nuclear related 111207

Betrayal or Deception: The Case of the NIE Report

Mark Silverberg

10 Dec 2007

They must be celebrating in Tehran. On December 3rd, and in direct opposition to the conclusions drawn from Israeli intelligence sources, a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 with no evidence to suggest it had re-started it. "Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons," says the summary's second sentence, while expressing only "moderate confidence" that Tehran has not re-started the military program.

The report says "with high confidence" that Iran did have a secret nuclear weapons program and that it stopped only after it got caught and was threatened with international punishment (like the Iraqi invasion). Presenting the NIE Report, Bush's national security adviser Stephen Hadley said: “The estimate offers ground for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically without the use of force, as the administration has being trying to do.” The President followed up with calls to world leaders and held a White House news conference to argue that the new National Intelligence Estimate only reinforces the need for more diplomatic pressure against Iran. Bombing Iran, it seems, is now off the table.

On the face of it, it appears to be a betrayal of Israel (that has consistently argued that Iranian nuclear intentions are military not civilian and that Iran will possess nuclear capability possibly as early as the fall of 2008) and a humiliation for an administration that has repeated argued that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. As Robert Baer writes:

“The Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far.”

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has already called it "a victory" for the Iranian nation against world powers. If he's right; if they're both right, then we are fools. In the contest for influence between a U.S.-backed liberal democracy and the champion of radical Islamism (Iran), guess who has just emerged as the strong horse and who the weak horse? The Saudis have pretty well figured it out. Doubtless the Israelis have too…….assuming the NIE Report is for real.

If so, there is good reason to conclude that it is seriously flawed. The distinction between Iran's "military" and "civilian" programs is highly artificial, since the enrichment of uranium, which all agree Iran is continuing, is critical to civilian and military uses. Furthermore, as John Bolton argues in the Washington Post:

“The 2007 NIE is internally contradictory and insufficiently supported. It implies that Iran is susceptible to diplomatic persuasion and pressure, yet the only event in 2003 that might have affected Iran was our invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.”

Besides, the U.S. intelligence community has a poor track record regarding nuclear weapons programs and has made several incorrect judgments on some of the most critical proliferation cases of our time including Iraq, Libya and North Korea.

Nevertheless, if the conclusions of the NIE are allowed to stand, it would appear increasingly improbable that there will be any U.S. military action against Iran for the foreseeable future. Worse, the implications of the Report suggest that Israel will be left alone to deal with Iran and the radical Islamic wave sweeping through the Middle East - that is, unless the NIE is part of a massive deception plan.

A theory? Certainly. An unfounded theory. Certainly not. After all, both the Gulf Arabs and Israel are consumed by the probability (not possibility) that Iran will go nuclear - NIE or no NIE - and neither can be expected to sit back (or let America sit back) and allow that to happen. The Report comes as the Arab world has been countering Ahmadinejad's rhetoric and his government's influence over the presidential turmoil in Lebanon, the politics in Syria, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Report did nothing to allay Arab fears over Iran's nuclear intentions and its secretive program to enrich uranium. The Saudis are literally holding hands with Ahmedinejad (as they did recently in Doha), but both the Saudis and Israelis are convinced that he's a rabid dog that must be eliminated. Israel, for its part, whether in coalition or on its own, cannot and will not ever allow Iran under the mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons.

The facts overwhelmingly suggest that Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons for military purposes. Therefore, despite the NIE Report, a U.S.-sponsored campaign of deception cannot be dismissed.

Believing Ahmedinejad

As Gerard Baker wrote recently in the Times of London: "Those who say war with Iran is unthinkable are right. Military strikes, even limited, targeted, and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world. There are many fearfully powerful arguments against the use of the military option. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments does not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means may be necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power."

Born to a blacksmith, educated as a revolutionary, trained as a killer and attacked as a mystical fanatic, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the personification of everything there is to fear about a nuclear Iran. He has stated, not once but on many occasions, and not privately, but publicly in many world forums, that Israel is a cancer that will be "wiped off the map", that "the Holocaust was a myth", and that "if there is to be a Jewish State, it should be in Europe or Alaska."

The religious ideology of the Islamic republic is tied to the belief that Iran's Supreme Leaders (Ayatollahs Khomeini and later Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) are just temporary guides pending the return of the Imam Mahdi who vanished more than a thousand years ago. Ahmadinejad has linked himself to a mystical movement that believes the way must be prepared (through Armageddon) for the return of the Mahdi and that is precisely what he is doing.

Nor are his threats new. Several years ago, Iran's former President Rafsanjani stated that "the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam" (showing an appalling ignorance on the ramifications that would necessarily flow from a nuclear exchange). And speaking to Hamas leaders recently in Damascus, Ahmadinejad confirmed that the Middle East conflict, for the Islamic government of Iran, has become "the locus of the final war" between Muslims and the West.

So why should we take this Iranian rhetoric seriously? Because, such rhetoric comes from the same Islamic regime that, twenty years ago, sent Iranian children scurrying across Iraqi minefields with yellow plastic "keys to Paradise" made in Taiwan hanging around their necks. Thousands were sacrificed as "martyrs for Allah." While many may not believe that Ahmedinejad intends to carry out his threat (by the way, the world didn't believe Hitler in Mein Kampf or Saddam Hussein's stated intentions to invade Kuwait either), the Israelis, the Saudis and yes, I suspect even the Americans are convinced that he does. A "balance of terror" deterrence philosophy may have worked during the Cold War, but we live in the post-Cold War era and the Iranian mullahs are not the Communists.

