White House Acknowledges Releasing Iraq Intel

The Bush administration on Friday acknowledged releasing intelligence on prewar Iraq’s weapons efforts, but denied that the act constituted a leak of classified information, the Los Angeles Times reported (see GSN, April 7).

“There were irresponsible and unfounded accusations being made against the administration, suggesting that we had manipulated or misused that intelligence (in order to justify going to war),” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. “Because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around … we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified, be declassified. And that’s exactly what we did.”

McClellan announced on July 18, 2003, that information related to Iraq’s alleged efforts to buy African uranium had that day been officially declassified. That came 10 days after President George W. Bush authorized the release of the information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller, according to court documents detailing grand jury testimony from Lewis Libby, the indicted former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The perjury charge against Libby came amidst a federal investigation into the public identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the Times reported. Her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, became an outspoken critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq after finding no evidence in 2002 of attempts by Baghdad to buy uranium in Niger for possible use in a nuclear weapons program.

Legal experts have argued that Bush essentially officially declassified the intelligence by ordering its release.

The leak was an instance of the Bush administration’s program of selective disclosure of information that supported its case for war, according to some Democrats.

McClellan on Friday defended the release of the information without confirming Libby’s testimony, the Times reported. He accused Democrats of “engaging in crass politics” (Hamburger/Wallsten, Los Angeles Times, April 8).

Some Bush administration officials were heavily questioning intelligence on the reported Niger uranium purchase even as it was being released, the New York Times reported Saturday.

The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which Libby was authorized to use in his discussions with Miller, also appears to play down the intelligence on the uranium.

Libby testified that Bush, through Cheney, authorized him to tell reporters that “a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.” However, that claim was not designated as a key judgment in the intelligence document, which noted that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had 500 tons of uranium under international seal and that no intelligence service had ever determined that Iraq had absolutely purchased additional material from Niger.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, a week before the intelligence was approved for release, told three New York Times reporters that U.S. intelligence by early 2003 no longer held the uranium claim “as a credible item” (Sanger/Barstow, New York Times, April 9).

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday called on the White House to explain the release of the intelligence, Agence France-Presse reported.

“It was not the right way to go about it, because w ought not to have leaks in government,” he said on Fox News Sunday. “I think that it is necessary for the president and vice president to tell the American people exactly what happened.”

“The president has the authority to declassify information. So in a technical sense, if he looked at it, he could say this is declassified, and make a disclosure of it,” Specter added. “But we ought to get to the bottom of it so it can be evaluated, again, by the American people” (Agence France-Presse, April 9).

Two employees of the Nigerien Embassy in Rome prepared the forged documents that purported to confirm the uranium purchase, the Sunday Times reported (see GSN, Dec. 5, 2005).

There is evidence that embassy consul Adam Maiga Zakariaou and his personal assistant, Laura Montini, produced a fake contract showing that Iraq would buy 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. The purpose of the scheme was to make money, sources told the Times (Michael Smith, Sunday Times, April 9).

Back to top

U.K. Organizes Antiterrorism Science Squad

Biological and nuclear warfare specialists have been included on a team of scientists organized to support the antiterrorism efforts of the British intelligence services and military, the London Sunday Mirror reported yesterday (see GSN, July 19, 2005).

The Counterterrorism Technology Center was scheduled to begin operations today at the Porton Down warfare research center. It consists of 15 experts in areas ranging from explosives to understanding the psyche of terrorists, the Mirror reported.

The group is to be on call at all times for quick transport to a terrorist incident at any location on earth.

Its members are to work with the MI5 and MI6 intelligence services, Scotland Yard’s antiterrorism officials and British special operations forces.

“Previously, security forces had to tap into different experts dotted across the country, which made the response time too slow,” a Defense Ministry official told the Mirror. “This unit will make a huge difference to the security of British people at home and abroad” (Rupert Hamer, Sunday Mirror, April 9).

Back to top

U.S. Reportedly Intensifies War Plan Against Iran

Washington has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible air attack involving nuclear weapons against the country’s atomic installations, the New Yorker reported in its April 17 edition (see GSN, April 7).

