Uranium Fever

Jeffrey Lewis 0:01

Mill baby mill you are listening to the arms control wonk podcast the leading podcast on arms control disarmament and non-proliferation i'm jeffrey lewis the founding publisher of the arms control wonk blog and a scholar at the middlebury institute of international studies at monterey and i'm aaron stein a senior fellow at the atlantic council's graffiti center for the middle east

Aaron Stein 0:27

Hey, Aaron, how's it going? Not too bad. You're still on my time zone here on the East Coast. Yeah, it was good to catch up in person. That shakshuka was tasty. That's right. We got to spend a couple hours in Brooklyn. You know, me in the middle of two intersecting Amtrak trains. In Williamsburg, no less.

Jeffrey 0:44

I had on skinny jeans and I was living out my early 2000 indie rock fantasy. It was great.

Aaron 0:52

Yeah, I was just there for Israeli breakfast.

Jeffrey 0:54

That was pretty incredible. We did a Vice News segment, which is the real reason we were there. I don't know if people caught it, want to check it out. I think it went okay.

Aaron 1:02

Yeah, you know, first time we've actually done this in camera, on camera, I should say, and in person, and it was fun.

Jeffrey 1:10

Yeah, we were talking about the president pulling out or simply refusing to certify Iran's implementation of its commitments under the Iran nuclear deal. But today we have a whole other flavor of crazy.

Aaron 1:23

Yeah, and well, the president's Twitter feed is always a flavor of crazy, but it wandered back into our issues again today.

Jeffrey 1:33

You know, this is a subject that the president has come back to time and time again, which is the president was tweeting about the absurd conspiracy theory that somehow Hillary Clinton sold uranium to Russia. I'll read it to you. Uranium deal to Russia with Clinton help and Obama administration knowledge is the biggest story that fake media doesn't want to follow.

Except it's a thing that didn't happen.

Aaron 2:04

And the story was broken... By the New York Times, sort of the pinnacle of his hatred for the fake media, as he calls it. And to be honest, I didn't really want to talk about it, and I'm going to be really honest with the listeners here, and you, because I don't want to chase his Twitter feed, because I think that this is a distraction.

Jeffrey 2:22

Oh, this is a total garbage story. But it's one of these things that keeps coming up over and over and over again, and I thought it would be good to get down for the record. What it's really about. Because, you know, this is now the third time the president's brought it up, at least three times on Twitter.

He brought it up once. He brought it up today, which is the 19th of October when we're recording. He brought it up in July, and he brought it up twice in March. This is a thing he goes back to over and over and over again. And it's crazy because it is, to me, it is the equivalent of claiming the moon landing was faked.

Aaron 3:02

Yeah, when he first started tweeting about it back in March, I have to be honest with you, I largely ignored it because it was so absurd. I just thought it would go away, but it doesn't go away. And I think the trigger was that there was a story in the Hill today. About it. Story in quotes.

Jeffrey 3:18

I mean, it's incredible, right? So, you know, for listeners, basically there's this conspiracy deal that somehow Hillary Clinton was involved in selling off a substantial portion of the uranium in the United States to Russia, which is just not in any way, shape, or form true, and we'll get to that. But the reason it's back in the news is the Hill carried a report with the...

Incredibly tendentious framing that there was this Russian operation to use bribes to expand their presence in the United States. Which is exactly backwards. What the Hill report is actually about is a couple of years ago, I guess in late 2015 is when everybody was sentenced. There was a bribery case in which U.S. conspirators were bribing Russian officials to get trucking contracts.

And those trucking contracts involved the transportation of uranium. And so basically it was, you know, standard Teamster stuff. There was an American who was arrested and... Actually, I don't know how long he was sentenced to prison for. And then there were two Russians. And those are the documents that the Hill has. And they've released them. But they sort of switch it around, right?

So instead of this being, you know, U.S. Teamsters paying... I shouldn't say, like, it's not the Teamsters, right? But, like... You know, small T Teamsters, U.S. truckers, a trucking company paying a kickback to a Russian official to get business, they transform that into Russian officials bribing Americans, which is, like, exactly backwards.