Following the Evidence…

There is certainly sufficient evidence to support the fact that Iran is buying time and pursuing a nuclear weapons program with a vengeance. Even now, Tehran's scientists are working to master the skills to make nuclear fuel - the hardest part of building a weapon. The Iranians have brought in Russian, Chinese, Pakistani, and North Korean technology to develop a nuclear weapons infrastructure that far surpasses their need for civilian energy. They have broken the seals on their critical nuclear reactors, announced that they have attained nuclear fission production capability and made fools of IAEA inspectors (not to mention the Europeans and Americans).

So is Israel spinning tales about Iran's nuclear plans? The evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Beginning with the August 2002 announcement by the Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), it was clear that Iran had concealed a clandestine nuclear weapons program for the preceding fourteen years. Satellite imagery has confirmed a conversion plant at Isfahan, uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, a plutonium/heavy water processing center at Arak*, a uranium hexafluoride gas (a critical component in nuclear weapons production) production site near Isfahan in central Iran and many other sites throughout the country, and the Iranians were none to happy about our knowledge of them.

After the NCRI revealed the existence of the Lavizan laser enrichment site near Tehran in 2004, a full year after the NIE now says Iran's nuclear weapons program supposedly ended, the regime razed the site to the ground, removed the topsoil and every single tree in the vicinity in order to conceal any trace of radioactivity (as the Syrians did recently after the Israeli air strike on their nuclear facility on September 6, 2007). All equipment from that site was moved to a new site at Lavizan II, where the laser enrichment activity resumed.

And just last month, the IAEA issued a report criticizing Tehran for providing "diminishing" information and access to its current program. According to Clare Lopez, writing in the December 4, 2007 issue of Middle East Times:

“The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2004 discovery of polonium inside Iran also would seem strong evidence that Iran was involved well past 2003 in the production of trigger systems for nuclear warheads. Corroboration of the IAEA's findings came from the NCRI, which detailed an ongoing program of polonium and berylium acquisition by Iran. There are simply no other credible uses for these rare and expensive isotopes than warhead triggers. Even more recently, the November 2006 death of former KGB officer Andrei Litvinenko by self-ingested polonium blew the lid off a polonium smuggling operation that transited through London en route to Iran and other end users, including al-Qaeda and the Chechens."

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on February 16, 2006, the reformist Internet daily Rooz reported for the first time that extremist clerics from Qom had even issued what the Daily called "a new fatwa" which states that "shari'a (Islamic law) does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons"……..and during the past year, a period when Iran's weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz.

The Israeli Factor

Notwithstanding the NIE Report, there is little doubt within Israeli intelligence circles (nor has there been for some time) that Tehran's goal is to confront the world with an irreversible nuclear fait accomplis and to use its nuclear shield to exert Iranian Islamic hegemony throughout the region. Secure behind that nuclear shield, it will accelerate its campaign of terror around the world by proliferating weapons of mass destruction to its international terrorist affiliates.

Worse, it will ignite a nuclear arms race in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, each of which has been working diligently for the past several years to develop its own nuclear capability. Had Saddam Hussein delayed his invasion of Kuwait until he resurrected his damaged nuclear program, Kuwait would now be an Iraqi province and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well. Weapons of mass destruction controlled by the world's least stable and most erratic dictatorial and Islamic regimes would be a recipe for Armageddon.

Given these fears, Iran must be fully aware that a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities could be imminent. Having learned from the 1981 Israeli air strike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor, the mullahs are racing against time to dig a network of tunnels and upgrade Iranian air defenses with Russian ground-to-air missiles to protect their nuclear facilities from another pre-emptive strike. They are spreading their nuclear facilities around the country burying many of them in hardened bunkers in the sides of mountains and in some cases, under-populated areas contrary to all international Conventions. That, however, may not be enough. As nuclear expert Edward Luttwak has noted, some of these Iranian installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but:

“…..it seems that their architecture has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs.”

Furthermore, the mullahs must know that in September 2003, Israel's foreign intelligence service (Mossad) began reorganizing its international infrastructure by enhancing its "Delta-Force" capabilities suggesting not only sabotage but regime change as well.

They also must know that in early 2005, the first shipment of F-15I long-range strategic bombers arrived in Israel (including a separate shipment of “bunker-buster bombs”) from the U.S. and that others have arrived since that time. These bombers are capable of traveling well over a thousand miles without refueling - an absolutely critical strategic necessity if long-range targeted bombing in Iran is undertaken.

And one can assume that Iranian scientists have read Jane's Defence Weekly and noted the Israeli purchase of several new Dolphin-class diesel submarines from Germany each having both stealth capability and the ability to launch tactical nuclear missile payloads at hardened targets (not to mention the enormous strides made by Israel in Ofek satellite technology). In that regard, Israel has also perfected its Arrow II anti-ballistic missile defense system using every existing missile in the Iranian arsenal as "targets" despite the fact that Israeli intelligence continues to believe that Iran is not yet able to produce a shaped nuclear warhead for its Shabab-3 missiles.

There are even rumors that “air corridors” have been created over Iraq that would allow Israeli warplanes to be painted as “friendlies” by U.S. forces - thereby protecting them from American ant-aircraft fire.

