soviets know that we were watching what they were doing and were ready to repel an attack.

When Perroots informed his boss, the commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, Gen. Billy Minter, of the Soviets’ “unusual activity” at the start of Able Archer, Minter was about to respond in the usual way, but Perroots advised him to hold off. He recognized that the Soviets were probably reacting to what we were doing—and any further escalation on our part would worsen the situation, might even trigger war. Let’s wait and see what happens next, he suggested.

And indeed, after Able Archer ended a few days later and the thousands of American troops flew home and SAC lowered its nuclear alert, the Soviets unloaded their bombs and canceled their nuclear alert as well.

One of the newly declassified documents is a memo that Perroots wrote in 1989, as he was retiring from his final career post as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, detailing what he’d seen and done during Able Archer six years earlier. The National Security Archive has long been trying to obtain the Perroots memo; DIA officials have told the archive’s lawyers that the memo was lost. On their own initiative, State Department historians found it in a file at the CIA.

The Able Archer near miss did come to have consequences—in a good way. While the war game was unfolding, Oleg Gordievsky, a London-based KGB officer who had turned double agent, was providing his British handlers in MI6 with documents revealing that Soviet officials were viewing the exercise as a prelude to an attack by the United States and NATO. The British, as was customary, shared the intelligence with their American cousins. At first, and for more than a year after, the CIA’s top officials were skeptical, dismissing the Soviets’ “war scare” as “propaganda,” designed to inflame anti-American sentiment in Western Europe.

But President Ronald Reagan took the war scare seriously. Just days after the wrap-up of Able Archer, his national security adviser, Robert “Bud” McFarlane, showed him Gordievsky’s reports, which Reagan read with—as McFarlane recalled years later—“genuine anxiety.”

Reagan had been pushing hard against the Kremlin, hoping the pressure might bring down the Soviet system. In 1981, his first year in office, an armada of 83 U.S., British, Canadian, and Norwegian ships sailed near Soviet waters, undetected. In April 1983, seven months before Able Archer, 40 U.S. warships, including three aircraft carriers, approached Kamchatka Peninsula, off the USSR’s eastern coast, maintaining radio silence and jamming Soviet radar. As part of the operation, Navy combat planes simulated a bombing run over a military site 20 miles inside Soviet territory. An internal NSA history noted, “These actions were calculated to induce paranoia, and they did.”

Still, as Reagan read the Gordievsky report, “it did bother him,” McFarlane later recalled, that the Soviets would seriously entertain “the very idea” that he would launch a nuclear first strike. On Nov. 18, 1983, one week after Able Archer was over, he wrote in his diary, “I feel the Soviets are so defense minded, so paranoid about being attacked that without being in any way soft on them we ought to tell them no one here has any intention of doing anything like that.”

The same day, Reagan met with his secretary of state, George Shultz (who died this month at the age of 100), to discuss setting up a back channel of communication with Moscow. The next morning, 12 senior officials met for breakfast in Shultz’s dining room at the State Department to discuss reopening long-moribund talks with Moscow—a topic so sensitive at the time that Shultz told them not to tell anybody that the meeting had even taken place. Two months later, on Jan. 16, 1984, Reagan gave a televised speech. The key line—a dramatic departure from previous pronouncements on the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”—was this: “If the Soviet government wants peace, then there will be peace. … Let us begin now.”

He had to wait a little while. Two Soviet leaders, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, died while Reagan’s diplomats tried to arrange meetings. But then came Mikhail Gorbachev, a genuine reformer, looking for peace with the West so he could finance his politico-economic perestroika, and, soon enough, the Iron Curtain shattered and the Cold War ended.

This might not have happened if Reagan hadn’t realized, in the wake of Able Archer, that his belligerent rhetoric and aggressive actions had gone too far—that he had to dial things back and see if the two countries might get along, before their myriad causes for mutual distrust unleashed catastrophe.

In some ways, the world today is less fraught with ultimate danger than it was 38 years ago. There is no cause for fear of a massive nuclear attack by or against the United States, Russia, or, really, any other country. But at the same time, the world is more densely laced with hot spots that could erupt into war, and war zones that could spread like lethal firestorms, and there are fewer power blocs—no real “superpowers,” in the sense that the term once meant—that might contain the conflagration. Intelligence is scanty or ambiguous about many of these potential crisis areas. Assumptions about an adversary’s ambitions or odd actions can more easily harden into dogma.

February 20, 2021 Posted by | history, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment