Weekly Standard editor William Kristol has led conservative commentators urging the Bush administration to take a harder line with Iran (Alex Wong/Getty Images). Tougher U.S. Stance Sought on Iran With 17 months remaining in its term, the Bush administration has begun to receive pressure to act with greater force to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Aug. 8). U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have expressed a commitment to halting Iran’s nuclear program through economic sanctions and U.N. diplomatic pressure.  However, a string of commentaries and reports has emerged supporting a Bush administration minority that favors military action against Iran if Tehran does not abandon its uranium enrichment efforts, which could eventually yield a nuclear bomb ingredient. “A lot of people were willing to give diplomacy a chance, but at some point there have to be results,” said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who backed the Iraq war.  ..Full Story

Activist Group Blasts Chemical Industry's Lobbying By Chris Strohm CongressDaily WASHINGTON — The amount of money spent by the chemical industry to lobby Congress on legislation related to its security standards appears to dwarf the total funding the Bush administration allocated to enforce standards, the environmental organization Greenpeace said in a July 31 report (see GSN, June 1)...Full Story

Lugar Touts Threat Reduction Expansion Senator Richard Lugar yesterday touted the success of the U.S.-aided chemical demilitarization program in Albania (see GSN, July 12)...Full Story

	Thursday, August 9, 2007

Terrorists Might Strike U.S. Soon, Says Ex-CIA Chief Former CIA Director James Woolsey said terrorists could strike the United States within the next several months, and that an attack involving a weapon of mass destruction remains very possible (see GSN, July 26). “I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real,” he told the conservative NewsMax magazine in an interview published Tuesday.  Woolsey noted recent warnings by National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (see GSN, July 17). Woolsey, who served as CIA chief from 1993 to 1995, said terrorists could find it more difficult to obtain a nuclear weapon than other types of unconventional weapons (see GSN, June 12).  That reduces the chances of an act of atomic terrorism. “I think that unless al-Qaeda or the Iranians have been able to obtain a loose old Soviet nuke, it's unlikely it could be a nuclear detonation,” he said.  “It might be possible they could get hold of other nuclear material, like cesium or strontium, which is much easier to get hold of, and have something like a dirty bomb.  And certainly biological material, like anthrax, is much easier to produce and get hold of than fissionable material.” Woolsey speculated that North Korea could possibly supply a nuclear weapon to Iran. “We don’t know what the North Koreans might be willing to sell to Iran.  They essentially have a joint missile development program.  The [Iranian] Shahab and the [North Korean] Taepodong/Nodong are essentially the same missile, certainly with the same ranges,” he said. “North Korea has several bombs worth of plutonium, but plutonium bombs are harder to construct than simple highly enriched uranium bombs.  We believe that it's possible that North Koreans had a [highly enriched uranium] program, and at one point they seemed to admit it.  But I don't know of any estimates of what they have or what they had,” Woolsey said. “So if one's trying to think of a source of a bomb that terrorists, whether al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, might be trying to get their hands on today, a nuclear weapon might be extremely difficult, unless they've been able to buy or otherwise obtain one of the old Soviet suitcase nuclear weapons,” he said (Kenneth Timmerman, NewsMax, Aug. 7). Back to top