Then there is the not-so-secret air base being built near the northern Iraqi town of Kirkuk thought to be one of the more important staging areas for a pre-emptive strike. Turkey has allowed the U.S. to pre-position an estimated ninety tactical nuclear weapons on its territory. These weapons can be deployed against Iranian targets if needed……..and the Persian Gulf continues to remain awash with high-tech American warships of every class awaiting “further instructions.”

Faced with these activities, there is a distinct possibility that the West has already made its decision to end the Islamic regime and has decided to put forth a bogus NIE Report to deflect Iranian attention.

Two years ago, Israel's former Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz responded to a reporter's question - "How far would Israel go to stop Iran's nuclear program?"

"Two thousand kilometers," he replied.

………….. and now the American intelligence community is telling us that they may have been mistaken about Iran's nuclear intentions since 2003, and that the Bush administration favors a diplomatic offensive as opposed to a military one to create a legacy of diplomatic peacemaking in the Middle East.

Sorry. I just don't buy it. America's intelligence agencies must know that, one morning, we will all wake up to a nuclear Iran unless the Islamic revolution is ended. Something else is happening here. We just couldn't be that stupid.

Source: Analyst network

Saudi, Iran settling scores in Iraq

MANAMA (Agencies): Iraq’s National Security Advisor on Sun-day called on Gulf states to form a regional security pact, which would include Iran, while he reassured the area’s US allies that Baghdad is “heading West” in its foreign policies. But Mouaffak al-Rubaie also criticised Saudi Arabia and Iran for what he called settling scores on Iraqi soil and called for regional reconciliation that put sectarian differences aside. “It is extremely important to have a regional reconciliation rather than having this heightened sectarian tension in the region,” he told delegates at a security conference held in the Bahraini capital Manama. “That is why Iraq is looking seriously to call for a regional security pact like the good old (1954 anti-Soviet alliance) Baghdad Pact or a Nato-style pact, with a set agenda: counter terrorism, counter narcotics, counter religious extremism and counter sectarianism,” he said.

The Iraqi official said security in the region was “indivisable. You cannot stabilise Iraq and destablise Iran, for example.” Iraqi Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi meanwhile agreed that Iran should be included in any regional security arrangement. “It is our destiny to live with Iran... It is inevitable ... that we should work on regional arrangements that lead Iran to be a source of good to the region and not a source of harm,” he told reporters on the sidelines of the conference, which Iran decided at the last minute not to attend. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had told participants on Saturday that Washington saw Tehran’s foreign policies as a threat to the Middle East and all countries within the range of the missiles he said it was developing. Rubaie meanwhile made it clear to the Sunni-dominated Gulf countries that Baghdad was set to strengthen its ties with the United States, in an apparent bid to dampen their concerns over the influence of Shiite Iran over the Iraqi govenment. “A long term relationship of cooperation and friendship between Iraq and the United States of America will be a great relief for all the GCC countries and all the countires in the region. This is to ensure that the strategic direction of Iraq is very clear to everybody in the region,” he said.

“We are heading West,” he added. In a strongly-worded address, Rubaie complained of an Iran-Saudi proxy conflict raging in Iraq and accused some regional countries of meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs. “From where we sit in Baghdad and from an Iraqi prespective... we see competition turned into conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran on the soil of Iraq. “Some of the regional countries are tempted to meddle in Iraqi internal affairs... Some... are helping in fuelling the sectarian conflicts and maintaining the political stagnation in my country,” he said. But he pointed out that Baghdad’s engagement with neighbouring countries had “encouraged Saudi Arabia to apply effective measures on the flow of Saudi young men, so-called jihadists (holy warriors), to come to Iraq.

“(It) also has encouraged Saudi Arabia to apply a tightened control on the flow of funds coming to the jihadists in Iraq.” As for Iran, he highlighted “some good measures on tightening the control over the borders and making it difficult for arms shipments (to reach) the militias,” while Syria has taken measures “to tighten the control in Damascus airport and stopping foreign terrorists from crossing the borders to Iraq.” Damascus has been accused of helping the Sunni insurgency, while Tehran is accused of backing Shiite factions who are opposed to the US presence in the country. Rubaie’s comments did not go unnoticed by the head of the Saudi delegation, who rejected the claim that the kingdom was competing with Tehran in Iraq. “We do not compete with anyone, except for good and unity, mainly when it concerns a brotherly country (Iraq) that is a friend and a neighbour,” said Prince Faisal bin Abdullah al-Saud, the deputy chief of Saudi General Intelligence.

Killed

A roadside bomb killed the Iraqi police chief of a predominantly Shi’ite province south of Baghdad on Sunday just hours after US military commanders had publicly praised his efforts to secure his region. The attack on Major-General Qais al-Mamouri’s convoy follows a threat by an al-Qaeda-linked group to carry out car bomb attacks and strikes on Iraqi security forces and neighbourhood security patrols working with US soldiers. Police said Mamouri, police chief of Babel province, was killed when the bomb struck his convoy near the local capital Hilla, 100 kms (60 miles) south of Baghdad. They said it was the seventh attempt on Mamouri’s life since he became Babel police chief a few years ago. Police immediately declared a curfew in Hilla. At a media briefing hours before the blast, US commanders responsible for areas including Babel had lauded Mamouri.

