Saudi Arabia and American Nuclear Technology - Another Tale of Unintended Consequences

This press release recently appeared on the website for the Committee on Oversight and Reform:

Here is the letter from the Committee that was sent to the White House regarding the matter:

It turns out that a number of anonymous whistleblowers came forward to warn the Committee about the apparent rush by some members of the White House staff to transfer highly sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia which may have been in violation of the Atomic Energy Act.

Here is the cover page of the Interim Staff Report for the Committee:

In the Executive Summary, we find these paragraphs:

"Within the United States, strong private commercial interests have been pressing aggressively for the transfer of highly sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia—a potential risk to U.S. national security absent adequate safeguards. These commercial entities stand to reap billions of dollars through contracts associated with constructing and operating nuclear facilities in Saudi Arabia—and apparently have been in close and repeated contact with President Trump and his Administration to the present day."

It is important to keep in mind that under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act you will find this:

"No cooperation with any nation, group of nations or regional defense organization pursuant to section 53, 54a., 57, 64, 82, 91, 103, 104, or 144 shall be undertaken until–

a. the proposed agreement for cooperation has been submitted to the President, which proposed agreement shall include the terms, conditions, duration, nature, and scope of the cooperation; and shall include the following requirements:

(1) a guaranty by the cooperating party that safeguards as set forth in the agreement for cooperation will be maintained with respect to all nuclear materials and equipment transferred pursuant thereto, and with respect to all special nuclear material used in or produced through the use of such nuclear materials and equipment, so long as the material or equipment remains under the jurisdiction or control of the cooperating party, irrespective of the duration of other provisions in the agreement or whether the agreement is terminated or suspended for any reason;

(2) in the case of non-nuclear-weapon states, a requirement, as a condition of continued United States nuclear supply under the agreement for cooperation, that IAEA safeguards be maintained with respect to all nuclear materials in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such state, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere;

(3) except in the case of those agreements for cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection 91c., a guaranty by the cooperating party that no nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology to be transferred pursuant to such agreement, and no special nuclear material produced through the use of any nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology transferred pursuant to such agreement, will be used for any nuclear explosive device, or for research on or development of any nuclear explosive device, or for any other military purpose." (my bolds)

Under Section 123, the United States government may not transfer nuclear technology to a foreign country without the approval of Congress.

As background and to help put this story into perspective, we have to look at a company called IP3 International (International Peace, Power and Prosperity) which is mentioned in the Committee's report.   Here is the company's mission statement:

IP3's goal is to revitalize America's flagging nuclear industry by exporting its expertise around the world.

Here are three screen captures showing the heavy involvement of former United States military personnel in the leadership of the company:

Can we say "Deep State"?  Mike Rogers is a former Congressman from Michigan's Eighth District and was an officer in the U.S. Army and FBI special agent.  John Tanner is a former Congressman from Tennessee's Eighth District and served in the Tennessee Army National Guard where he achieved the rank of Colonel.  According to the Committee report, over the period from June 2016 to December 2016, General Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's former National Security Advisor was also serving as an "advisor" to one of IP3's subsidiaries, IronBridge Group Inc.  Frances Fragos Townsend whose name you will see later in this posting served as an Assistant to President George W. Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and chaired the Homeland Security Council from May 2004 to January 2008. She served as Deputy National Security Advisor for Combatting Terrorism from 2003 until 2004. Prior to serving the President, she was the first Assistant Commandant for Intelligence for the U.S. Coast Guard.

In documents released with the Committee report, we find two very interesting emails.  The first one was emailed from Frances Fragos Townsend at IP3 to staff at the National Security Council on March 28th, 2017 and appears to be an overview of the Middle East Marshall Plan that is proposed by IP3, keeping in mind that the original Marshall Plan was a U.S. program that provided aid to Europe following the devastation wrought in Europe during Second World War:

You will note two interesting points:

1.) America's Middle East allies have a sense of abandonment by the U.S.  Russia has been moving aggressively to fill the void through military aggression, security dependence and energy cooperation.

2.) The JCPOA (nuclear agreement with Iran) has set into motion a new arms race where Sunni nations (Iran is Shia) will seek equivalency with Iranian nuclear capability.  Left unchecked, the potential for a "Mutually Assured Destruction" scenario could develop in the next ten years.

