The United States is monitoring the political crisis in Pakistan closely with an eye toward the security of the Asian nation’s nuclear arsenal, a senior U.S. defense official said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 6).
“We will watch that very closely,” said Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Any time there is a regime that has nuclear weapons and that experiences a situation like in Pakistan, of course there is a primary concern.”
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency Saturday and suspended the constitution after it appeared the nation’s highest court might invalidate his recent election. His move resulted in waves of protests led by lawyers. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who recently returned to the country after several years in exile, also yesterday expressed concern that nuclear weapons might fall into extremists’ hands, Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Nov. 7). U.S. intelligence agencies are studying the potential for a nuclear weapon or fissile material to go missing amidst the chaos in Pakistan, the Los Angeles Times reported today. There is no information indicating an immediate threat to Pakistani nuclear security, intelligence officials said. However, the CIA and other agencies are considering potential events that might undermine monitoring of Islamabad’s nuclear complex. “That was one of the things people immediately started asking about” as the crisis developed, said one top U.S. intelligence official. “How do we game this out? How might it happen?” Unlikely scenarios include a terrorist strike on a Pakistani nuclear facility or an attempt by military personnel to gain authority by allying themselves with Islamic extremists. Potentially more likely is the danger that scientists or nuclear weapons security personnel would seek profit during the crisis by selling nuclear material or know-how, officials said. “That is my fundamental worry,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. “If there is (further) instability, Musharraf is going to have less ability to exercise tight control. Pakistan tends to leak. It has leaked vital nuclear weapons information. It’s the nature of the system” (see GSN, Sept. 11). Pakistan is estimated to possess sufficient highly enriched uranium for 50 warheads. The weapons are spread around the country, the Times reported. Hundreds of kilograms of fissile material are held at various tightly secured weapons production plants. The weapons are not assembled and their parts are stored in separate vaults (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8). A decade-long period in which U.S. military officials were barred from contact with their Pakistani counterparts could prove a problem when it comes to ensuring nuclear security, Time magazine reported. The now-expired ban was part of Congress’ reaction in 1990 to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons pursuits. Pakistani officers who came up during that period are set to take positions of authority within the military, potentially having oversight of nuclear materials security. However, their lack of access to Western nations might leave them more open to influence from al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives, U.S. officials fear. “Musharraf was worried that a lot of the junior officers had been isolated from [Western contact] and might turn inward,” said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command. “You were beginning to see beards in the officer corps, which may signify more religious conservatism. That’s created a bubble of officers who are going to start coming into senior positions that were isolated during the era of sanctions” (Mark Thompson, Time, Nov. 6).
By Jon Fox
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The United States is leaning heavily on French and English intelligence regarding Iranian nuclear and missile development, a top U.S. lawmaker said today (see GSN, Nov. 7). Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, described the French as having the best human intelligence on Iranian threats due to a number of long-standing economic relationships with that nation. The United States, by contrast, severed nearly all contact with Tehran following the Iranian hostage crisis that began in 1979. “They have been isolated from us for a very, very long time. We don’t have very good intelligence,” Tauscher said. Tauscher, whose subcommittee oversees funding for U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons programs, told reporters this morning that the United States might have lost credibility due to the current administration’s “cherry picking” of intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. “We’re in the worst of all situations,” she said. “It’s like a situation where somebody’s innocent, but they can’t prove it because they’ve got such a bad record.” Current estimates from the U.S. intelligence community indicate that Iran could be armed with a nuclear weapon sometime between 2010 and 2015 and paint a similar timeline for the development of an Iranian ICBM that could deliver a warhead at very long ranges. Tauscher suggested that U.S. estimates might rely on assistance from international partners to fill gaps where this country’s spy work is insufficient. “I’m glad we’re using a lot of international intelligence, specifically French and MI6,” she said, referring the British external intelligence agency. “I think that’s all very good.” “You should believe the French,” Tauscher told reporters. In recent comments, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has “significantly amped up” rhetoric about the Iranian threat, Tauscher noted. She said that Sarkozy was “totally unambiguous about Iran” in his address yesterday to a joint session of Congress. “The prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable for France,” Sarkozy told U.S. lawmakers. Since his election this summer, Sarkozy has been a forceful backer of the current diplomatic pressure and the prospect of toughened sanctions on Iran. Such an international approach, the French president said, is the only way to avoid what he called in August a catastrophic dilemma of having to choose between the “Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” Russia, which has said it has no information that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and has played down fears about a potential long-range Iranian missile threat, “cannot sustain that in any way with credible information,” Tauscher said (see GSN, Oct. 10, and June 22). While suggesting her comments should not be taken as saber rattling directed at Tehran, she said “Iran is deadly dangerous.”