“We’re very lucky in Babel province to have Major-General Qais, who is a very good Iraqi police chief for that province,” Colonel Tom James, commander of a US combat brigade in north Babel, told reporters. “He is committed to securing Iraq for the people, the population. He does not see anything through a sectarian lens, it’s all about Iraqi law, and the people see that.” Asked for the US military’s reaction to his assassination, a spokeswoman said: “This is a terrible loss.” A roadside bomb killed the police chief of Diwaniya province in southern Iraq in August. Other provincial police chiefs across Iraq have survived numerous assassination attempts. During the media briefing, military commanders said about 1,400 US soldiers would launch a fresh assault next week against al-Qaeda gunmen who are regrouping around Babel. The offensive would target al-Qaeda militants in small hamlets and fishing villages along the Euphrates River valley.

Babel is expected to be one of the next provinces to revert to the control of Iraqi security forces. Iraqi forces have taken back security responsibility from multinational forces for eight of the country’s 18 provinces. The US military says Iraq’s forces have improved steadily but there is no timetable for a rush of provincial handovers as the United States begins the gradual withdrawal of more than 20,000 soldiers by July 2008. That drawdown has been made possible by falls in violence across most of Iraq following a build-up of US forces. US military spokesman Rear Admiral Greg Smith told a separate news conference that attacks had fallen 60 percent since June. The number of roadside bombings fell 15 percent in November from October, he said. Smith was speaking before news of Mamouri’s death was announced.

US military commanders have also reported a decrease in attacks using Iranian-made weapons, a development some Iraqi officials hope will lead to better dialogue between Washington and Tehran over security in Iraq. On Sunday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said Iraqi officials had proposed holding the next round of talks between the United States and Iran to discuss security in Iraq in January. Officials from the two foes, at odds over who is to blame for violence in Iraq and over Iran’s disputed nuclear ambitions, have held three rounds of discussions in Baghdad since May. The last meeting was in August. “We are now studying the proposal and we will decide about the level of participation,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said. This year’s Iranian-US talks on Iraq’s security eased a diplomatic freeze that lasted almost three decades.

Surrender

Turkey is considering a new plan to entice Kurdish rebels to surrender and cease recruiting new fighters, the prime minister said, according to local media on Sunday. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said an existing amnesty had not had the desired results, and that his government was working with the military to prepare new legislation to make the rebels surrender, Hurriyet newspaper reported. Erdogan did not give details of the proposed plan, but said it also aimed to stop recruitment to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, according to the newspaper.

An existing amnesty program pardons rebels who leave the PKK voluntarily and who have not been engaged in fighting, but it so far has failed to lure most rebels into giving up. “With a new effort, we can minimize, stop recruits,” Erdogan was quoted by Hurriyet as saying during a conversation with Turkish newspaper reporters on his way to an EU-Africa summit in Portugal. Turkish army helicopters in recent weeks have dropped thousands of leaflets on mountain paths used by the PKK members to infiltrate Turkey. The leaflets tell of the already existing amnesty and urge rebels to leave the PKK. The PKK has been fighting for autonomy in the predominantly Kurdish southeast since 1984, when it launched its first attack on a military outpost.

After a volley of rebel attacks killed dozens of people, public pressure has built up on the government, urging it to hit the PKK bases in neighboring Iraq’s north. Last week, the military said it fired on a group of about 50 to 60 PKK guerrillas inside Iraqi territory, inflicting “significant losses.” It did not say whether Turkish troops had crossed into Iraq for the operation. Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul said later the military operation involved only air force strikes – not land forces. The United States and Iraq have pressured Turkey to avoid a large-scale attack on rebel bases in northern Iraq, fearing such an operation would destabilize what has been Iraq’s calmest region. Washington has agreed to share intelligence about rebel positions in the region. And the Iraqi Kurdish administration in northern Iraq has promised to prevent the rebels from attacking Turkey.

Britons

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Sunday demanded the release of five Britons being held hostage by an Iraqi Shiite group. Brown said his government would do everything in its power to win the freedom of the four security guards and one computer expert who were seized from a government compound in Baghdad about six months ago. The men’s captors released a videotape of one of the five victims Tuesday coupled with the demand that Britain pull all its forces from Iraq. It was the first public proof that any of them were alive. “We will do everything in our power to secure our objective, which is the immediate release of the hostages,” Brown said in a televised statement. “(Iraqi) Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his ministers and others are doing a tremendous amount to secure the release of the hostages and I want to thank them for what they have done.”

The kidnapping took place on May 29, when about 40 gunmen in police uniforms and driving vehicles used by Iraqi security forces grabbed the men from an Iraqi Finance Ministry compound. Suspicion has fallen on Shiite splinter groups that the United States believes have been trained and funded by Iran. The video was posted as Britain prepares to hand over security control of oil-rich Basra province – the last of four regions of southern Iraq it occupied after the 2003 invasion – to the Iraqis in mid-December. British troops withdrew in September from their last base in Basra city to an airport garrison on the outskirts, and half the 5,000 British troops in Iraq are due to go home by the spring. Four of those abducted were security workers for the Montreal-based firm GardaWorld; the fifth was an employee of BearingPoint, a McLean, Virginia-based management consulting firm. BearingPoint has been working in Iraq since 2003 on a US Agency for International Development-funded contract to support economic recovery and reform.

