Q&A – Could Iran Use Dirty Bombs? – Driven By Braman Motorcars
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Brian, what's to stop Iran from using some of the uranium they have already partially enriched and using it as a dirty bomb? As far as I can see, the answer is nothing. What's your answer?
Bottom Line: With Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities having been theoretically destroyed Saturday by the U.S. strike using MOP bombs, the threat of a potential “dirty bomb” has increased. Reports exist of the potential for Iran to have moved enriched Uranium away from it’s now destroyed nuclear facilities prior to Saturday’s strike. This claim has also been cited by the Iranian government. It’s a potential development that’s disputed by the United States with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying Sunday: I doubt they moved it… they can’t move anything right now inside of Iran. I mean, the minute a truck starts driving somewhere, the Israelis have seen it, and they’ve targeted it and taken it out. Thus, it could be possible that Iran tried to relocate uranium only to have had the transports taken out by Israel as well. Nevertheless, what if Iran did sneak enriched uranium out of the country. What are the implications?
First of all, even if enriched uranium was successfully relocated by Iran, it’s ineffectual on its own. As Israeli intelligence analyst Ronen Solomon has stated, having enriched uranium is: Like having fuel without a car. (even if) They have the uranium, but they can’t do a lot with it, unless they have built something we don’t know about on a small scale. On that note, Iran is suggesting their nuclear program lives on. Quoting Ali Shamkani, and advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader: Even assuming the complete destruction of the sites, the game is not over, because enriched materials, indigenous knowledge, and political will remain intact. So, about that...are Iranian dirty bombs a potential threat?
Prior to the U.S. strike of Iran’s nuclear facilities, several experts, including Michael Rubin, from the American Enterprise Institute were warning of the potential for the use of dirty bombs, a type of "radiological dispersal device", that combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material.
Notably, despite concerns of the use of dirty bombs dating back to the cold war days, no dirty bomb has ever been successfully deployed. And it’s not for a lack of trying. There are five publicly known unsuccessful attempts (two within the U.S.):
- Iraq 1987 – Iraq tested dirty bombs but found low levels of radiation that would have been insufficient to create a significant impact if used
- Chechen plot of 1995 – Chechens threatened a dirty bomb attack. A small amount of radioactive material was found outside Moscow but was not equipped to any explosive devices
- Chechen Plot of 1998 – An alleged dirty bomb was placed near a railroad in Chechnya. The Russian government is said to have recovered the device without issue (it’s unknown if it was actually a radioactive bomb that would have been effective)
- Jose Padilla plot of 2002 – A U.S. citizen linked to Al-Qaeda who was arrested in Chicago for plotting a dirty bomb attack. Padilla lacked radioactive material.
- Dhiren plot of 2004 – A British citizen Dhiren Barot linked to Al-Qaeda was arrested while planning a series of “dirty bomb” attacks on the IMF, World Bank and NYSE.
So, there are two especially interesting dynamics in play here. First, while there’s been a proliferation of enriched uranium in Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terror over the previous two decades, we’ve not had so much as a credible dirty bomb plot detected let alone successfully carried out over this time. Second, it’s been 21 years since there’s been any publicly known credible threat. That doesn’t mean that in real-time there isn’t risk that we’re not aware of, however what it does speak to is the complication of carrying out an attack but also the potential risk/reward from a terrorist perspective. I’ll explain.
As I mentioned in the Iraq dirty bomb test, it failed because the amount of radiation damage caused in their testing wasn’t substantial. Related, in the trial Dhiren Barot – experts estimated that had he been successful in carrying out his attacks only about 500 people would have been exposed to radiation with minimal loss of life. This could be the bigger thing. The idea of a dirty bomb potentially sounds worse than reality if carried out which is why an attack never has been successfully carried out. That’s an important dynamic given the threats the world has long faced from Islamic terrorism that often been carried out by suicide bombers who simply seek to cause maximum death and destruction. In other words, it’s much easier said than done.
While a dirty bomb is simpler than a nuclear warhead, it still requires expertise to handle and disperse radioactive material effectively. It's believed that Israeli strikes early on targeting key scientists associated with the Iran nuclear program were timed in part to guard against the increased likelihood of Iran firing off dirty ballistic missiles or drones against Israel – which would likely have the greatest chance of causing the most harm.
The level of expertise needed to pull off these attacks also makes it less likely that Iranian proxies would be able to deploy enriched uranium if by chance they gained access to it. This doesn’t mean it can’t happen, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen, however history and the facts as we understand them, speak to it being an unlikely outcome (not to mention one that would surely mean the end of the Ayatollah – in response).