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — A Capitol Hill conference committee this week earmarked more than $40 million in unrequested funds in the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill for a futuristic, fast-flying U.S. Army missile that might someday strike targets halfway around the world (see GSN, Nov. 7). Advanced Hypersonic Weapon proponents say it could be used to eliminate urgent targets — terrorist safe houses or rogue-nation weapons of mass destruction, for example — thousands of miles away as part of the Defense Department’s nascent “prompt global strike” mission. Such weapons must be capable of reaching their endpoints within 60 minutes of a launch order, according to Pentagon officials. Defense leaders say that the only munitions available today with sufficient range and speed for the mission carry nuclear warheads and are thus less likely to be used (see GSN, Oct. 22). Congressional budget negotiators agreed to support a Senate provision offering $41.7 million for the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. The House, in its version of the fiscal 2008 appropriations bill, provided no money for the missile. While the Army is the project’s official sponsor, it has never sought funds for the effort. “As a service, they have indicated that they’re not interested in fielding a new class of weapons, but they want to contribute to the technology,” Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright said in a brief interview in February. Now vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Cartwright at the time headed U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, Neb. “The real Army is just not interested in that mission,” one defense expert said early this year. “They’re not interested in putting their people on that mission. They’re worried about other things.” Instead, lawmakers have taken it on themselves to sustain the fledgling project managed at an Army program office in Huntsville, Ala. Capitol Hill gave the service $8.9 million to develop the system in fiscal 2007, and $1.5 million the year before as start-up funds, according to congressional sources. The new funding would more than quadruple the weapon’s previous budget and lays the groundwork for technology demonstrations crucial for its success, according to advocates. Likely the greatest challenge facing the program is developing a thermal protection technology capable of withstanding re-entry into the atmosphere at high speeds, according to defense experts. “You never know on technology, but they have some pretty good ideas about thermal management,” Cartwright said in February. “And so that’s what’s really attractive to us there.” In a move that might prove pivotal for the effort’s future prospects, the conferees opted to fund the project in an Army-only budget line item. By contrast, the bill lumps other prompt global strike weapons — including an Air Force Conventional Strike Missile and a Navy intermediate-range Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile — into a new multiservice funding pot to be managed by the defense secretary’s staff (see GSN, Oct. 10 and Sept. 18). Had Congress alternatively opted to merge the hypersonic missile funding with the $100 million allocated to other service projects in the joint account, the Army program office might have lost some or its entire share of funds, observers said. “Once that money got into that central pot, the Army wouldn’t see any of it,” one hypersonic weapon advocate said this week, speaking on condition of anonymity. The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon is envisioned as an unmanned vehicle capable of boosting into space aboard a two-stage rocket, separating and gliding to a target up to 6,000 miles away in less than 35 minutes. The weapon could be fitted with a 900-pound penetrator warhead or 900 pounds of rods to impact at Mach 4 speed, according to the weapon’s backers. Initial deployments might begin as early as 2009, these officials say. However, skeptics counter that resolving the proposed system’s immense technological hurdles would require a heavy investment of dollars and time.
U.S. President George W. Bush and French President Nicolas Sarkozy delivered strong statements against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program following talks yesterday at Mount Vernon, Va., the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 7). Bush said that he and Sarkozy both expressed “the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions for the sake of peace.” “It is unacceptable for Iran at any point to have a nuclear weapon,” Sarkozy said, adding that "I believe even in the need to toughen” U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. “The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is dangerous, and therefore now is the time for us to work together to diplomatically solve this problem,” Bush said (Deb Riechmann, Associated Press/Washington Post, Nov. 7). Bush said in an interview aired yesterday on German television that he remained confident the Iranian nuclear standoff could be resolved diplomatically, Agence France-Presse reported. “I firmly believe we can solve this problem diplomatically and will continue to work to do so. And that’s going to be an important topic with the chancellor,” Bush said, referring to his meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel planned for this weekend in Texas. Bush said the United States remains open to talks with Iran if Tehran first halts its nuclear enrichment program, which could yield a nuclear bomb ingredient. “All they’ve got to do is suspend their enrichment program and then there will be a dialogue and a way forward. But it’s up to the government to make their choice,” he said. “Hopefully we can keep pressure on the Iranians to say, one, we respect your people; two, we respect your history; but the government is making decisions that are isolating your country. Regarding the potential for military action against Iran, Bush said, “I’ve committed our troops into harm’s way twice, and it’s not a pleasant experience because I understand the consequences firsthand” (Agence France-Presse I, Nov. 7). Meanwhile, ranking U.S. military officials have expressed concern that Israel could launch an air strike against Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility as centrifuge installation continues there, the London Times reported today. While the U.S. Defense Department remains wary about attacking Iran, Pentagon sources said that Israel is a “different matter” and might consider Iran’s announcement yesterday that it is operating 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges a “tipping point” for military action. Israel’s September air strike against a suspected Syrian nuclear facility has contributed to concerns that it could consider launching a similar attack against Iran. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we do something if the international community leaves us alone,” said Efraim Inbar of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. “I think we (Israel) are preparing for it. For Israel this is a critical technological moment” (London Times, Nov. 8). A senior Israeli official today called for Mohamed ElBaradei to be removed from his position as chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, claiming that ElBaradei has ignored evidence that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons, AFP reported. “The policies followed by ElBaradei endanger world peace. His irresponsible attitude of sticking his head in the sand over Iran’s nuclear program should lead to his impeachment,” said Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz. “ElBaradei says he has no proof regarding Iran's nuclear program when he has intelligence reports gathered by several countries and he heads an organization responsible precisely for that,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/Google News, Nov. 8). In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao today urged Iran to assume a more flexible position in its negotiations with the international community over its uranium enrichment program, Reuters reported. “We demand that Iran positively respond and pay attention to international concerns and calls and adopt a flexible attitude to solve the problem peacefully through dialogue and communication,” Liu said in response to a reporter’s question about possible new sanctions and recent defiant remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Without directly addressing the possibility of new Security Council sanctions against Iran, Liu said China is “willing to cooperate and communicate with the United Nations and the European Union to move in the right direction” (Reuters, Nov. 8).
