The CIA has persuaded a “handful” of high-profile Iranian nuclear experts to leave the Middle Eastern country through a secret operation launched in 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 7).
The effort, known to CIA officials as “the Brain Drain,” was one component of a massive U.S. intelligence offensive on Iran ordered two years ago by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Intelligence officials refused to specify what amount of information provided by defectors was used in a recent U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons development in 2003, but the Times said the report drew heavily from intelligence obtained through the overall program. Officials said that fewer than six ranking Iranian nuclear personnel have left their country under the operation and that no defector has had complete knowledge of Iranian nuclear activities. None of the defectors were considered essential to Iran’s nuclear program, they said. “Did they have replacements for these people? Any country would have,” said a former official involved in the operation. “But we did slow the program.” U.S. officials have concealed the identities of the defectors, but media reports speculated earlier this year that former Iranian deputy defense minister Ali Reza Asgari had defected when he disappeared on a February trip to Turkey (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 9). The U.S. intelligence reversal on Iranian nuclear weapons development began in summer 2004, when an Iranian man in Turkey notified a German intelligence official that he possessed a laptop computer holding thousands of pages of Iranian nuclear documents, the Washington Post reported Saturday. U.S. analysts began reviewing the documents within 24 hours and concluded from the information and diagrams that Iran had been attempting to modify the Shahab 3, its longest-range missile, to deliver nuclear warheads. The CIA labeled the Iranian effort Project 1-11, interpreting it as evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. The documents resulted in the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate asserting “with high confidence” that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The United States began a two-year campaign to push other Western countries as well as Russia and China to impose economic sanctions on Iran if it did not halt its uranium enrichment program. Tehran said the program was intended only for nuclear energy production, but the United States and other countries suspected it was aimed at creating a key nuclear weapon ingredient. In 2006, Congress asked for a new comprehensive intelligence assessment. Meanwhile, Bush expressed dismay at the limited amount of information available on Iran’s nuclear program in the first of his “deep dive” raw intelligence briefings. By April of this year, U.S. intelligence analysts were beginning to conclude that Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon for another decade, according to high-level intelligence and Bush administration officials. The U.S. intelligence community had acquired no new information on Project 1-11 over the past three years, creating concern among administration officials that the lack of follow-up intelligence would place the validity of the laptop documents under question. “They just wouldn’t budge,” one administration official said. In June, a nearly finished draft of the new National Intelligence Estimate was sparking heated controversy between U.S. intelligence agencies and officials over both its details and broad conclusions, officials said. “The less data you have, the more you argue,” said a source. When some officials pressured the CIA’s Iran desk to obtain new information on Project 1-11, CIA Director Michael Hayden and National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander dedicated new personnel and technology to gathering information on the Iranian missile modification program. The intelligence community then obtained a series of partially intercepted conversations between Iranian officials, one of which included an Iranian military officer referred to in the laptop documents. The officer and another Iranian official complained in the recording that the nuclear program had been suspended in 2003 and speculated on whether it would be permitted to resume, according to two sources. Looking for clues to confirm the suspension, U.S. officials said the laptop documents contained no new drawings dated past February 2003. During a 2005 dinner in Tehran with U.S. experts, Iranian officials Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rohani said Iran had ended its nuclear weapons program because the country’s government felt it only needed to prove to its capability to build nuclear weapons rather than the weapons themselves. In August, U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell informed Bush about the emerging findings on Iran during a routine intelligence briefing, but White House officials said he did not provide details or documentation to the president. Analysts then tested the possibility articulated by Bush administration officials that the communication intercepts were disinformation planted to mislead the United States. “They tried to figure out what exactly it would take to perpetrate that kind of deception, how many people would be involved, how they would go about doing it, when it would have been set up and so forth,” one official said. After analysts “scrubbed and rescrubbed” more than 1,000 information sources, they concluded