An International Atomic Energy Agency report issued today concludes that Iran’s disclosure of its nuclear history has generally been honest, but the agency’s knowledge about the country’s current nuclear activities has dwindled, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 14).
The report released to the agency’s 35-nation governing board found that Tehran shows no sign of complying with U.N. Security Council demands that it halt its uranium enrichment program (George Jahn, Associated Press I/Google News, Nov. 15). EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is also expected to confirm in a separate report Iran’s continued intransigence regarding nuclear fuel cycle activities, Reuters reported yesterday (Mark Heinrich, Reuters I, Nov. 14). The report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei is unlikely to address other questions put forward by Western powers on the country’s uranium enrichment program, paving the way for a new campaign for tougher international sanctions against Iran, AP reported yesterday. ElBaradei’s office and members of the IAEA governing board received a set of questions yesterday from France, the United Kingdom and the United States regarding Tehran’s nuclear activities, according to diplomats. The 10-page document contains requests for information that the three Western nations considered necessary to build confidence that Iran’s uranium enrichment is directed toward energy production, as Iranian nuclear officials have long asserted, and not toward nuclear weapons development. The details requested were often more sensitive and closely guarded than the standard contents of IAEA reports. France demanded a “chronology of contacts” between Iranian officials and members of the nuclear smuggling ring from which it obtained its first centrifuges and nuclear equipment. The three countries also requested U.N. nuclear watchdog findings “explaining production by Iran of centrifuge components on military facilities,” which suggest a link between the enrichment program and Iran’s military. France also asked IAEA officials to disclose all “questions put to Iran and answers given.” The agency is likely to turn down the French request to maintain confidentiality; diplomats said that Iran rejected three IAEA information requests connected to the agency’s report. The United Kingdom referred repeatedly to past divergences between Iran and IAEA officials over Iranian nuclear ambitions and the country’s current uranium enrichment program, asking, “what has Iran told the agency that has given the agency confidence that Iran’s declaration in this regard is now correct and complete?” The United States asked for “access to all individuals … facilities, equipment, (and) materials” that could clarify the levels of sophistication and military involvement in Iran’s early enrichment efforts. The United States also asked Tehran to pledge “full Iranian cooperation with all IAEA requests for information and documentation.” Diplomats said Iran has refused to offer IAEA officials such a guarantee. “Selective cooperation is not good enough.,” said U.S. envoy Gregory Schulte. Members of the IAEA governing board are likely to spar over the report’s implications during the board’s meeting, which is planned to begin Nov. 22. Arguments by the West that Iranian cooperation failed to meet expectations could be countered by Chinese and Russian pleas to allow the country more time before imposing new punitive measures, AP said. IAEA diplomats said before the report’s release that it described some progress in Iranian nuclear disclosure. Iran turned over a long-sought blueprint to the agency on Tuesday for casting enriched uranium metal intro hemispheres to form a nuclear weapon “pit.” Other diplomats said that high-level IAEA inspectors were not permitted to interview at least two senior Iranian nuclear officials involved in establishing Tehran’s enrichment program and suspected of colluding in weapons development. One of the nuclear officials was thought to head a physics laboratory outside Tehran before it was burned to the ground before IAEA inspectors arrived there. The other Iranian nuclear official was thought to be responsible for Iranian centrifuge development. IAEA officials were also barred from visiting an Iranian laboratory developing the higher-speed P-2 centrifuge (George Jahn, Associated Press II/Washington Post, Nov. 14). One European diplomat said the new IAEA report would not significantly strengthen the Western push for new sanctions, Reuters reported. “The IAEA report won't be too bad for the Iranians,” said an IAEA-accredited European diplomat. “The end result will make it very difficult for the six (powers) to speak in one voice on the next steps, because the report may be enough to satisfy some, but not satisfy others” (Heinrich, Reuters I, Nov. 14). The U.S. delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement today that Iran’s disclosure of its nuclear activities has not met international expectations. “Under international pressure, Iran has finally shed more light on the history of its [nuclear] program. However, Iran still refuses to fully disclose the past and present as the IAEA expects and to suspend fully its proliferation-sensitive activities as the Security Council requires,” the statement said. “Diplomacy remains our preferred course. The Security Council process must continue in order to reinforce diplomacy and encourage Iran to comply with its international obligations. “Even as the Security Council moves towards a third sanctions resolution, the door remains open to suspension of sanctions for suspension of enrichment, and a negotiated settlement that would give Iran access to nuclear energy while assuring the world of its peaceful intent,” the statement said (U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna release, Nov. 15). U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday that limited Iranian cooperation over its nuclear program would not be enough to block new Security Council sanctions, Reuters reported. “The operative word there is partial (cooperation). There is a long, long list of questions,” McCormack said. "Answering one question among several pages worth certainly doesn't, in my book, count as full cooperation which is what the IAEA Board of Governors said that it is looking for,” he said. McCormack also expressed frustration about the continued absence of a third round of sanctions. “I'm not going to make any secret of the fact that we would have wished that this process had moved forward and we would have already