Aaron 5:01

And they use the U word, uranium, you know, and so this brought back this overarching conspiracy theory that just won't go away about a... You know, two Clintons. It's Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton somehow being awash in Russian money and having conflicts of interests, and the result is that Hillary Clinton oversaw the selling off of America's uranium to Russia.

Jeffrey 5:29

And, I mean, you know, it is unfortunate, but the New York Times in 2015 did write a very long story that is... Terrible it's awful I mean it is quintessential what was wrong with a lot of the reporting about her in the 2016 campaign no matter what you think about her you know and it's basically all all people the way it's structured I mean it was really quite clever I mean it's clever enough that I kind of wonder if it wasn't deliberate because it's it's all people who hate the Clintons making wild accusations and And then Clinton and people associated with the Obama administration issuing denials, which of course seems like it's on the one, like one side says this, one side says that, but like it's structured where it's like accusation and denial rather than bringing in people who might know something about the process and actually might say, no, this story is totally, totally garbage.

I mean, there's this one quote that to me just summarizes it where it's this, You know, lunatic who says the Russians are easily winning the uranium war and nobody's talking about it. So there's a reason nobody's talking about it, which is that makes no sense whatsoever. Like, what is the uranium war?

Aaron 6:53

I mean, and at the end of the day, I mean, this is ultimately about just how uranium mines chains hands and sort of these international large companies that deal with mining and then a process that has to get approval in the United States.

Jeffrey 7:09

So I think we should talk about what the actual agreement was. Because I think when people hear the word uranium, they get a little crazy. And suddenly this relatively boring mining concession becomes a fertile ground for conspiracy theories. So there is a mine in Wyoming called Willow Creek. I have seen it reported that it's like a third or 40% of our uranium, but like the actual amount that it produces every year sort of varies.

And actually for 2015 and 2016, the last years I was able to get statistics for, it was actually less than 4% of U.S. production.

Aaron 8:00

Some of them say a fifth, just to give you a sense of how wide the reporting is on how important this little Wyoming mine is.

Jeffrey 8:08

Yeah, and it's not sitting on a ton of uranium. It's also less than 4% of U.S. reserves. But the bigger thing, which I think we have to discuss, is that the U.S., Doesn't produce uranium. I mean, we have a tiny number of very small uranium mines, but it's like less than three percent of the uranium used in our nuclear reactors is produced domestically. So you're looking at four percent of three percent. I know. And you tell the listeners where we get most of our uranium.

Aaron 8:44

Yeah, that would be Russia.

Other voice 8:45

That would be Russia.

Jeffrey 8:50

And why do we get it from Russia? Megawatts to megatons.

Aaron 8:54

What is this, Jeffrey?

Jeffrey 8:56

Yeah, so when the Russians got rid of all those nuclear weapons, they had all that highly enriched uranium left, and it's all been blended down and sold to the United States, which... You know, is probably the shipments that the truckers were paying the kickbacks to transport.

Aaron 9:22

Yes. This is the Seinfeld circle here. But yes.

Jeffrey 9:28

Yeah.

Aaron 9:30

But back to the Wyoming mine that's 4% of 3%.

Jeffrey 9:33

And by the way, we also don't have many enrichment services in this country. So 10X, which also does enrichment. Yeah. Anyway, so we import a lot. Yes. Only 3% of our uranium comes from the good old USA. So if you're really worried about 4% of 3%, you're an idiot. So there is this tiny mine in Wyoming which gets bought by this Canadian company called Uranium One.

And, you know, nobody cares because Canada is actually a major exporter of uranium. And so not a big deal. And uranium one goes broke. Well, they don't they don't file for bankruptcy, but they they get in a lot of trouble. And the Russian state-owned entity that's responsible for this sort of investment in 2009 buys a stake in them, but then in 2010 buys the thing outright.

And that then, because we have laws in this country that requires an approval... From CFIUS.

Aaron 10:49

This is correct, yes.

Jeffrey 10:51

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Oh, and also the NRC. CFIUS and the NRC have to approve the purchase. NRC is? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Right, right. And they do. And they do for really obvious reasons, which is The uranium is still here. And if you wanted to export the uranium, it would require a license.