Al-Douri

Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Al-Bolani on Sunday revealed that the security forces are on constant pursuit of leaders of the Baath Party wanted to justice, pointing out that security was improving in Baghdad as a result of the increase of the Iraqi forces in the streets of the capital. Al-Biolani said in a press conference held in Baghdad today that there are about 3,000 security elements of the secret police currently working on the prosecution of Saddam’s former vice-president Ezzat Al-Douri and member of the national leadership of the Baath party Mohammed Younis al-Ahmed inside Iraq.

The minister added that the special forces were also pursuing those classified by the government as (important wanted suspects), as well as the prosecution of kidnapping cells, pointing to the arrest of 1,174 kidnappers and the freeing of hundreds of hostages. The minister indicated that these forces are receiving support and special training, adding that their numbers would increase according to the need of the ministry. He also disclosed that security in Baghdad has improved remarkably due to the further spread of the Iraqi forces in the streets of the capital, stressing that 100,000 security elements have been deployed in Baghdad alone and carry out the duties of pursuing terrorists. He also pointed out that his ministry had recently formed six security divisions that have been integrated into the leadership of the Iraqi border forces to help control the border and prevent the infiltration of terrorists.

Also:

SAN ANTONIO, Texas: More than a year after Spc Alejandro Albarran lost part of his right leg in an explosion in Iraq, his wife has graduated from US Army basic training – enlisting to take his place in uniform. “After everything he’s gone through – and he loves the Army – he kind of inspired me,” said Janay Albarran, 19. “I made him a promise that I would finish what he started.” She graduated Friday, gaining the rank of private.

Alejandro Albarran, meanwhile, still has not decided whether he will stay in the Army. “Right now, I’m leaning against it,” said the 20-year-old infantryman, looking ahead with distaste to a possible desk job because of his new prosthetic leg. About 24,000 of the Army’s soldiers, about 9 percent of the force, are married to other soldiers. The Army does not have any statistics on how many join after a spouse or family member is badly wounded in combat, but a spokeswoman, Maj Anne Edgecomb, said she has heard of people joining after the injury or death of a sibling and at least one woman who joined after her husband was killed in combat. “The courage of our soldiers and their families is remarkable,” she said. The couple married in February 2006, and he was sent to Iraq six months later.

Source: Arab times Online

Nuclear related 031207

Israelis hit Syrian ‘nuclear bomb plant’

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Michael Sheridan in Seoul

ISRAEL’S top-secret air raid on Syria in September destroyed a bomb factory assembling warheads fuelled by North Korean plutonium, a leading Israeli nuclear expert has told The Sunday Times.

Professor Uzi Even of Tel Aviv University was one of the founders of the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona, the source of the Jewish state’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.

“I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely, a factory for assembling the bomb,” he said. “I think the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] transferred to Syria weapons-grade plutonium in raw form, that is nuggets of easily transported metal in protective cans. I think the shaping and casting of the plutonium was supposed to be in Syria.”

All governments concerned - even the regime in Damascus - have tried to maintain complete secrecy about the raid.

They apparently fear that forcing a confrontation on the issue could spark a war between Israel and Syria, end the Middle East peace talks and wreck America’s extremely complex negotiations to disarm North Korea of its nuclear weapons.

The political stakes could hardly be higher. Plutonium is the element which fuelled the American atomic bomb that destroyed the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Critics in the United States say proof that North Korea supplied such nuclear weapons material to Syria, a state technically at war with Israel, would shatter congressional confidence in the Bush administration’s diplomatic policy.

From beneath the veil of military censorship, western commentators have formed a consensus that the target was a nuclear reactor under construction.

But Even said that purely from scientific observation, he had reached a different conclusion - that it was a nuclear bomb factory, posing a more immediate danger to Israel. He said that satellite photos of the site, taken before the Israeli strike on September 6, showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of nuclear reactors.

Syria’s haste after the attack to bury the site under tons of soil suggested that hundreds of square yards were contaminated and there were fears of radiation, the professor added.

Since then the Syrians have sealed up the location, levelled the site and diverted curious journalists to a place that had not been attacked by Israel.

The professor’s theory fits with authoritative technical evidence about North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. The North Koreans are able to produce weapons-grade plutonium, which is electro-refined, alloyed and cast into shapes ready to be machined to fit into a warhead, according to a team of distinguished American nuclear weapons scientists who visited the country’s laboratories.

One of those scientists, Siegfried Hecker, was allowed to hold a sample and was told that it was “good bomb grade plutonium”, because it had a very low content of plutonium240, the isotope which reduces the overall quality of the material.

Assembly of a Nagasaki-type bomb involves mating a plutonium core with a uranium wrap and inserting a small quantity of polonium and beryllium to initiate the chain reaction.

“Plutonium is highly dangerous material,” explained the Israeli professor. “It is easily oxidised in air unless protective measures are taken. The oxide is easily dispersed as dust in air when machining plutonium to create the ‘pit’ [a hollow sphere in many nuclear weapons] and thus can be inhaled, causing a fatality in minute quantities.

“Plutonium pellets are handled and machined exclusively in a large array of ‘glove boxes’, to protect the technicians and their environment. That is why you need a relatively large containment building and cannot assemble a nuclear weapon in your garage - unless you are suicidal of course.”

The debris from a destructive raid on a weapons-building facility could therefore contain toxic radioactive waste. But the main danger for Syria would be the telltale exposure of the elements to surveillance and detection by America. This would explain the cover-up at the site.