One of the key goals of the plan is to "Make America Great Again in Nuclear Energy" (an appeal to Donald Trump) and reestablish U.S. commercial nuclear supplier base.  The authors claim that the Middle East Nuclear Marshall Plan will create 500,000 highly skilled jobs for workers in the Middle East and will create 200,000 jobs and $350 billion jobs in revenue in the United States.  It will also reposition the United States as the preeminent partner in the Middle East, countering the expansionist plans of Russia and China in the region.

Here is the second emailed document which was emailed from Bud McFarlane at IP3 to Micheal Flynn on January 28, 2017 that has been reformatted as a memorandum for Donald Trump:

In case you were wondering, the American companies involved in this project include Excelon Corporation, Toshiba Energy, Bechtel Corporation, Centrus, GE Power and Siemens USA according to this emailed document to Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from Frances Fragos Townsend at IP3: 

Let's close with this final quote from the Committee report:

"However, experts worry that transferring sensitive U.S. nuclear technology could allow Saudi Arabia to produce nuclear weapons that contribute to the proliferation of nuclear arms throughout an already unstable Middle East. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman conceded this point in 2018, proclaiming: “Without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.” (my bold)

Even though IP3 is touting the project as a "prosperity project" for the Middle East as a whole and as a part of Donald Trump's plan to Make America Great Again and given that Washington's global agenda is almost always accompanied by a wide range of unintended consequences, we can pretty much be assured that the transfer of America's nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia will result in the creation of yet another nuclear power, Saudi Arabia.  This will further upset the delicate balance that has kept the Middle East from ending up in a widespread regional war since the 1973 conflict in Israel.

How Washington is Helping Israel Protect its Nuclear Monopoly

With the United States being one of the uninvited parties to the seven year-old Syrian civil war, one would have to wonder what interest Washington would have in yet another war given the current ongoing operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Fortunately for us, a little-mentioned Department of State email which was gleaned from Hillary Clinton's server and posted for public consumption by WikiLeaks provides us with a very clear answer.

Here are some key excerpts from a U.S. Department of State document dated January 1, 2001, more than a decade before the Syrian civil war started, which very clearly states the U.S. agenda in Syria and the Middle East as a whole and why it was in Washington's best interest to enter any hostilities in Syria:

"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.  

Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is  losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well.The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza."  

Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.  The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.  

The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.  Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region.  Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement."

Given that this memo was written in early 2001 (probably late 2000), it is fascinating to see that the Department of State was already considering the need to "...train and arm Syrian rebel forces".

Let's take a brief look at how much the war in Syria has cost U.S. taxpayers.  Here is a graphic showing the size of Department of Defense and the Department of State have appropriated for the conflict in Syria:

While it pales in comparison to the cost of the entanglements in both Afghanistan and Iraq, American taxpayers have still spent tens of billions of dollars to both crush ISIS and help make life generally miserable for the Assad government.

According to the Department of Defense, since Operation Inherent Resolve (the intervention in Iraq and Syria in response to the threat posed by ISIS) began in August 2014, a total of $23.5 billion has been spent on war-related operational costs, support for deployed troops and transportation of personnel and equipment into and out of the theatre of operations.  While these numbers are questionable given that the DoD estimates the total cost of the War on Terror at $1.5008 trillion compared to $5.632 trillion by the Cost of War Project at Watson University when the costs of all war-related expenses are included as shown here:

...there are some numbers that we do have a more complete grasp on.  According to this study by the Congressional Research Service, in Fiscal 2017, the Obama Administration requested $250 million for its Syria Train and Equip (STE) program which trained equipped and sustained "select vetted Syrian opposition forces" with $210.8 million of the total going directly to purchase weapons, ammunition and equipment.  As well, the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defence Authorization Act authorized $1.16 billion in funding for a new "Counter-ISIL" fund to support Iraq and Syria training activities.  Here is a quote from the CRS report:

"Funding transfers for the Syria train and equip program will remain subject to the prior approval of congressional defense and appropriations committees. These requests would need to be accompanied by certifications that the Administration had developed a plan to take and hold Raqqah, Syria and to deploy numbers and types of U.S. personnel necessary to enable trained and equipped Syrian forces to defend themselves against the Islamic State and the Syrian government."