And no one cares because it is a tiny, negligible amount of uranium. And so Cepheus and the NRC approved it because of course they did, because who freaking cares? It is a tiny amount of uranium. You cannot export it without a license. You would not even want to, like, it makes exactly zero sense.

Aaron 11:40

Right, and by all accounts, they don't have a license, so it's still just stuck here in the good old USA, make America great again.

Jeffrey 11:47

And it is such a tiny amount of uranium, I don't understand what difference this would make anywhere. I mean, it's also worth pointing out that the United States and Russia no longer produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, right? The reason the Russians are downblending the HEU from their weapons is because they've got more fissile material than they will ever know what to do with.

So what I don't... Like, it doesn't... None of the uranium has been exported. None of the uranium can be exported without our approval. We're not planning on using the uranium because we have enough fissile material. And so... And it's not enough uranium to care about. So, like, I literally... I... I cannot express how much contempt I have, you know, for people who talk about this story.

Aaron 12:49

Can I say preach, brother? Because it's supposed to be a conversation, but I have nothing to add because what am I supposed to add?

Jeffrey 12:54

I mean, there's a reason the Post gave this one four Pinocchios.

Aaron 13:00

Yeah, but it's slightly complicated, Jeffrey. And by slightly complicated, you have to read a story and sort of put together a timeline of 2005, 7, 9, 10. And you have to know what CFIUS is and the NRC is. And you have to have the most basic understanding of megawatts or megatons and then how the U.S. gets its own uranium for its own number of reactors.

I mean, people know that uranium won't explode all by itself, right? I mean, I don't mean this to sound condescending. I don't think that this is... I think this is a very exotic topic for a lot of people. And so it gets sexed up with this idea that shifting hands of uranium mines is somehow a big conspiracy.

And it could make the United States weak and more dependent on Russia and this fever dream that's been created.

Jeffrey 13:49

Yeah. Now... I should say, the reason that Trump got, I believe from reading the Post piece, the reason Trump got four Pinocchios and not three is because he specifically alleged that Clinton was involved. And there's no evidence whatsoever that she knew at all about this. You know, the State Department has a representative on CFIUS, but like... It's not really her decision to make and there's no evidence that she intervened.

And I should also note that there's no evidence that anybody from Uranium One gave any money to the Clinton Foundation with the exception of a small donation in 2007, which was far in advance of this deal. Which doesn't mean that there probably aren't bribes going around, but there just is no evidence that anyone was bribed. And I don't actually see why anyone would be bribed because...

This is not, I mean, I would have been shocked if CFIUS or NRC had voted against this.

Aaron 15:08

The only reason to vote against this is if you really wanted to shake somebody down. Maybe the truckers who were probably bringing out down-blended Russian uranium for use in the United States, maybe they wanted a piece of the action.

Jeffrey 15:22

Yeah. And I guess there is some, there are some other, you know, I don't know. I will say this. You know, the Clinton Foundation, which I think did a lot of good around the world, the Clinton people did not have a very good explanation for the reality that we all know, which is that You know, a lot of people gave money to the Clinton Foundation because they knew it was doing good around the world, but because, you know, they probably did think it would get themselves in good graces with important people.

Aaron 15:58

Right, of course. That's one of the quid pro quos inherent to philanthropy in general.

Jeffrey 16:05

Yeah, and if we had a non-broken political system, we probably could have had a really interesting discussion about... About how something like the Clinton Foundation would interact with the presidency. And, you know, I mean, I think we could stand to have a pretty abstract discussion in general about charity barons, which is not something I particularly like. I mean, we get a lot of charitable donations, so I can't complain.

Aaron 16:32

I was about to say, Jeffrey, tread lightly here. Tread lightly.

Jeffrey 16:36

But, I mean, there is really an interesting question about, you know, We believe people have an obligation to give back to society, but we have this idea that they can then, in that process, you know, oversee that giving back. I don't know. I think I'd probably prefer to just tax the crap out of it. But whatever. You know, like, those are abstract discussions, and none of them, none of them get anywhere close to This crazy conspiracy theory that the president keeps articulating.

Aaron 17:13

Well, this raises the final point that we'll wrap up on is why is this one so durable? Because he does not give it up. And for me, it's a wonderful crutch for him to try and sneak out of his own sort of questionable campaign links to Russian entities that is far more egregious and damaging than this nonsense.

