Remember “this Kalinin NPP picture”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1723/the-church-of-nuclear? Well, check out an even trippier pic of Kursk NPP. (“Original link”:http://kunpp.rosenergoatom.ru/media/gallery/aps/kurskaes/foto-aes/66_b.jpg.)
!/images/59.jpg!
In another “food-related conflict,”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1745/iran-the-sammitch-war Tehran and Washington are “clashing over pistachios:”:http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49806E20081009
KERMAN PROVINCE, Iran (Reuters) – For some Iranians, it’s a galling thought: the United States may oust Iran as the world’s largest producer of pistachio nuts this year because of one of the worst harvests ever in the Islamic Republic.
[snip]
The United States has more than doubled production in the last decade to 416 million pounds (about 190,000 tons) in 2007, most of it in California. With a good pistachio year usually followed by a weaker harvest, California’s output is expected to fall to 260-270 million pounds in 2008 but this would still be more than many are forecasting in Iran.
Iran, however, maintains that size doesn’t much matter, at least when it comes to pistachio harvests:
bq. U.S. producers might use water and land more effectively but Iranian farmers say nobody can rival the taste of their pistachios, which are also used in sweets and ice-creams.
At least they’re not fighting if they’re comparing their nuts…
A lot of US/India 123 action, plus a host of other issues. He’s speaking with “Mark Goldberg,”:http://www.prospect.org/cs/author?id=1132 who was nice enough to link to this blog once.
You didn’t see this coming, did you?
“According to “:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7675281.stm the BBC,
Cooks in Iran have tried to assemble the world’s largest ostrich sandwich at a food festival in Tehran, as part of a bid to promote healthy eating.
The organisers want to promote Iran’s fledgling ostrich farming business.
About 1,500 cooks used 1,000kg (2,200lbs) of ostrich meat to make the 1,500m (4,920ft) long sandwich.
I eat no bird flesh, but “this video”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7675871.stm makes that sammitch look badass.
Peculiar article in today’s _The Hindu_ that discusses nuclear cooperation prospects “between India and Kazakhstan”:http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008101656461200.htm&date=2008/10/16/&prd=th. In short, Kazakhstan wants to fill some of India’s “Aussie gap”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188835.stm.
And here is a plug for a slightly dated, but still awesome _Bulletin_ piece (authored by a good friend and former colleague) on “Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Ambitions”:http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/kazakhstans-nuclear-ambitions.
Since I am allowed a CNS plug once in a while, here are two absolutely splendid issue briefs that Stephen Schwartz wrote for the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Check out “*The Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons*”:http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_atomic_audit.html and “*Oversight of U.S. Nuclear Weapons*”:http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_congress_and_nuclear_weapons.html.
Happy Tuesday!
You’re probably sick of “this topic”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1672/dreaming-of-an-s-300-belarus-edition by now and you’ve likely seen this most recent “Russian denial of intent to sell the system to the Iranians”:http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3764075&c=EUR&s=TOP.
Nevertheless, just wanted to note that, according to Interfax, on 6 October, Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Director General for Russia and CIS Countries Pinhas Avivi confirmed to journalists something that I’ve figured was the case all along.
bq. “*[Israel has] a covert agreement with Russia that it would not sell offensive armaments to Iran and Syria*… [The agreement] stipulates Russia’s avoidance of steps that might change the balance of forces [in the Middle East].”
Avivi also reportedly stated that
bq. “The Israeli and Russian foreign ministries are permanent consultations with representatives of defense agencies. *The sides decide which weaponry can be called defensive and which can be called offensive at the consultations*.”
In addition, Avivi reportedly noted that Israel did not supply _offensive_ arms to Georgia as a quid pro quo for a Russian promise not to supply _offensive_ arms to Iran (or Syria). If one follows this logic, though, it seems that the Russians have went along with the Israeli argument that “UAVs sold to Georgia”:http://www.wmdinsights.org/I26/I26_RU1_Downing.htm are considered _defensive_, while the S-300s to Iran and Syria are considered _offensive_ by both sides. Weird.
OK, this isn’t too relevant to nonpro or arms control, but I had to share. Check it out the first entry, in Russian with English subtitles, below. (“Original link”:http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/sdocs/vappears.shtml.)
Wade Boese has an awesome and really timely article in October’s _Arms Control Today_ that discusses *the evolution of the Bush administration’s use of nonproliferation sanctions*.
Wade (whom I’ve admittedly never met, but whose work I’ve always found quite amazing) writes that during the second Bush term, the *Treasury Dept. has taken the sanctions baton from the State Dept.* He also notes that “over the course of the administration, *sanctions have decreased against Chinese entities and increased against Iranian entities*.” Most importantly, the article features great quotes from Chris Ford (and others) on *John Bolton’s nonpro sanctions obsession*. Anyway, “read the whole thing here”:http://armscontrol.org/act/2008_10/sanctions.
What I wonder about, however, is the *lack of discussion in the article of the sanctions trends against Russian entities*. Over 30 sanctions have been levied against Russian companies and private individuals during the past decade and, I would argue, these impositions were “more effective” than the sanctions against Iran or China in the sense that they’ve been more damaging to bilateral relations. Without the discussion of the Russia case, the nonpro sanctions story seems incomplete.
What I am also really curious about is *the reason behind the lack of State Dept. action on the last round of* “*INA sanctions*”:http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c15234.htm. These should have expired by now, but no _Federal Register_ notice has yet been issued. (And while I seemingly “jumped the gun in this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1673/last-round-of-ina-nonpro-sanctions-to-expire-monday, I am not admitting a mistake without an explanation.) Even if State, as Wade writes, has “taken a back seat,” surely this doesn’t mean that they won’t even issue expiration notices?
Hmm…
Iran has been taking note of both the U.S.-India deal and Western treatment of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons for kind of a while.
Deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Mohammad Saeedi “recently weighed in on the former,”:http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0810052485135218.htm expressing concern that the deal “has violated ” the NPT.
Saeedi then elaborated a bit:
The method used by several nuclear states to transfer the technology to non-members of the NPT, will create new crises for the international community, he added.
According to the NPT, only signatories to the treaty can make use of the rights mentioned in the treaty, Saeedi noted.
Cooperation in the area of transfer of nuclear technology to the NPT non-members will endanger the treaty, he said, adding that although India is enjoying nuclear weapons it is not a signatory to the NPT treaty.