North Korea appears to be following through on its pledge to disable primary facilities at its plutonium-producing Yongbyon nuclear complex, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 7). “So far so good,” she said, according to the Associated Press. A team of U.S. experts is overseeing the work, which nations involved in the six-party talks hope will be a prelude to the full dismantlement of Pyongyang’s nuclear program. In return, North Korea stands to receive fuel oil and other energy assistance and diplomatic and security benefits. “Reports from the field are thus far good,” Rice said. “We have common assessments that disablement activities on [the] North Korea nuclear program is going in the right direction and the right pace,” said South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon after meeting with his U.S. counterpart in Washington. Rice and Song indicated they hoped to see the denuclearization process progress rapidly after the Yongbyon nuclear reactor and other facilities are disabled. “We believe that there should not be any hiatus,” Song said (Anne Gearan, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Nov. 8). The other component of this phase of work — which the Bush administration hopes will be finished by Dec. 31 — is a full declaration of North Korea’s nuclear programs. The first list is expected within the next couple weeks, AP reported. “I think North Korea will submit the list within one or two weeks and we have to verify it,” said a South Korean official. U.S. officials have repeatedly said that they expect the list to address North Korea’s suspected uranium enrichment efforts. Officials in the Stalinist state have publicly denied operating such an effort. The dispute over the matter in 2002 initiated the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula (Hyung-Jin Kim, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, Nov. 8).
India’s main political opposition party yesterday rejected a proposal to ally with the Singh administration to push a stalled nuclear trade agreement with the United States through the Indian parliament, the Indo-Asian News Service reported (see GSN, Nov. 2). U.S. envoys and senior members of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s administration held a series of talks recently with representatives of the Bharatiya Janata Party in hopes of bringing them into the fold on the deal. The agreement would give New Delhi access to U.S. nuclear materials and technology in exchange for opening its civilian nuclear facilities to international monitoring. The Bharatiya Janata Party has supported Indian efforts to improve ties with the United States, and its rejection of the nuclear agreement lessened the chances for success in parliament, the Indo-Asian News Service said. In a statement issued after a meeting of senior leaders yesterday, the party said that India’s government had committed a “strategic blunder” by making the nuclear deal “an icon of India’s relations with the U.S.” Critics at both ends of the political spectrum said the agreement would give the United States unacceptable influence over Indian foreign policy. “We stand opposed to the deal because in our view it compromises long-term strategic programs of India, vital for [the] country's security. Neither will it help meet our energy needs of the future,” according to a BJP statement. “Therefore, the BJP strongly recommends that this deal must be renegotiated and not hustled through as the [United Progressive Alliance] government is attempting to,” the statement said. Sources said the party has also emphasized “periodic testing of our nuclear arsenal to make sure how our delivery system is functioning.” Debate over the deal is likely to continue when the parliament begins its winter session Nov. 15 (Indo-Asian News Service/Monsters and Critics, Nov. 7).
Representatives of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and Defense Science Board are expected to investigate the institutional oversights that led to the accidental flight of six nuclear warheads in August, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 5). Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said in an Oct. 19 Defense Department briefing that he and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley asked the Navy to participate with Air Force personnel on a blue-ribbon commission reviewing the chain of events that led to the incident. “We have asked to chair this blue-ribbon review and make recommendations as to how we can improve the Air Force’s capability to safely and securely perform our nuclear weapons responsibility,” Wynne said. The panel is expected to review the “policies and procedures across all levels of (the Air Force) organization,” said Maj. Gen. Richard Newton, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements. A standing Defense Science Board nuclear surety task force is also set to “look more broadly at DOD policies and procedures to ensure all factors that led to this incident are explored and addressed,” Newton said. The two investigations would build on the conclusions of a completed command-level Air Force review of the incident in which six nuclear warheads were mistakenly loaded on an Air Force B-52 bomber and flown from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La. (see GSN, Oct. 22; Carlo Munoz, Inside Missile Defense, Nov. 7).
| 
Back to top