that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons development. The intelligence assessment was rewritten in September, and Hayden and his deputy Stephen Kappes convened a panel to question analysts on their sourcing and findings. Deputy National Intelligence Director Thomas Fingar oversaw a similar review in late October or early November. On Nov. 15, the intelligence community gave an early overview of its findings to Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Stephen Hadley and other ranking administration officials. Officials debated whether to disclose the findings or keep them secret. “We knew it would leak, so honesty required that we get this out ahead, to prevent it from appearing to be cherry picking,” said a high-level intelligence official (Baker/Linzer, Washington Post I, Dec. 8). McConnell’s office defended the assessment Friday against accusations that it was primarily assembled by ideological former State Department officials aiming to undermine Bush administration objectives, the Washington Times reported. The Times reported Thursday that the intelligence estimate was heavily influenced by three former State Department officials ideologically opposed to President Bush who had battled past efforts to isolate nations and firms involved in illicit weapons sales. “It's not as if there are two or three people who craft this and then it's just put out there," said Vanee Vines, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Vines said that each National Intelligence Estimate is a “group exercise” by the “entire intelligence community” (Jon Ward, Washington Times, Dec. 8). A British official suggested that the findings of the U.S. intelligence assessment resulted from Iranian disinformation efforts, the Associated Press reported yesterday. “We are skeptical” about the report's conclusions, the London Telegraph quoted a high-level official as saying Sunday. “It's not as if the American intelligence are regarded as brilliant performers in [the Middle East].” The official said that Iranian nuclear personnel could have been aware their telephone conversations were being monitored. “They (the Iranians) say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white,” the official was quoted as saying (Raphael Satter, Associated Press I/International Herald Tribune, Dec. 9). Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said yesterday that Israel continues to believe that Iran could build a nuclear weapon by 2010, Reuters reported. “According to the (NIE) report, there was a nuclear weapons program until 2003, but there is no explanation where it disappeared,” an official who attended the cabinet meeting quoted Olmert as saying. Israel plans to continue pushing for new international sanctions against Iran, which could have enough weapon-grade uranium to create a bomb within three years, Olmert said (Reuters I, Dec. 9) U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Saturday that Iran remains a significant regional threat capable of resuming undisclosed nuclear weapons development “at any time,” the Washington Post reported. “The [National Intelligence Estimate] clearly has come at an awkward time. It has annoyed a number of our friends. It has confused our allies around the world in terms of what we're trying to accomplish,” Gates said. Gates argued that international pressure is the only force preventing Iran from restarting its nuclear weapons program. “Iran is keeping its options open and could restart its nuclear weapons program at any time — I would add, if it has not done so already,” he said. Gates called on the international community to pressure Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, vow not to build nuclear weapons in the future, “come clean” about past nuclear weapons development efforts and open up to international safeguards inspections. A direct U.S. dialogue with Iran on its nuclear program would not lead to progress until Iran establishes such reforms, he said (Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post II, Dec. 9). The Bush administration’s U.N. envoy said Friday that the new U.S. intelligence assessment would increase the difficulty for U.S. efforts to impose a third round of Security Council sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, AP reported. “The initial indications that I get is that the impact is not positive,” Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said in reference to his conversations with his U.N. counterparts since the report was released. “I'm cautiously optimistic that we will get a resolution,” he said. “The question is, when, and what kind of substance” will be in it? (Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press II/San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 8). The release of the U.S. intelligence estimate has boosted debate among U.S. lawmakers over whether the United States should open up to direct diplomacy with Iran for the first time since its 1979 Islamic revolution, AP reported. “Diplomacy can work,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said yesterday in a plea to pursue a direct dialogue. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure whether to believe the 2005 intelligence estimate’s conclusion that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was continuing or the new assessment’s assertion that Iran shuttered the program in 2003. “Let’s just understand that Iran continues to be a threat,” he said. “Their leadership is on the verge of being crazy” (Calvin Woodward, Associated Press III/Contra Costa Times, Dec. 10).