had the third resolution in our rear-view mirror at this point. We don't. We are making some progress,” he said (Heinrich, Reuters I, Nov. 14). Meanwhile, Israeli political and defense officials said today that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has asked cabinet ministers to report on how Israel could sustain its security strategy if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Reuters reported. Israeli officials have stated in the past that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an “existential threat” to Israel, which is currently believed to possess the only nuclear weapons arsenal in the region. Israeli intelligence analysts now predict that Iran could produce nuclear warheads by 2009, making its countdown to Iranian atomic weapons several years shorter than that of most Western analysts, according to Reuters. According to two top Israeli sources close to defense planning in Olmert’s administration, the government is now creating a memorandum for “the day after” in a scenario where Iran acquire nuclear weapons. “There are long-term ramifications to be addressed, like how to maintain our deterrent and military response capabilities, or how to offset the attrition on Israeli society that would be generated by fear of Iranian nukes,” said one of the sources. Israeli Security Minister Ami Ayalon would not release classified defense strategy, but called on Israel today to pursue a three-pronged strategy on Iran. “First, we must make clear that this is a threat not just to Israel, but to the wider world. Second, we must exhaustively consider all preventive options. And third, we must anticipate the possibility of those options not working,” Ayalon said. Although Israel has contingency plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, the sites could be too distant for it to target without outside assistance, Reuters reported. Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli targets during the 2006 war in Lebanon have also raised fears that Iran could unleash a missile barrage in retaliation for an Israeli attack. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak expressed a pessimistic view on Iran’s nuclear program during a meeting last month with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “There is already a Muslim bomb,” said a second Israeli source familiar with their meeting, presumably referring to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to emphasize that an Iranian nuclear deterrent would not spell certain disaster for Israel (Dan Williams, Reuters II, Nov. 15).
By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — Two authors of an influential Wall Street Journal opinion piece calling for a world free of nuclear weapons offered limited support for the U.S. plan for a new nuclear warhead in series of letters written in August (see GSN, Jan. 22). Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz suggest in the letters that designing a new warhead is not an “eventual commitment” to production. Bush administration officials have argued that the process could actually aid the ultimate drawdown of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (see GSN, March 30). In the January Journal commentary, Kissinger and Shultz joined former Senator Sam Nunn, and former Defense Secretary William Perry in offering a step-by-step road map toward the global nuclear disarmament. The commentary states that “the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.” The authors warned that “unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more challenging than was Cold War deterrence” (see GSN, Jan. 4). They called for lowering the alert status of deployed nuclear weapons, eliminating short-range weapons, substantially reducing strategic nuclear forces and pursuing other measures to “lay the groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat.” Since the piece was published, it has become a touchstone for nonproliferation advocates, been cited by presidential hopefuls, and was included in a speech by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s outgoing foreign secretary (see GSN, June 26). That push, however, does not clash with initial U.S. work on a new nuclear warhead to begin replacing the nation’s Cold War-era munitions, Shultz wrote in a letter to Kissinger this summer. Senators Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) earlier this year asked Kissinger for his views on the new warhead, dubbed the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Before responding, the former secretary of state sought insight from Shultz who in turn consulted Sidney Drell, a physicist and regular government adviser on nuclear weapon issues. “I believe that research and design of the RRW should continue and that the infrastructure to support our current program should be urgently strengthened,” Kissinger wrote in response to the senators, in a letter made available to Global Security Newswire. Enclosed with Kissinger’s reply was a letter penned jointly by Shultz and Drell which Kissinger strongly endorsed, citing his agreement with their views. In their letter, Shultz and Drell state that “research work on new RRW designs should certainly go ahead.” “Such work would make possible the decision to implement the construction phase of the program were that to be desired as some future time,” the two wrote. “The design work itself is relatively small in cost and need not be viewed in any way as an eventual commitment to go ahead.” In his fiscal 2008 budget, President George W. Bush has requested $88.8 million for RRW design work. Lawmakers have proposed differing levels of budget cuts to that figure. The proposed Senate budget bill trims funding while a House version cuts it entirely, and legislators have advocated a cautious, slow approach to the program (see GSN, Nov. 9). The Reliable Replacement Warhead, as administration officials describe it, is a bid to replace Cold War-era warheads with a new design that would be easier to maintain, more reliable and cheaper to produce. The project would also drive a refurbishment and streamlining of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex, administration officials have said. Shultz and Drell suggest that such an update should proceed on a “reasonably urgent basis.” “Much of this infrastructure dates back to the early days of the nuclear program and is not adequate today,” they wrote. “This work should proceed since a robust infrastructure will be necessary at every phase of the process of reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons.”