Tougher U.S. Stance Sought on Iran With 17 months remaining in its term, the Bush administration has begun to receive pressure to act with greater force to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Aug. 8). U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have expressed a commitment to halting Iran’s nuclear program through economic sanctions and U.N. diplomatic pressure.  However, a string of commentaries and reports has emerged supporting a Bush administration minority that favors military action against Iran if Tehran does not abandon its uranium enrichment efforts, which could eventually yield a nuclear bomb ingredient. “A lot of people were willing to give diplomacy a chance, but at some point there have to be results,” said Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, who backed the Iraq war.  “It's been a year since Rice agreed to talk to the Iranians if they accepted U.N. terms, and it's only bought them more time for their nuclear program,” he added. Some arguments supporting military action against Iran echo the cases for invading Iraq put forward by think tanks and other commentators several years ago.  Iran continues to support Shiite militias in Iraq that have attacked U.S. military personnel and the Green Zone in Baghdad, the Post reported.  U.S. officials say that support includes explosives that have killed U.S. troops. “Discussions about attacking Iran began with the nuclear issue, but it has now become a silver bullet to also deal with Iran's activities with Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and even to provoke a process of regime change,” said retired Army Col. Augustus Richard Norton, now a professor at Boston University. Some experts have suggested setting a deadline on diplomatic efforts by the U.N. Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency. “The consensus I'm hearing is to give the (U.N.) Security Council process more time but not unlimited time, and, at some point in the spring of 2008, there has to be a good hard look at whether that process should continue and whether other options should then be considered,” said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert for the Congressional Research Service. Suzanne Maloney, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who previously worked as a State Department Iran expert, said that proponents of aggressive action against Iran have raised their voices as the Bush administration has dealt with an “internal crisis of confidence” over its diplomatic strategy. “There's a sense of frustration with the strategy, even among those who favor a less kinetic approach, she said.  “The one clear alternative with some proponents is the bombing option.” Some arguing for a more aggressive U.S. stance on Iran have not called for military intervention, but have maintained that current policy has not deterred Tehran’s drive in pursuing its nuclear ambitions.  Those critics have expressed no doubt that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons and dominate the Middle East. Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, editors of the new Washington Institute for Near East Policy publication “Deterring the Ayatollahs,” said that economic sanctions and diplomacy might fail to prevent Tehran from pursuing its nuclear program and that deterring a nuclear-armed Iran would be “much more difficult than deterrence was during the Cold War.”  Gregory Giles, a publication contributor, echoed arguments supporting the Iraq invasion when he wrote that “a nuclear Iran would pose serious challenges in terms of controlling its nuclear force, the risk of transfer of nuclear technology, and possible support for WMD terror.” Former National Security Council member Kori Schake addressed possible military actions against Iran in the Hoover Institution’s Policy Review if Tehran acquires nuclear weapons.  The options included launching a “demonstration strike” against Iran to illustrate its vulnerability, destroying Iranian nuclear facilities, and forcing a collapse of the Tehran government through missile strikes and incursions by U.S. special operations forces (Robin Wright, Washington Post, Aug. 9). Meanwhile, U.S. Treasury Department antiterrorism chief Stuart Levey planned to meet today in Jerusalem with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to discuss placing more international sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported. “Israel supports a hardening of sanctions already imposed” on Iran, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.  “Diplomacy must be firm and speak with one voice in order to succeed.” “The Tehran regime must understand that business as usual cannot continue while it is pursuing its nuclear program,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News Aug. 9). Back to top       India Foresees Passage of Nuclear Deal India’s ruling party leaders have said they can overcome opposition within parliament to support the nuclear trade deal with the United States, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 8). Communist parties in the ruling coalition this week spoke against the agreement on grounds that it would undermine Indian sovereignty and give Washington undue influence over the country. “This is something which can always be discussed and they can be convinced that what the prime minister and the government have done is indeed in the best interest of the country,” said Congress party spokeswoman Jayanti Natarajan. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly has indicated that there would be no additional negotiations on the deal, under which India would gain access to U.S. nuclear technology and material in exchange for opening civilian atomic facilities to international monitoring. Singh is expected to appear before parliament early next week to make his case for the agreement, Reuters reported.  