Given that some of these trainees handed over some of their weapons to an al-Qaeda affiliate and that only a small number of trainees remained active in mid-2016, we can pretty much assume that the program was a complete failure.  Not only that, but the highly complicated situation on the ground made it pretty much impossible for Washington to assure taxpayers that it was not funnelling weapons to terrorist-linked groups as shown on this diagram from Think Progress:

In any case, looking back to 2001 and seeing that the U.S. Department of State was prepared to fight a war in Syria to end the Assad regime simply to protect America's best friend Israel and its illegitimately acquired nuclear weapons stockpile is nothing short of ironic, particularly given that Israel has been completely opaque when it comes to its nuclear program as you can read here.  The fact that Main Street America is expected to both fund a war and supply troops to fight a battle for Israel is appalling but it is something that Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded of the United States for the past two decades.

Severe Weather Events and America's Vulnerable Nuclear Infrastructure

Updated September 13, 2018

The possibility of a significant hurricane wreaking havoc on the East Coast of the United States has transfixed the media.  While many Americans are preparing to evacuate or protect their personal property, there are fears that one key part of America's energy infrastructure could suffer a massive failure.

Currently in the United States, there are 99 active nuclear power plants; 65 of which are pressurized water reactors and 34 of which are boiling water reactors.  Almost all of America's nuclear generating capacity is sourced from reactors built between 1967 and 1990.  Despite the near halt in construction of new nuclear power plants, over the past 3 decades, the United States has become more dependent on nuclear power.  In 1980, nuclear power plants produced 251 billion kWh, which accounted for 11 percent of American electricity generation.  By 2008, output had risen to 809 billion kWh which accounted for nearly 20 percent of American electricity generation and more than 30 percent of nuclear power-generated electricity in the world.

Here is a map showing the locations of America's 99 nuclear power plants:

As you can see, a significant number of America's nuclear power plants are located along the east coast of the United States.

Let's take a quick look at the current probability of hurricane force winds (greater than 74 mph) for Hurricane Florence:

Here is a map showing the predicted rainfall totals:

Here is a map showing the risk of flash flooding:

You will note that there is a high risk for the most extreme weather along the coast of North Carolina.

Now, let's look at North Carolina's nuclear power plant infrastructure.  Here is a graphic showing the state's nuclear energy facilities:

Note that two of the facilities, Brunswick 1 and Brunswick 2, both operated by Duke Energy, are located very close to the Atlantic coastline as shown on this map:

According to Duke, the Brunswick Nuclear Plant is a two-unit, 1870 megawatt facility located two miles north of Southport, North Carolina.  It produces enough electricity to power 1 million homes.    The  plant was commissioned in 1975 and an additional unit became operational in 1977, making it the first nuclear power plant built in North America.  The plant houses two boiling water nuclear reactors and was upgraded over the years from 2002 to 2005.

Here is a diagram showing how the boiling water reactor works as well as a description of the process from Duke:

"In a BWR, the water boils inside of the actual reactor, creating steam that drives the turbine. It is a single-loop process, which causes the water flowing inside the entire system to be exposed to radioactivity. This makes maintenance slightly more challenging for nuclear workers because of the presence of radiation. However, workers clearly understand the challenges and how to manage them. A BWR is more efficient because there are fewer thermal losses (no primary system to secondary system heat transfer losses)."

Here are two photos from Duke showing the Brunswick Nuclear Plant:

Given the impending storm and its accompanying flooding from extreme levels of rainfall and the likelihood of a coastal storm surge, one can't help but think of what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan on March 11, 2011 when the facility was inundated by a tsunami.  Coincidentally, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was also a boiling water reactor as quoted here:

"The Fukushima Daiichi reactors are GE boiling water reactors (BWR) of an early (1960s) design supplied by GE, Toshiba and Hitachi, with what is known as a Mark I containment. Reactors 1-3 came into commercial operation 1971-75. Reactor capacity is 460 MWe for unit 1, 784 MWe for units 2-5, and 1100 MWe for unit 6."