North Korea, for its part, has more than enough plutonium to sell some of its stock to Syria.

The same team of visiting US scientists estimated that by late 2006 the nation had made 40-50kg (88-100lb) of the material. Between six and eight kilograms are needed for a weapon.

For the US and its allies the Syrian connection raises the deeply worrying possibility that North Korea has succeeded in building what the US scientists called “a sophisticated design with smaller dimensions and mass so as to fit onto a . . . medium-range missile”.

That puzzle was complicated when North Korea announced that it had tested its first nuclear bomb on October 9 last year. The yield of the blast was small - less than a 20th of the Nagasaki bomb - suggesting to some scientists that the device was sophisticated and small while others believed the North Koreans had simply not made a very good bomb.

Professor Even believes the North Koreans have not yet perfected small warheads. “The mechanical dimensioning at this stage is extremely demanding (less than 0.01mm). So is the casting of the explosives around the plutonium core and the initiation of the implosion,” he said.

The question is under urgent study by nations who might one day be targets of a North Korean device sold to Syria or Iran. Iran is known to have financed missile and weapons deals between North Korea and Syria, causing concern to Israel and the US. One day after the Israeli attack, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, sent his nephew with a personal letter to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader.

The professor’s theory of a clear and present danger that Damascus would get the bomb may be the only credible explanation why Israel carried out a military strike against Syria and risked an all-out conflict.

Indeed on September 6 Israel was ready for war with Syria. Israeli sources said its military chiefs assumed Syria would launch a retaliatory attack, but no reprisal came.

Meanwhile, President Bush has authorised his chief negotiator, Christopher Hill, to go on talking to North Korea in the search for a peaceful solution. Hill will visit Pyongyang this week to pursue negotiations after international technicians got to work on disabling the reactor at Yongbyon, the source of North Korea’s plutonium.

The North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il is supposed to make a full declaration of his nuclear programmes by December 31. The US says that must include information on his weapons deals with Syria and Iran.

Source: Times Online

nuclear related 221107

Walker's World: A Mideast nuclear war?

Published: Nov. 21, 2007 at 11:00 AM

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 (UPI) -- Anthony Cordesman may be the most influential man in Washington that most people have never heard of. A former director of intelligence assessment for the secretary of defense and director of policy and planning in the Department of Energy, he is now the top strategic guru at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Most serious politicians and journalists have for some years based their analyses of the Iraq war and its aftermath on his universally respected research. Cordesman is a facts man who likes and reveres good data and cool, clinical analysis as the keystones of policymaking.

He has now turned his laser-like research and forensic intelligence skills to studying the real implication of the endless diplomatic minuet at the United Nations over Iran's nuclear ambitions. In the real world, this matters mainly because an Iranian nuclear capability would transform the power balance in the wider Middle East, and leave the region and the rest of us living under the constant prospect of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.

This would mean, Cordesman suggests, some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.

It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. "Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term," Cordesman notes.

The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.

The difference in yield matters. The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)

Cordesman assumes that Iran, with less than 30 nuclear warheads in the period after 2010, would aim for the main population centers of Tel Aviv and Haifa, while Israel would have more than 200 warheads and far better delivery systems, including cruise missiles launched from its 3 Dolphin-class submarines.

The assumption is that Israel would be going for Iran's nuclear development centers in Tehran, Natanz, Ardekan, Saghand, Gashin, Bushehr, Aral, Isfahan and Lashkar A'bad. Israel would also likely target the main population centers of Tehran, Tabriz, Qazvin, Isfahan, Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman, Qom, Ahwaz and Kermanshah. Cordesman points out that the city of Tehran, with a population of 15 million in its metropolitan area, is "a topographic basin with mountain reflector. Nearly ideal nuclear killing ground."

But it does not end there. Cordesman points out that Israel would need to keep a "reserve strike capability to ensure no other power can capitalize on Iranian strike." This means Israel would have to target "key Arab neighbors" -- in particular Syria and Egypt.

Cordesman notes that Israel would have various options, including a limited nuclear strike on the region mainly inhabited by the Alawite minority from which come the ruling Assad dynasty. A full-scale Israeli attack on Syria would kill up to 18 million people within 21 days; Syrian recovery would not be possible. A Syrian attack with all its reputed chemical and biological warfare assets could kill up to 800,000 Israelis, but Israeli society would recover.

An Israeli attack on Egypt would likely strike at the main population centers of Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Port Said, Suez, Luxor and Aswan. Cordesman does not give a death toll here, but it would certainly be in the tens of millions. It would also destroy the Suez Canal and almost certainly destroy the Aswan dam, sending monstrous floods down the Nile to sweep away the glowing rubble. It would mean the end of Egypt as a functioning society.

Cordesman also lists the oil wells, refineries and ports along the Gulf that could also be targets in the event of a mass nuclear response by an Israel convinced that it was being dealt a potentially mortal blow. Being contained within the region, such a nuclear exchange might not be Armageddon for the human race; it would certainly be Armageddon for the global economy.

So in clear, concise and chillingly forensic style, Cordesman spells out that the real stakes in the crisis that is building over Iran's nuclear ambitions would certainly include the end of Persian civilization, quite probably the end of Egyptian civilization, and the end of the Oil Age. This would also mean the end of globalization and the extraordinary accretions in world trade and growth and prosperity that are hauling hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians and others out of poverty.