It must also be approved by the U.S. Congress and the international Nuclear Suppliers Group (Reuters/New York Times, Aug. 8). Firms in the United States and beyond are already lining up to do nuclear business with India, pending approval of the trade agreement, Bloomberg reported today. General Electric Co., Toshiba subsidiary Westinghouse Electric Co., France’s Areva SA and the Russian Rosatom are each seeking a piece of a $14 billion contract to build nuclear power plants in four Indian states. “These are the only four reactors in the world that meet our requirements,” said S.K. Jain, chairman of the Nuclear Power Corp. of India. “India will try to diversify its suppliers and it’s highly likely all four will win the contracts,” said nuclear industry analyst Mikhail Stiskin.  “The question is how much more will one or the other get, and Russia seems to be in a strong position” (Archana Chaudhary, Bloomberg, Aug. 9). Back to top       Korean Leaders to Discuss Nuclear Standoff at Summit The leaders of North and South Korea are expected to discuss Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program at their meeting later this month, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Aug. 8). South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun is scheduled to visit Pyongyang from Aug. 28 to 30 for meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. The summit “will become an important occasion for the leaders of South and North Korea to actively resolve the North’s nuclear issue,” said South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung. North Korea has begun carrying out a denuclearization deal reached at six-nation talks in February.  It halted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and allowed international inspectors to monitor the closure. South Korea has supplied 50,000 tons of fuel oil to its neighbor, which stands to receive another 950,000 tons of fuel or equivalent aid for fully declaring and disabling its nuclear complex. The six-party talks — involving China, Japan, Russia, the United States and North and South Korea — are still the primary tool for pushing denuclearization forward, said U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. “The center of gravity of everybody’s diplomatic efforts here really is in the six-party talks,” he said.  The Korean leadership meeting “in no way detracts from the efforts in the six-party talks to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula,” McCormack added (Associated Press I/USA Today, Aug. 9). The two leaders are likely to simply restate their commitment to eliminating nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, rather than taking concrete steps toward that goal, according to AP. However, the summit could pave the way for a peace treaty that would officially end the Korean War and promote stability in the region (Burt Herman, Associated Press II/philly.com, Aug. 9). Back to top       Russia Conducts Strategic Air Drills Over Arctic Russia yesterday began a series of cruise missile launches and mock bombing raids over the North Pole and the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, June 29). The exercises were expected to employ four Tu-160 Blackjack and 12 Tu-95 Bear-H strategic bombers as well as 14 Tu-22 Backfire-C theater bombers to carry out bombing drills, and more than 10 cruise missile launches over the Pemboi range near Vorkuta in Russia’s Arctic region, the Russian air force announced (see GSN, Mar. 6) “On Wednesday, Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers conducted eight successful (test) launches of cruise missiles at designated targets in northern Russia,” said air force spokesman Col. Alexander Drobyshevsky.  He said the warplanes completed more than 40 separate runs yesterday. NATO fighter jets closely monitored the Russian operations, RIA Novosti reported. Units in Russia’s 37th Strategic Air Army are expected to conduct six tactical drills this month, according to the Russian Defense Ministry. The Russian air force currently has 141 Tu-22 M3 bombers, 40 Tu-95 MS bombers and 14 Tu-160 airplanes in operation (RIA Novosti, Aug. 8). Meanwhile, a Russian general said today that strategic bombers have resumed a Soviet-era practice of flying into airspace patrolled by NATO and U.S. forces, Reuters reported. A Russian bomber yesterday flew over a U.S. base on the Pacific island of Guam, spurring U.S. aircraft into action to track the airplane. “It has always been the tradition of our long-range aviation to fly far into the ocean, to meet (U.S.) aircraft carriers and greet (U.S. pilots) visually,” air force Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov said in a news conference. “Yesterday we revived this tradition, and two of our young crews paid a visit to the area of the (U.S. Pacific Naval Activities) base of Guam,” he said. “I think the result was good.  We met our colleagues — fighter jet pilots from (U.S.) aircraft carriers.  We exchanged smiles and returned home,” Androsov said. Russia has begun to display more military power outside its borders in keeping with Moscow’s more aggressive international posture, according to Reuters.  Russia’s navy this week announced it intended to rebuild its Cold War presence in the Mediterranean Sea. In July, the United Kingdom dispatched fighter jets to intercept Russian bombers closing in on British airspace.  The Russian military said the bomber run was routine. (Reuters/New York Times, Aug. 9). Back to top