The disaster at Fukushima took hold when the reactor's cooling systems were disabled.  Even though the reactors were shut down automatically when the earthquake hit, the system was vulnerable to an influx of water as quoted here:

"It appears that no serious damage was done to the reactors by the earthquake, and the operating units 1-3 were automatically shut down in response to it, as designed. At the same time all six external power supply sources were lost due to earthquake damage, so the emergency diesel generators located in the basements of the turbine buildings started up. Initially cooling would have been maintained through the main steam circuit bypassing the turbine and going through the condensers.

Then 41 minutes later, at 3:42 pm, the first tsunami wave hit, followed by a second 8 minutes later. These submerged and damaged the seawater pumps for both the main condenser circuits and the auxiliary cooling circuits, notably the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) cooling system. They also drowned the diesel generators and inundated the electrical switchgear and batteries, all located in the basements of the turbine buildings (the one surviving air-cooled generator was serving units 5 & 6). So there was a station blackout, and the reactors were isolated from their ultimate heat sink. The tsunamis also damaged and obstructed roads, making outside access difficult.

All this put those reactors 1-3 in a dire situation and led the authorities to order, and subsequently extend, an evacuation while engineers worked to restore power and cooling. The 125-volt DC back-up batteries for units 1 & 2 were flooded and failed, leaving them without instrumentation, control or lighting. Unit 3 had battery power for about 30 hours.

At 7.03 pm Friday 11 March a Nuclear Emergency was declared, and at 8.50pm the Fukushima Prefecture issued an evacuation order for people within 2 km of the plant. At 9.23 pm the Prime Minister extended this to 3 km, and at 5.44 am on 12th he extended it to 10 km. He visited the plant soon after. On Saturday 12th he extended the evacuation zone to 20 km."

The problem stemmed from underestimating the height of a potential tsunami.  The original design basis was for a tsunami with a height of 3.1 meters (roughly 10 feet) so the plant was built 10 metres above sea level and the seawater pumps were place 4 metres above seal level and later sealed as an added measure of protection.  In the 2011 earthquake, the tsunami height was 15 metres, resulting in total flooding of the turbine halls.

Fortunately, in an effort to avoid another "Fukushima" the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced that preparations are taking place at Duke's Brunswick plant in anticipation of Hurricane Florence as shown here:

Unfortunately, as Japanese operators discovered in 2011, even shutting down reactors and planning for what you think might be a worst case scenario doesn't always prevent a catastrophic and life-changing accident from occurring.  With catastrophic weather events on the increase, it is likely that the wisdom of building nuclear power plants along coastlines will seem rather foolish in the long-run.

Iran, North Korea and American Trustworthiness

A little-noted meeting between Iran's President Hassan Rohani and North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho is quite interesting, particularly given recent developments with North Korea's forsaking of its nuclear weapons program at the same time as the United States alleges that Iran is still in pursuit of the ultimate weapon.

Here's how the meeting was covered on the English language website of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

Let's pick out the most salient point from President Rouhani:

“The US administration’s performance in these years has led the country to be considered untrustworthy and unreliable around the world that does not meet any of its obligations."

This has to be particularly concerning for the North Koreans to hear given that they are in the initial stages of negotiating a program of denuclearization with the United States.

In response, DPRK's Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho observed that the American withdrawal from the JCPOA and attempts to restore sanctions as an action against international rules and regulations.

An interesting live televised interview of President Rouhani on August 6th, 2018 made the following points about the United States' stance towards Iran:

 “US officials make contradictory remarks.  Those who are in office in Iran today have been working with the motto of interaction, negotiation and the negotiation table since the start and they have even negotiated with Americans and others.  We negotiated for two years and reached an agreement that the Americans were more or less living up to; others were committed to it, and Iran completely lived up to its commitments.

 If somebody claims that they are willing to negotiate, they have to observe the basics, the first one of which is honesty that the two sides must believe in, as well as reaching a conclusion.  The person who is claiming to be willing to negotiate today, has withdrawn from all international commitments from Paris Agreement to its business commitments with other countries.