Indian officials plan to hold another round of nuclear safeguards talks with international nuclear officials this week as they seek to advance a nuclear trade deal with the United States, the Press Trust of India reported (see GSN, Dec. 6). The meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency officials would address agency measures to monitor India’s peaceful nuclear activities, a step required for the U.S. deal to take effect. “The second round of talks will be held next week by the Indian negotiators toward finalizing the broad-based template for [an] India-specific safeguards agreement,” said an agency official (Press Trust of India, Dec. 8). The first round was held late last month, and agency officials since then have been examining the Indian proposal, the Hindustan Times reported (see GSN, Nov. 21). Three issues remain under debate, according to parliamentary remarks last month by Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee. “They are assurance of the fuel supply, right to create the strategic fuel reserves and recognition of the separation plan, in other words, recognition of the strategic programs,” he said. The U.S.-Indian agreement would enable New Delhi to purchase U.S. nuclear materials and technology in exchange for placing the nation’s civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision. Indian officials, however, have expressed concern that Washington could break off its supplies and that India would still be committed to international monitoring, leading them to seek reassurances that they would be able to acquire nuclear fuel after a U.S. cutoff. The concern has driven the schedule of events to implement the deal. The U.S. Congress has demanded that India complete a safeguards agreement before lawmakers in Washington give final approval to the deal. Indian leaders, in turn, have said they would not enter into formal safeguards until Congress approves the deal. Indian officials have sought middle ground by proposing to first initial the safeguards agreement, thus enabling congressional approval, but not formally sign the agency inspections deal until after receiving the green light from U.S. legislators. In addition, a 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must also agree to exempt New Delhi from its rules prohibiting the trade of key nuclear technology to nations, such as India, that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. “The idea is to protect our interests. We need only to initial the agreement for the nuclear deal to cross the next hurdles,” said one senior Indian official. “We don’t want to accept perpetual safeguards on our reactors without clearing the NSG hurdle” (Amit Baruah, Hindustan Times, Dec. 7). Domestic Opposition ContinuesIndian leaders have also faced continuing domestic opposition from their own political supporters, and communist criticism of the nuclear deal has threatened to undermine the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Four communist parties are not formally part of the Singh’s ruling coalition, but their support is still necessary for his leadership. While the parties have allowed Singh to begin the IAEA safeguards negotiations, they remain opposed to the U.S. deal and have urged India’s leaders to wrap talks with the agency or face early elections. “The issue must be resolved by the end of December,” Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Prakash Karat said this past weekend. “If they still go ahead, then we will have to be prepared for midterm polls.” “When they come back from talks with the IAEA, we will tell them there is no need to go ahead” with the U.S. pact, he said (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Dec. 9).
Analysts said Friday they did not expect full transparency from North Korea regarding its nuclear weapons program after U.S. President George W. Bush urged Kim Jong Il to come clean about his nation’s atomic activities, the Yonhap News Agency reported (see GSN, Dec. 7). In a letter to Kim, Bush indicated the United States would consider normalizing diplomatic relations with North Korea once the Stalinist state followed through on pledges made during the continuing denuclearization process. The letter called for Pyongyang to declare its stockpile of nuclear warheads and weapon-grade nuclear material, along with its imports and exports of nuclear material and expertise, according to news reports. “Will North Korea act upon receiving the letter? My answer is never. North Korea has always acted based on its own evaluation of its ties with the United States and this principle has never been broken,” said Kim Young-soo, a political science professor at Sogang University in Seoul. More likely to move North Korea is being taken off the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and freed from U.S. economic sanctions, Kim said. “And the North is saying the United States should act first,” he said. North Korea in October agreed by the end of 2007 to disable three primary atomic facilities and release a declaration of its nuclear activities. The schedule for that work, which nations involved in the six-party talks will lead to full denuclearization, has appeared more tenuous as the year nears its end. A major sticking point remains whether Pyongyang will acknowledge having a uranium enrichment