Undercover U.S. combat troops have entered Iran to collect targeting data and to establish links with opposition groups, according to current and former U.S. military and intelligence officials. The White House aims to prevent Iran from initiating a pilot uranium enrichment program.

Members of the U.S. military and international officials have said they believe U.S. President George W. Bush’s end goal in the standoff with Iran is regime change, according to the New Yorker. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust and called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” members of the Bush administration see him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former top intelligence official said.

“That’s the name they’re using,” the former official said. “They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’”

A consultant close to the civilian leadership in the U.S. Defense Department said Bush believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official who remains close to the Bush administration told the New Yorker that military planning is being conducted under the assumption that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”

“I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’” he added.

In response to requests for comment, the White House would only tell the New Yorker: “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution.” The Pentagon said Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels.” The CIA said “inaccuracies” existed in the New Yorker report but would not specify them.

Bush has in recent weeks met with a few members of Congress. A senior House Appropriations Committee member, who has discussed the contents of the meeting with colleagues who attended, said there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

He said no meeting participants are “really objecting” to the talk of war.

“The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised:  How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” he said.

“There’s no pressure from Congress” against military action, he added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.”

“The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision,” he said of Bush.

Limited operations against Iran have begun, according to the New Yorker. U.S. Navy aircraft in the Arabian Sea have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions since last summer, the former official said.

At a Middle East security conference in Berlin last month, Col. Sam Gardiner, a military analyst and retired Air Force officer, estimated that strikes on at least 400 targets would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

“I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there,” he added. “Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those.  We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. … We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines.”

An initial Defense Department plan calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon against Iran’s underground nuclear sites, particularly the Natanz centrifuge site. The elimination of Natanz would be a major blow to Iran’s nuclear program, but the use of a conventional weapon would not ensure the facility’s destruction, according to the New Yorker.

However, a former senior Pentagon official said even restricted bombing would allow the United States to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure — it’s feasible.”

“The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go,” the official said.

Other experts “say ‘No way,’” according to the former senior intelligence official. “You’ve got to know what’s underneath — to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.”

The lack of reliable intelligence means tactical nuclear weapons are the preferred choice for military planners, the former official said.

“Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former official said. “‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision.  But we made it in Japan.”

Some officers within the Joint Chiefs of Staff have talked about resigning over consideration of the nuclear option. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought, without success, to remove the nuclear option from the plan, the former official said.

“The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you,’” the former official added.

One Pentagon adviser on the war on terror called the interest in the nuclear option within the administration “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.”

“There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser said. “This goes to high levels.”

The Joint Chiefs, he said, have agreed to give Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to the nuclear option.

“The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” he said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

However, the adviser also questioned the value of air strikes against Iran.

“The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,” he said.

He also warned that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on U.S. assets and citizens world-wide.

“What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?” he said.

Pakistan, meanwhile, has in recent months provided Washington with new access to former top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Khan made at least one visit to Tehran in the late 1980s, according to the New Yorker, and has provided information about Iran’s time line for building a nuclear weapon.

“The picture is of ‘unquestionable danger,’” said the former senior intelligence official, who added that Khan has been “singing like a canary.” Khan, however, “has credibility problems. He is suggestible, and he’s telling the neoconservatives what they want to hear.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency, whose officials are said in the article to believe Iran wants a nuclear weapons capability, is nonetheless concerned that “nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran,” a high-ranking diplomat told the New Yorker. The agency believes Iran is approximately five years away from building a nuclear weapon.

“But, if the United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride,” the diplomat said. 

During a meeting earlier this year with Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, Robert Joseph, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control, said Iran was a threat to the United States regardless of its nuclear development, one diplomat said.

“We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us,” the diplomat quoted Joseph as saying (Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17).

U.S. officials and analysts said the plan was part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy, the Washington Post reported yesterday. An attack is not likely to occur in the near future.

The plans are being prepared as a possible option and as a threat “to convince them this is more and more serious,” said one senior official.