If somebody puts a knife in its opponent or enemy’s arm and says we want to negotiate; the answer is that they must first pull out the knife and then come to the negotiation table.  I believe that they want to wage a psychological war and create scepticism in the Iranian people to be able to use it in the coming Congress elections. So, Trump’s remarks are aimed at taking advantage of them in Congress elections.

We negotiated with the current US administration as well, but they themselves left the table and what they do is that they are against the people and national interests of the Iranian nation; therefore, if there is honesty, Iran has always welcomed negotiation.  Negotiation at the same time with sanctions is meaningless and these sanctions are targeting Iranian children and people.

I have no preconditions. If US administration is ready today, we’re ready to negotiate with them about the compensation that they must pay to Iranians since 1953.

The United States did not want to face Iran alone for sanctions, but wanted to force the whole world to boycott Iran. Trump wanted to take all of these achievements from us, and it is already calling for sanctions against Iran, but it has been unsuccessful." (my bolds)

For more information on what President Rouhani was referring to when he mentions 1953, the year in which the United States - United Kingdom designed and executed coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, you can read my posting here.

Here is what Rouhani had to say about Iran's relationship with other nations and with its supporters:

"...at the first step of the US embargo, Europeans stood up against the United States, declaring that the law prohibited sanctions or blockade, saying that any company working with Iran would be boycotted if they listen to US’ call for sanctions and boycott Iran.

We are not alone all over the world, that is, all the countries around the world, with the exception of a few countries, support Iran, and consider Iran as a committed nation which can be trusted.

Politically, I think they (Europe) did the best they could. They took stances, talked, made regulations and explicitly called what the United States did unacceptable, and not only them, but the rest of the world did the same”

But in action and that how they plan to compensate for it, they have taken steps, and in our visit to Europe we talked with Europeans, China and Russia, and all of them promised that they would not pay attention to the sanctions."

Lastly, here is the most interesting part of his interview:

"China and Russia have stronger relations with us.  We want broader relations with Europe and the world”.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the United States stands alone when it comes to its stance on sanctions against Iran.

As was the case in the 1980s when South Africa headed the group of pariah nations that were subjected to economic and diplomatic sanctions which drove it to closer relationships with the world's other pariah nations, Iran has been driven into the arms of nations that the United States is shunning, most particularly North Korea, Russia and China.  The unanticipated consequences of this game of musical diplomatic chairs has come back to haunt the United States in the past and there is no reason to expect any different given the current but fading unipolar geopolitical reality.  Perhaps given Iran's experiences with American designed regime change in the 1950s, we should be a bit more understanding of their reticence when it comes to dealing with Washington.

Iran's Nuclear Capability - The American Connection

Thanks to the recent announcements about Iran's nuclear program by Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and the President of the United States, Donald Trump, the world is now living on the brink of another Middle East conflict.  What is rarely discussed is the origin of Iran's nuclear program and how the United States was involved.  As you will see in this posting, Iran's nuclear research program didn't begin in a vacuum; the United States and its former key ally in the region, Iran, were closely linked when it came to Iran's developing nuclear capabilities.

As you may or may not be aware, on December 8, 1953, the United States  under then President Eisenhower established the U.S. Atoms for Peace Program, a civil nuclear program that was designed to provide technological and educational resources for states desiring civil nuclear programs as you can hear in this speech:

As a participant in this program, the foundation of Iran's nuclear program was laid in 1957.  Under the program, the United States supplied research reactors, radioactive fuel and scientific training (in the United States) to Iran with the commitment that the nuclear technology supplied would only be used for peaceful purposes.  Under this program, the United States and Iran agreed to an arrangement known as the Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Atoms

Let's take a brief moment to look at a bit of history which is key to understanding Iran and its relationship to the United States.  In 1953, a United States-led coup d'etat ousted the democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, whose "sin" was his move to nationalize the country's oil industry.  At America's behest, he was replaced by  Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, better known to the West as the Shah of Iran.  The Shah, a staunch ally of the United States, was not particularly beloved by his people because of his repeated brutal subjugation of his countrymen, a sentiment that eventually led to his sudden departure in 1979. 