Cordesman concludes his chilling but dismayingly logical survey with the warning: "The only way to win is not to play."

Source: UPI

GCC embarks on joint study with IAEA for nuclear facility by 2025

22 November 2007

INTERNATIONAL. The first stage of a feasibility study into plans for a nuclear power plant in the Gulf has been completed, it was revealed on Monday.

''The study was being carried out jointly by the GCC and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Ali bin Abdullah Al Owais, Under Secretary at the UAE's Ministry of Energy.

''Nuclear power was the ultimate solution to meet future energy demands and challenges, he told the 13th Annual Energy Conference of the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research in Abu Dhabi.

The country - with its rapid growth in all sectors - could not always depend on hydrocarbon energy, he said. Nor could it fully rely on renewable energy sources such as solar power.

Al Owais added: "Once the final feasibility study is ready in four or five years' time it will be submitted to the Supreme Council of the GCC for approval. Following that the project will be executed." He said the scheme will be completed under the supervision of the IAEA, which had already given the green light to the plans.

In his keynote address Al Owais said: "The demand for energy is growing fast, last year it rose by 15% and it is growing further. There are many questions that need to be answered. For example, how long will our natural resources last? The consensus for going nuclear has been growing in the GCC countries and finally it has been decided that the region will have a joint atomic power plant."

The GCC Supreme Council launched its joint nuclear power project last year and asked the IAEA for help to build the plant.

"The GCC nuclear power project is in progress and is expected to take at least 15 years to complete," added Al Owais. "The plant is expected to be operational in 2025. It will be constructed in a safe area."

All other energy sources - such as solar and other renewable forms - would be supporting elements. But the ultimate solution was atomic power, he said. Nuclear energy is considered the optimal means of generating electricity in the world today. In 2006 there were 442 nuclear plants in 44 countries.

He said: "The demand for power in the region is the highest in the world.We need a huge supply of energy as our growth continues."

Source: Business Intelligence

Arabic Press - nuclear related 221107

Russia confirmed its will to provide nuclear know-how and their expertise to Egypt. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, during his meeting yesterday with Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared that Russia was willing to help Egypt resuming its nuclear program.

Source: Al Gomhuria

sunni shia relations 201107

Following recent threats against the Gulf countries by leading Iranian officials, several Saudi columnists have criticized the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member countries' passivity in the face of the danger posed by Iran.

The columnists also called for a joint GCC front against Iran, under which a joint defense plan would be drawn up, a Gulf military industry developed, and a joint military force established. They added that the Gulf countries must close ranks before it is too late.

We Must Not Remain Silent in the Face of Iran's Threats to Our Sovereignty

In the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, Saudi columnist Abdallah Al-Mutairi wrote that the Gulf countries must not remain silent in the face of Iran's threats, but must instead formulate a joint defense plan:

"Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis between Iran and the international community as represented by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. Security Council, the E.U., and the U.S., Iran has been making efforts to respond by means of direct and indirect threats to the GCC countries.

"The most recent threat came from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who declared his country's intent to 'fill the security vacuum that will be created in Iraq when the U.S. forces withdraw.'

"[We also learned] about the escalation [in Iran's position] from statements by IRGC naval commander Ali Razmjou to the Fars news agency, to wit: 'If the enemies want to launch a military attack, the IRGC has a force that can turn the Gulf into a hell for them.'

"Likewise, we all remember the editorial by Hossein Shari'atmadari, advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and editor of the Kayhan newspaper, in which he stressed that Bahrain was a region belonging to Iran and that there are documents proving full Iranian sovereignty over the three islands (Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Moussa). We also cannot forget [Shari'atmadari's] comment that among the Gulf states there are illegitimate regimes that are the product of imperialism.

"Further, we cannot forget the statements by Ali Shamkhani, top military advisor to the leader of the Iranian revolution [i.e. Khamenei] and former defense minister, who threatened to wage all-out war against the countries of the region if the U.S. attacked Iranian nuclear facilities.

"We cannot be silent in the face of all these threats and warnings, and in the face of the Iranian threats to the Gulf states' sovereignty and security and of [Iran's] interference in their affairs. We must hasten to come up with serious and unified security measures that the Gulf states can take, and must start preparing a joint defense plan, in order to confront Iran's aspirations in the region, and in order to create a minimal balance of power in the Gulf. Such efforts must be emphasized by conducting large-scale joint [military] maneuvers, with participation limited to the GCC countries.

"It would be unwise to remain silent in light of Iran's irregular behavior, and to try to make excuses for [Iran's statements] by saying it was just a slip, or that these statements were aimed at the U.S. as part of the verbal war between Iran and the U.S.… In the face of the Iranian cudgel that is constantly being brandished at us, we must direct all of the Gulf's cudgels at it, and must not respond [only] via diplomatic means..."

Let Us Act Before the Day Darkens Upon Us

Saudi columnist Yousef Al-Kwaylit wrote in the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh that in the face of Iran's threats to the Gulf countries, the GCC must prepare a strategic plan to include joint military industrial projects and the establishment of a joint military force:

"The GCC countries are taking one step forward and several steps backward on matters connected to security coordination… The circumstances require that we understand, in all seriousness, whether we are in one boat about to sink, or whether we are about to be rescued from what is going to happen on our borders.