Israel also recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, according to the Post. While Israel has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, U.S. strategists do not believe it can destroy the facility without nuclear weapons, the Post reported.

Iran, meanwhile, has launched a program to protect Natanz, Isfahan and other key sites with concrete ceilings, camouflage and other changes, according to the Post.

U.S. war planners are also concerned, according to the Post, that launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace would indicate to the Islamic world that the United States invaded Iraq for use as a base for military conquest of the region (Baker/Linzer/Ricks, Washington Post, April 9).

Bush counselor Dan Bartlett warned against jumping to conclusions about the administration’s plans, the Associated Press reported today.

“The president’s priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a problem the entire world recognizes,” Bartlett said yesterday. “And those who are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal defense and intelligence planning are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the administration’s thinking on Iran.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the BBC that the idea of a nuclear strike against Iran was “completely nuts,” AP reported.

Straw said the United Kingdom would not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and added that he was as “certain as he could be” that the United States would not, either. 

“The reason why we’re opposed to military action is because it’s an infinitely worse option and there’s no justification for it,” he said.

Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University foreign policy professor, said the Pentagon likely has contingency plans for a strike on Iran, but they are not a feasible option.

“If you look at the military options, all of them are unattractive,” Cimbala said. “Either because they won’t work or because they have side effects where the cure is worse than the disease” (Nedra Pickler, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 10).

Some U.S. officials questioned the reported Iran war plan, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni suggested that a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be extremely risky.

“Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over,” said retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command.

“The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism,” he said.

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the White House relied too heavily on military power.

“That is another example of the shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy diplomacy of this administration,” Kerry said (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, April 10).

Tehran yesterday dismissed reports of U.S. military plans for Iran as “psychological warfare,” AFP reported.

“We regard that (planning for air strikes) as psychological warfare stemming from America’s anger and helplessness,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, April 9).

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said today that the EU should look at imposing sanctions on Iran, AP reported.

“We have to begin thinking about that possibility,” he said.

“Any military action is definitely out of the question for us,” he said (Associated Press/Washington Post, April 10).

ElBaradei is expected in Iran on Wednesday, AFP reported.

He plans to talk “with a number of the Iranian officials during his stay and Iran’s outstanding issues with the IAEA will be discussed,” said an Iranian nuclear negotiator.

Iran’s representative to the agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh said IAEA inspections this week were “routine” and not related to the recent Security Council resolution.

“He’s not going there to negotiate any settlement. His going there is part of an ongoing verification process and this requires face-to-face contact,” said one diplomat at the agency (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania.com, April 8).

The deputy head of Iran’s atomic organization, Mohammad Saidi, said today that agency inspectors, who arrived in Iran on Friday, were visiting Isfahan and would go to Natanz later in the day, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse III/Yahoo!News, April 10).

Elsewhere, Undersecretary of State Joseph is visiting Persian Gulf states to press for tighter controls to stop any shipment of nuclear-related equipment to Iran, Reuters reported on Friday.

Joseph was in the United Arab Emirate on Friday. He was scheduled to make stops in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar before returning to Washington later this week, according to officials (Carol Giacomo, Reuters, April 7).

Back to top

Indian-U.S. Deal Could Take a Year, Official Says

Implementation of the U.S.-Indian nuclear technology sharing deal could be a year away, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said Friday (see GSN, April 7).

Boucher said he believed Congress would approve enabling legislation for the agreement “because it is part and parcel of a new relationship with India. People want to support it.”

While lawmakers could “vote in a few months from now,” Boucher said it might be “maybe a year at best” before the deal is fully implemented, according to Agence France-Presse.

“There are a lot of puzzle pieces (to put together),” Boucher said while in New Delhi to meet with Indian Foreign Ministry officials (Agence France Presse/Gulf Times, April 7).

The White House has “pushed for India to further define its ‘minimum credible [nuclear] deterrent’ and we continue that today,” Boucher said Friday, according to the Press Trust of India.