Now, let's go back to the nuclear deal between the United States and Iran.  As part of the aforementioned agreement, the United States provided Iran with a fully functioning nuclear reactor in 1967.  The five megawatt thermal light water Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) is housed at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center and was designed to operate on uranium that is enriched to 93 percent (weapons-grade or highly enriched uranium), 5.58 kilograms of which was also supplied by the United States.    

Here is an aerial photograph of the Tehran Research Reactor:

The reactor is capable of producing up to 600 grams of plutonium annually.  As was agreed, between 1967 and 1979, the United States continued to supply Iran with highly enriched uranium for use in the TRR.

In 1974, the Shah of Iran announced that plans to construct 20 nuclear power reactors over the next two decades with the purpose of providing 23,000 MWe of nuclear capacity to generate electricity for Iran so that it could export its massive oil and natural gas resources.  The Shah established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran which concluded an agreement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1975; under this agreement, MIT provided a specialized Master's program to provide Iranians with scientific and technological training on nuclear energy. 

After Iran's revolution in 1979, the United States and Europe cut off the supply of replacement nuclear fuel, forcing Iran to look elsewhere for fuel.  In 1987, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) paid Argentina's Applied Research Institute $5.5 million to convert the reactor to use uranium that was enriched to slightly less than 20 percent (low enriched uranium or LEU) rather than the 93 percent enriched uranium (highly enriched uranium or HEU) that it was designed to use.  At 19.75 percent, the fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor is at a level that is just below the lower limit for highly enriched uranium; since 1993, the reactor has been operating successfully using the 115.8 kilograms of safeguarded LEU supplied by Argentina with the tacit approval of the United States and the outright approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which was given on September 26, 1988.  Of the original fuel supplied by the United States, approximately 7 kilograms of HEU remains stored at the reactor site.  It is believed that Iran used this reactor to conduct its early efforts to develop nuclear weapons.  Iran has used the Tehran Research Reactor to irradiate uranium oxide, separate plutonium and produce small amounts of polonium-210 in the early 1990s.  Polonium 201 is often used in a beryllium-polonium initiator that starts the chain reaction in a nuclear weapon.  The production of these radioactive products was completed without notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  Iran claims that the polonium was produced as part of a study into the production of neutron sources for use in radioisotope thermoelectric generator and that it was not produced as part of its nuclear weapons program.

In 2009, it was projected that the Iranians would run out of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, largely because of the failure of its deal with Russia and France.  Iran declared that it had started enriching uranium up to the 20 percent level in order to manufacture fuel pellets for the TRR.   In February 2012, Iran loaded the first batch of its domestically produced fuel rods into the Tehran Research Reactor.  Interestingly, in late 2011, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Tehran would stop producing LEU if it were guaranteed a source of uranium for the Tehran Research Reactor since the reactor was used to supply medical isotopes for treating the estimated 850,000 cancer patients in Iran.  In addition, as you can see from this table, Iran has significant plans in place to expand its inventory of nuclear power reactors, a move that would entail acquiring a significant quantity of nuclear fuel:

As you can see from this posting, the genesis of Iran's current nuclear program is directly connected to the United States and, as we now know, the current religious leadership in the nation resulted from broad-based dissatisfaction with America's choice of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the leader of Iran after the democratically-elected Prime Minister was deposed by the United States and the United Kingdom.  Iran's alleged nuclear threat is just another in a series of unintended consequence of superpower meddling in an outside nation.

Let's close with this quote from Peter Jenkins, former United Kingdom Permanent Representative for the International Atomic Energy Administration between 2001 and 2006:

  

"Since 1992, both leading Israeli parties have strived to convince Washington of Israel’s value to the US as an ally in a post-Cold War Middle East. For these Israelis, Iran’s nuclear programme has been manna from heaven—just what’s needed to persuade Americans that Iran is an evil state bent on destroying Israel, and that Iran’s programme, if left unchecked, will precipitate nuclear proliferation in an unstable region.

US neoconservatives, in thrall to dreams of reshaping the Middle East, have provided a ready echo chamber for these (highly questionable) propositions. These constituencies, Israeli and American, have no interest in the normalisation of the Iranian nuclear case through an NPT deal." 

It is interesting to look back in history to see what a tangled diplomatic web has been woven when it comes to Iran and its nuclear program, a web that was largely woven by the United States.