"We must be bold in making fateful decisions, taking into account that we are not on the same military level as our neighbor [Iran]. We must reexamine the history of the Iraq-Iran wars, and the deterioration in security taking place today that heralds a dangerous war between the U.S. and Israel vs. Iran, whose ramifications will be destructive for all.

"The meetings of the GCC heads have become a routine occurrence, but the results of these meetings are unconvincing, since their strategic plans give no precedence to launching a military industrial project. Nor are there any attempts to become self-sufficient in supplying ourselves with the spare parts, ammunition, and light and medium weaponry that we need [in order to] form a basis for advanced industry. [We must act in this direction] as long as we have abundant funds, as long as we have minds and manpower, and as long as we have the capability to import experts and technology without restriction.

"The Gulf's location, geography, and strategic importance to the entire world have made it a bargaining chip for countries in the region and outside it. The Gulf's oil resources, revenues, and vital position as a passage between land masses have made it a fragile and dangerous region. The British, who were present in the region in the past, the Americans, who are present there now, and the Soviets, who wish [to gain a foothold there] have all set their own interests [above those of the Gulf states].

"That is why today we are standing on unstable ground, even though we ourselves have no interest in the power struggles that threaten our security. The GCC member countries must talk among themselves, as openly as possible, about the future of their military and political security, and must stand fast in the face of the regional and international forces that are holding them hostage.

"The worrying question is: Why aren't [the Gulf countries] taking any interest in establishing their own joint [military] force, despite the many options for establishing such a force? Have we forgotten how Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait? Have we forgotten the Persian shah's threats to invade Bahrain, and the reiteration of those same threats by a senior Iranian official just a few weeks ago? Have we forgotten the dispute between Iran and the UAE over the [three] islands?

"The matter has still not reached frightening proportions, but we must be cautious… and in light of the warnings, we must understand where our responsibility lies - before the day darkens upon us."

Source : MEMRI

GCC needs a defence shield

By Walid Al Saqaf, Special to Gulf News

Published: November 20, 2007, 00:28

Imagine this: oil tankers being destroyed, naval mines being planted across the Arab Gulf and rockets striking US bases in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. It is one of the possible scenarios for the Armageddon battle.

That was just a play of fiction.

Seriously, the increasing tensions between the US and Iran are reaching alarming levels despite a bit of good news popping up once in a while about possible re-launch of talks with Iran on its nuclear ambitions.

Phyllis Bennis of the reputable Institute for Policy Studies acknowledged the danger when he once said in 2006 that such a war "a frighteningly real possibility".

It is hence a good time to note the very important question that GCC countries need to be asking themselves: Are we getting prepared?

Although Iran does not have nuclear weapons today, and although it never suggested it would build any for non-peaceful purposes, the US and particularly Israel are not at ease with the country's insistence to go on with its plans.

The stubborn positions of the Iranian and American sides leave little justification for optimism and hope. On the contrary, they hint to the need to act quickly and do something before it is too late.

Although the GCC may not be directly involved in the conflict, it is naïve to overlook the disastrous consequences such a war will have on the region and in fact, on the whole world.

The upcoming GCC summit to be held in December will be an opportunity for the region's leaders to discuss their options and what plans they have to prevent a war, and in case they couldn't, what plans do they have to minimise its damage.

I expect -and certainly hope - that the leaders would unilaterally agree on a common economic and defence policy to confront such a danger. But there will still be need to have a careful assessment of what the GCC can do with so little military power and experience.

Unlike Iran and other countries in the region such as Turkey and even Syria, Gulf countries lag behind in military might and are hence vulnerable to any outside retaliation and could hence not risk being involved in a confrontation with Iran or anyone else.

The 1990 Gulf War should have been a serious signal that having a common and strong army for the region is a necessity particularly after they discovered they had to ask for help from external forces - allies - to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion.

Since then, little progress has been made to have a unified army or a common defence policy to avoid a repetition of the past. As if 17 years have not passed, the GCC states seem vulnerable today as much as they were vulnerable in 1990.

Although several GCC countries have achieved impressive levels of GDP growth due mainly due to increase in oil prices, they seemed to overlook the risks of something going wrong and an attack that could have them as a target.

This risk is today very evident in that Iran would strike at any country that has US bases or troops. This applies to many GCC states.

In times like this, when regional instability is under threat, regional alliances should be set up to have joint objectives to protect the region.

Mutual interests

As globalisation had demonstrated, not having alliances to protect mutual interests is a recipe for disaster and a risky strategy that has many negative consequences.

Although wars should always be avoided, there are times when there are no choices, the 1990 war being a clear example. It is thus important to rethink the defence policies in the region and study the options available.

In my view, this is the best time for the GCC to initiate, with other countries in the region and the world, a defence alliance. A project similar to Nato would be an investment for the future in terms of confidence and protection.

What I mean with having such an alliance is more into having defence mechanisms, underground shelters and other protective measures other than building weaponry arsenal.

Staying without a shield for so long has been a mistake. But a bigger mistake is to continue ignoring this issue.

I know that this is easier said than done, but at least it could be food for thought and a reminder that with much economic activity in the region, there needs to be some guarantees for the protection of the people.

However, one should never forget that the most important efforts that need to be made now is to prevent such a crisis from happening. That's the first and foremost priority. Everything else is just damage control and minimisation.

Source: Gulf News