And so you can try and create a straw man, and there's an interest in perpetuating it in order to draw false equivalents, which is actually my original problem with the New York Times story, is that it's constructed in such a way as to draw false equivalents, even though this is just scratching beyond the facade of nonsense, you realize that there's nothing for this thing to stand on.

Jeffrey 18:03

Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly right, that it invokes Russia, it invokes memes of corruption, and so even if there's no truth to it, it's such a handy kind of whataboutism, and then it has uranium, and uranium is scary.

Aaron 18:24

Yeah, and we've heard him talk about uranium in these various New York Times interviews he gave while he was candidate. He didn't really quite understand how uranium fits into the nuclear fuel cycle and how it actually works in a nuclear weapon. Shocking, I know. So maybe he doesn't understand it himself.

Jeffrey 18:41

Well, I mean, I think, you know, I read a nice article once that said, you know, he's easy to understand if you just assume he is a low information voter. Right. Yeah. I mean, he just assumes that he doesn't he's not a he's not a particularly intelligent or informed person. He's he's a he he likes to just sort of make wild accusations that are in his favor.

And this is one that I mean, every time every time he says it on Twitter, I mean, people go crazy. You know, they just they they eat it up. So, I mean. Regardless of whether it's utterly false or not, I mean, it's pretty durable, and it seems to be pretty successful, and so it's not surprising that he would keep coming back to it over and over again.

Aaron 19:23

So, but the arms control long stamp of approval says that this thing is complete and utter bulls**t, and next time it pops up, do you ignore it, or do you call it out? No, every time I say it's not a thing that happened. Okay, so that's our advice.

Jeffrey 19:40

Well, you know... Look, I think one of the important reasons to call this stuff out is that it's not that we're going to change the minds of the crazy, rabid people who think this stuff, but my hope is that for at least those of us who operate... At a slightly less visceral level, including moderate Republicans. I think it's important for some of us to try to rep for the truth.

And it's an opportunity to talk about how you got a lot of tendentious reporting and a lot of kind of false equivalence reporting, even at places like the New York Times. So maybe it's hopeless, but I feel like if we don't draw this link between how a story, a very irresponsible story like the one in the New York Times, which...

You know, it sort of plays by various journalistic conventions, so it doesn't kind of violate any rules, but you can see that it's really, you know, in service of this discreditable goal. You can then see how then it takes on this other life in the fever swamp of our partisan politics. And, you know, I think it's good for us to document that.

Because, you know, hopefully editors in the future will do better.

Aaron 21:10

Yeah, or call us. We're always happy to help, especially on this one.

Jeffrey 21:15

Yeah, you know, it's funny. I used to really not like the Washington Post fact checker because I think that it's not as simple as what's true and what's not true. But God, it is unbelievable how irresponsible people are, and I've come to realize it's so essential to have some people who are just trying to get it right.

Aaron 21:55

They're waist deep in the fecal material swamp every single day and just trying to keep their head above water.

Jeffrey 22:00

Yeah, yeah. So I've turned my opinion around on fact checkers. It's a weird world we live in, Aaron.

Aaron 22:09

It is, it is. But at least, at least, we will continue to have all of our uranium in the United States and not for export.

Jeffrey 22:18

Make uranium American again.

Aaron 22:20

That's right, that's right. I only want American uranium.

Jeffrey 22:22

Make America mine again. I don't know. Make America mine uranium again. What's the uranium equivalent of drill, baby, drill?

Aaron 22:31

Mill, baby, mill? Mill, baby, mill.

Jeffrey 22:35

That's it. Hey, you know where you're not going to get any fake news?

Aaron 22:42

I think I have an idea.

Jeffrey 22:44

Not going to get any fake news on the Slack channel. How's it going over there, Scott? It's great. The Slack channel is awesome. And for $3 a month if you are a student and $5 a month if you're not a student, you too can join the Arms Control Wonk Slack channel. Hit us up at patreon.com slash acwpodcast and donate, subscribe, and support the pod.

Hey, that sounds great. Hey, Aaron?

Aaron 23:09

Yes.

Jeffrey 23:10

Thanks for joining me. Always a pleasure. And thank you for listening.