program, said Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea studies professor at Korea University. “The U.S. administration will face severe criticism unless North Korea admits to having run a uranium enrichment program,” he said. “There is no room for the U.S. to back down now, but the North, too, has to find plausible justification” for acknowledging the program it has denied for years. Koh said he expects to see a resolution to the uranium issue, Yonhap reported. “Both sides will face many difficulties if they miss this opportunity,” he said (Byun Duk-kun, Yonhap News Agency I, Dec. 8). The U.S. Congressional Research Service said in a report last month that more information is needed on North Korea’s nuclear weapons design and the operation of its nuclear reactor in order to produce an estimate of the nation’s nuclear stockpile, Yonhap reported. Pyongyang is believed to have produced up to 50 kilograms of plutonium, with up to 6 kilograms used during an October 2006 nuclear test blast. “A key factor in assessing how many weapons North Korea can produce is whether North Korea needs to use more or less material than the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) standards of 8kg or plutonium and 25kg of highly enriched uranium per weapon,” according to the Nov. 21 report. “The amount of fissile material used in each weapon is determined by the design sophistication. There is no reliable public information on North Korean weapons design,” the report states. “The average power level of the reactor, days of operation, how much of the fuel is reprocessed and how quickly, and how much plutonium is lost in production processes” also help determine how much material is produced, it adds (Yonhap News Agency II, Dec. 10). Meanwhile, North Korea this month is expected to receive 5,000 tons of steel plate from South Korea as part of the reward for denuclearization, Agence France-Presse reported. Part of the compensation is to be fuel oil and other aid for Pyongyang’s energy sector. The steel is part of the alternative energy assistance. A government official told Yonhap that the plates would be shipped Dec. 17 to the Nampo port. Seoul also hopes to see working-level negotiations involving the six nations resume tomorrow in Beijing, Yonhap reported (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Dec. 9). South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo is expected to discuss the North Korea nuclear issue during talks this week with Chinese leaders, AFP reported. Han, who arrived today in Beijing, “will … ask for continued Chinese support for a peaceful settlement of the North Korean nuclear problem,” an aide told Yonhap (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Dec. 9).
A top Russian official called Friday for his nation to attain “qualitative” nuclear weapons parity with the United States, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 30). “Military potential, to say nothing of nuclear potential, must be at the proper level if we want … to just stay independent,” ITAR-Tass quoted First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov as saying. “The weak are not loved and not heard, they are insulted, and when we have parity they will talk to us in a different way,” said Ivanov, who some analysts have marked as a potential successor to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ivanov said earlier that Russia would seek “a qualitative rather than a numerical parity,” annually adding six or seven Topol-M missiles even though its production capacity enables the nation to produce up to 30 of the nuclear-capable ICBMs each year (Dmitry Solovyov, Reuters I/Washington Post, Dec. 7). Russia on Saturday conducted a test launch of an RS-12M Topol ICBM carrying equipment designed to penetrate missile defenses, Reuters said. Referred to by NATO as the SS-25 Sickle, the ballistic missile was fired from Kapustin Yar firing range in southern Russia, RIA Novosti reported. “The launch was carried out with the aim of confirming the stability of the fundamental flying and technical characteristics of this class of missile," said Russian Rocket Forces spokesman Alexander Vovk. Russia is developing weapons capable of penetrating any possible U.S. defense measure, according to Russian military officials (Reuters II, Dec. 8).
U.S. nuclear officials have warned that the production rate of U.S. nuclear weapon cores cannot be safely maintained, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported Friday (see GSN, Nov. 16). The Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico manufactured 11 plutonium “pits” during the past fiscal year, including the first “certified” pit since 1989 (see GSN, Sept. 28). That pace, however, strained laboratory resources, according to studies by the federal Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a group that monitors safety at sites administered by the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration. “NNSA and LANL met pit delivery milestones in (fiscal year 2007) primarily through expanded-hours operations in existing facilities,” said safety board member Charles Keilers. “The key facilities are three to six decades old and they have not been maintained over the years to support continuing at the '07 pace, much less expanding operations” (David Collins, Santa Fe New Mexican, Dec. 6).
| 
Back to top