The U.S. Defense Department yesterday played down the risk of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into extremist hands, while U.S. officials have begun planning for the possibility that President Gen. Pervez Musharraf will lose power, Reuters reported (see GSN, Nov. 14). A growing domestic political crisis in Pakistan has spurred some experts to express concern over the security of the nation’s nuclear weapons. “Any time there is a nation that has nuclear weapons that has experienced a situation such as Pakistan is at present, that is a primary concern,” Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week. Yesterday, however, a Pentagon spokesman offered a different view. “At this point, we have no concerns,” said press secretary Geoff Morrell. “We believe that they are under the appropriate control.” Nevertheless, other U.S. defense officials have begun to prepare contingency preparations for dealing with a post-Musharraf government, Reuters reported. In particular, planners have started to explore other ways to send troops and supplies into neighboring Afghanistan. About 75 percent of U.S. supplies to Afghanistan have been delivered through Pakistan or through its air space, according to the Pentagon. “In light of the fact that there is civil unrest in Pakistan, in light of the fact that there is a state of emergency in Pakistan, we feel it is responsible, given the importance of the Pakistani supply lines to our operations in Afghanistan, to have a contingency plan,” Morrell said (Kristin Roberts, Reuters/Washington Post, Nov. 14). U.S. officials have also begun quiet efforts to prepare to reach out to Pakistani military leaders who might remain in power if Musharraf is forced out of office, the New York Times reported today. “They don’t want to encourage another military coup, but they are also beginning to understand that Musharraf has become part of the problem,” said one knowledgeable source (New York Times, Nov. 15).
South African officials have said little about the two attacks in one night against the nation’s primary nuclear research facility, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Nov. 15). Four men entered the control room of the Pelindaba facility on Nov. 8, shot an employee in the chest and stole a computer that they were forced to abandon later while under fire from security personnel. Guards repelled another attack that night by a separate group of men. None of the attackers have been caught. There has been little official word on who planned the attacks, how the raiders breached the facility or why they did so, the Times reported. The Pretoria News was forced to pull an article hinting at a love triangle involving the wounded employee and his fiancée, a supervisor at Pelindaba. There has been talk, but no proof of terrorism, the Times reported. The incidents have given ammunition to critics of South Africa’s plan to renew its nuclear energy sector through construction of new reactors (see GSN, Sept. 19). “They’ve failed to control activities there; they’ve failed to protect the people,” said Mashile Phalane of the environmental and social justice group Earthlife Africa. The heavily guarded Pelindaba contains a reactor and scientific research center. It produced up to seven nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 1980s before South Africa ended its military nuclear program. Some experts believe weapon-grade uranium is still stored at the site (Michael Wines, New York Times, Nov. 15).
A German court has ordered a new trial for a German engineer who allegedly helped provide uranium enrichment equipment to Libya for its now-defunct nuclear program, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, June 27, 2006). Gotthard Lerch was tried last year on charges that he broke German weapons and export laws by obtaining centrifuge gas piping systems transferred to Libya through the nuclear smuggling ring once run by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The prosecution said that Lerch worked with others in Khan’s “circle of trusted helpers” to transfer the equipment to Libya from 1999 to 2003. Lerch, a former employee of a German nuclear equipment supply company, allegedly received about $41 million for the transaction and kept about half that amount as personal profit. A state court in Mannheim halted the trial last year over fairness concerns because police and prosecutors had presented documents “about which the court knew nothing.” The Stuttgart state court announced yesterday that a new trial had been ordered (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Nov. 14).
The Bush administration does not plan to take North Korea off the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2007, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 14). Congress must be notified 45 days in advance of such an action, Kyodo News reported. That means it would have to receive the White House notice by tomorrow if Pyongyang is to be removed from the list before 2008. Hill, top U.S. negotiator on North Korea’s nuclear program, said he had not received any indication that a decision would be made in the matter in the coming days. North Korea has sought to be excised from the list as a reward for its ongoing program of denuclearization, thereby gaining access to U.S. economic aid and loans from multinational organizations. Japan has urged the United States to delay a decision until Pyongyang has more fully addressed its abduction of Japanese citizens. The White House is expected later in the year to consider its schedule for notifying Congress of the change to the terrorism list, Hill said (Kyodo News, Nov. 14).
| 
Back to top