“We see this as an absolutely necessary step towards decreasing tensions in Asia,” he said (Press Trust of India II, April 7).

Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran rejected the request, PTI reported Saturday.

“What our credible minimum deterrent would be is really for India to decide,” he said.

“Certainly there is no responsibility on part of India to declare what its minimum deterrent is,” he added, noting that he had said just that to U.S. officials.

Saran also responded to criticism of the deal from former Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who argued that the agreement would force a legally binding freeze on nuclear testing upon New Delhi.

“There is nothing legally binding,” Saran said. “But it is a fact that there is a U.S. law, which is of long-standing nature, which says that the U.S. will be obliged to stop all cooperation with a country which explodes a nuclear explosive device.”

The law “has nothing to do with the initiative which is being negotiated with India,” Saran added (Press Trust of India II, April 8).

Saran said congressional failure to approve the deal would be a blow to ties between the two countries, the Associated Press reported.

There would “be a disappointment, a sense of lowered expectations that will impact on India-U.S. ties,” he told New Delhi Television.

However, Saran expressed optimism about the deal in light of congressional testimony last week from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

“After (Rice’s) testimony, it’s clear that opinion in the Congress is certainly looking at this initiative in a much more favorable light,” he said (Associated Press, April 9).

House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) yesterday was to lead a team of eight lawmakers to India for talks on the nuclear deal with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other officials, Agence France-Presse reported.

The trip is scheduled from Sunday to Wednesday.

“The delegation will discuss the recent initiatives between the two countries, including the importance of civil nuclear cooperation in strengthening the international nonproliferation system,” according to a statement from Hastert’s office.

U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) was also scheduled to visit India, Pakistan and Afghanistan between Saturday and April 15, AFP reported.

“The U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement will be among the specific issues that I will discuss with Indian officials,” Hagel said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, April 7).

Back to top

Pakistan Open to Regional Nuclear Freeze

Pakistan said Friday it could accept a freeze on production of nuclear weapons in South Asia and again argued that it should be allowed access to nuclear technology along with India, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported (see GSN, April 6).

“Pakistan has already made a proposal of strategic restraint regime in South Asia. These things can be discussed in the context of our proposal,” Foreign Office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said when asked about the government’s stance on the call by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a South Asian moratorium on nuclear weapons production.

“And that is why we have also emphasized a package approach for the region,” Aslam added (Dawn/BBC Monitoring, April 8).

Meanwhile, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri on Saturday urged the Nuclear Suppliers Group to adopt an even-handed approach on nuclear cooperation in South Asia, the Associated Press of Pakistan reported.

Kasuri told Lars Danielsson, state secretary chief of staff to the prime minister of Sweden, that the package approach would head off an arms race and support a strategic balance in the region.

Sweden is a member of Nuclear Suppliers Group, which governs nuclear-related exports and facilitates peaceful nuclear trade (Associated Press of Pakistan/BBC Monitoring, April 8).

Back to top

North Korea Not Hopeful on Resumption of Nuke Talks

North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said Saturday there was little hope that the six-party talks on his nation’s nuclear program would resume, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 7).

“The U.S already knows what they should do to resume six-party talks,” Kim said after arriving in Japan for a security conference, referring to the lifting of U.S. economic sanctions against North Korean entities accused of conducting illicit financial activity.

He added, however, that he “would not reject” a request for bilateral talks with the United States at the conference.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill was said to have no plans for a bilateral meeting with the North Korean delegation, according to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Chun Young-woo, however, said he met with Kim for 90 minutes Saturday afternoon to discuss the talks (Kwang-Tae Kim, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, April 8).

Chun said Pyongyang still had serious reservations about resuming talks, Reuters reported.

“I have not seen a situation that would give much hope or expectation for a breakthrough,” he said.

“North Korea seems to be doing a lot of hard thinking about returning to the six-way talks,” he added. “Until those difficult issues are resolved, it would be difficult for the North and the United States to meet bilaterally” (Jack Kim, Reuters, April 9).

Lead Japanese negotiator Kenichiro Sasae met with Kim for about two hours Saturday in Tokyo, the Asahi newspaper reported.

Sasae encouraged North Korea to return to nuclear talks and to resolve the dispute over Japanese citizens abducted by Pyongyang during the Cold War, AP reported (Associated Press/China Post, April 9).

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso also urged North Korea to return to the table, Reuters reported.

“Nothing will move forward unless North Korea takes part in the six-party talks again,” Aso told public broadcaster NHK. “I believe the United States will have talks with North Korea” (Kim, Reuters, April 9).

North Korean Defense Minister Kim Il Chol warned on Saturday that Pyongyang would not wait for a U.S. attack, AP reported.

“Now, the U.S. talks about six-party talks, but in reality, it has no interest in the talks and ... is seeking a chance to attack while putting us on its pre-emptive strike list,” he said (Kim, Associated Press, April 8).

Back to top

U.S. Tests Unarmed ICBM

The U.S. Air Force conducted a successful test of an unarmed ICBM on Friday, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 17).

The Minuteman 3 was fired at 6 a.m. from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and hit a target 5,100 miles away, near Guam, 30 minutes later, said Maj. Todd Fleming.

The test was primarily aimed at showing that the missile remains accurate at long distances, AP reported.

Vandenberg tests approximately five Minuteman missiles per year, Fleming said (Associated Press/ABCNews.com, April 7).

Back to top

Another Fire Reported at Umatilla CW Disposal Site

The third fire in less than a week ignited Wednesday in an explosive containment room at the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Oregon, the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency said (see GSN, April 5).

The fire broke out at 10:14 p.m. while a M55 rocket that had been drained of sarin nerve agent was being cut into pieces, according to an agency release. Umatilla workers extinguished the fire in five minutes.

There were no injuries and no chemical agent escaped from the room, the agency said.

The fire ignited during the fifth of seven cuts to the rocket, as has been the case with most of the incidents at Umatilla. The most recent blazes occurred on March 31 and April 1.

Umatilla personnel as of Thursday were conducting assessments and repairs in the room in which the fire occurred. The facility has another explosive containment room that can be used for weapons processing, the agency said (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency press release, April 6).

Back to top

U.S. Wants Missile Defense Talks With Poland

The United States wants to hold detailed discussions with Polish officials about deploying U.S. missile defense interceptors in their country, Agence France-Presse reported Friday (see GSN, Feb. 17).

“They asked us officially if we were still interested in discussing the issue. Of course we said ‘yes’ and we are awaiting details,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, according to Poland’s PAP news agency.

“If Poland is chosen as a partner in these discussions, they could begin in July,” Waszczykowski said.

“Poland has not yet made any commitment. We are listening and analyzing what the Americans are telling us,” he added (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, April 7).

Meanwhile, British Defense Minister John Reid last week denied that Washington and London have discussed the possibility of placing U.S. missile interceptors in the United Kingdom, the Financial Times reported Friday.

U.S. Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Trey Obering said last month that the United Kingdom was one of three European nations — along with Poland and the Czech Republic — being considered to host interceptors. British and U.S. defense officials at the time denied having had discussions on the topic (see GSN, March 24).

A Pentagon spokesman said Thursday that the agency hoped to make a decision on potential interceptor deployment in Europe by October, the Times reported.

Reid said Wednesday in Washington that the United States had not formally requested that the United Kingdom consider becoming home to the interceptors, according to the Times (Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times, April 7).

Back to top

“Dirty Bomb” Material Smuggling Increases, IAEA Says

The International Atomic Energy Agency has warned of increased smuggling of material that could be used to produce a radiological “dirty bomb,” the London Sunday Times reported yesterday (see GSN, March 28).

Between 2002 and 2004, there was a doubling of incidents of relocation, possession or loss of radioactive material. Criminal acts were behind roughly half those incidents, the Times reported.

Al-Qaeda is believed to have sought dirty-bomb material in Chechnya to use against Europe or the United States. Industrial or medical radioactive sources have provided much of the material found on the black market (Gareth Walsh, Sunday Times, April 9).

Back to top