Activist Group Blasts Chemical Industry's Lobbying By Chris Strohm CongressDaily WASHINGTON — The amount of money spent by the chemical industry to lobby Congress on legislation related to its security standards appears to dwarf the total funding the Bush administration allocated to enforce standards, the environmental organization Greenpeace said in a July 31 report (see GSN, June 1). Greenpeace combed through federal lobbying records to conclude that the chemical industry spent as much as $74.5 million in 2006 to influence legislation governing security at the nation's chemical facilities.  Comparatively, the Bush administration spent $10 million on chemical plant security in fiscal 2007, and has requested $15 million for the effort in its fiscal 2008 budget. Greenpeace claims the lobbying was aimed at killing legislation the chemical industry did not want, such as mandates requiring companies to use safer technologies and processes or language giving states the ability to pass and enforce laws that go beyond federal regulations. Congress ended up passing legislation last year giving the Homeland Security Department the authority to enforce chemical security regulations.  But the legislation was silent on requiring safer technologies and processes and on whether states could pass and enforce their own laws. "The resources devoted by these companies to undermining our nation's security and the safety of millions of people is appalling," said Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace's Toxics Campaign.  "Americans should be outraged, especially with the growing number of terrorist attacks in Iraq using chlorine gas and ominous new intelligence estimates of terrorists' ability to attack the U.S." The chemical industry fired back at Greenpeace yesterday. "From our standpoint, the report they put together isn't worth the paper it's written on," said Marty Durbin, the American Chemistry Council's federal affairs director. "Our members have nothing to apologize for," Durbin said.  "We're an advocacy organization. ... Of course we were up lobbying." He said the council has not been opposed to chemical security legislation and actually has lobbied for a regulatory framework.  But the council's efforts have been focused on advocating for policy it believes is practical and will not disrupt operations, Durbin said. "Our resources, our commitment, went in to making sure that we have national unified standards," he said. Council members have voluntarily spent about $5 billion on security since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Durbin said.  The council could not verify the Greenpeace figures, noting that lobbying records do not break down expenditures by bill or specific issue. Greenpeace acknowledges in its report that it had a hard time breaking down expenditures, so it used estimates and assumptions to conclude the industry spent $16.4 million to $74.5 million in 2006 to lobby on chemical security legislation. Another legislative battle over chemical plant security awaits Congress when it returns from its August recess.  Democrats have inserted language in the fiscal 2008 Homeland Security spending bill that would give states the power to pass and enforce chemical security laws that are more stringent than federal regulations.  The chemical industry and many Republicans oppose that language, saying recently released regulations from the Homeland Security Department should be given time to work before more legislative changes are made. Back to top       Lugar Touts Threat Reduction Expansion Senator Richard Lugar yesterday touted the success of the U.S.-aided chemical demilitarization program in Albania (see GSN, July 12). Albania in 2002 discovered 16 tons of chemical agents that had been shipped to the country during the 1980s under an earlier government and then seemingly forgotten.  “These chemicals posed an enormous danger to Albanians, should they have leaked, and to the rest of the world if they fell into the hands of terrorists or criminals,” Lugar (R-Ind.) said in a Scripps Howard commentary. Following authorization from the White House, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency “arranged for the fabrication of the specialized equipment necessary” to incinerate the chemical agents, Lugar said. U.S. contractors moved the disposal equipment and related materials by truck to the chemical storage depot located in a remote mountainous location.  They then built the destruction facility that last month completed its work. Albania became the first Chemical Weapons Convention member state to eliminate its stockpile of weapons agents banned under the treaty. The 1991 Nunn-Lugar Act established the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to secure and eliminate biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia and other former Soviet states.  The program to date has supported deactivation of 6,982 nuclear missiles and eliminated more than 1,500 long-range missiles, according to Lugar.  Legislation passed in 2003 allowed the program to go worldwide, and Albania was the first partner nation outside the former Soviet Union. “The Albanian success shows that we can and must be prepared to address similar risks in the Middle East, Asia and anyplace else where supplies of weapons of mass destruction may be,” Lugar stated.  “The United States has developed a unique capability to meet a variety of proliferation threats, and we should be actively seeking new opportunities to dismantle dangerous weapons programs” (Richard Lugar, Scripps Howard News Service, Aug. 8). Back to top       Police Arrest Man for Courthouse Mercury Incident Ohio police have arrested a man on a chemical weapons charge for allegedly scattering mercury around a courthouse building where he was expected to stand trial in another case, the Associated Press reported last week (see GSN, April 14, 2006). Tommy Chris Hansen, 55, spilled the toxic chemical element throughout hallways on two floors of the courthouse building in Morrow County, Sheriff’s Detective Greg Perry said. Authorities evacuated and closed the building on June 27 when the toxic liquid metal, which can damage the human nervous system, was found near an elevator.  Emergency workers decontaminated six of the 78 people who left the courthouse, but there were no reports of exposure-related illnesses. Following decontamination, the courthouse reopened on July 5. Hansen was charged with criminal use of a chemical weapon, a first-degree felony, after being identified on video security images from the courthouse. There is no court date yet for the mercury case.  Authorities could also file homeland security charges against Hansen, due to the use of the particular material inside a government building, according to Morrow County Sheriff Steve Brenneman. Hansen already faced four county charges of gross sexual imposition court for allegedly exposing himself last year to two 11-year-old girls (Associated Press/Zanesville Times Recorder, Aug. 2). Back to top

Russia Developing New Space-Defense System Russia is working on a new air-defense system that could hit targets in outer space, the Russian air force announced yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 8). That new capability would set the next-generation missile system apart from Russia’s S-400 Triumph air-defense system, first activated around Moscow this week.  Russian officials said they plan to deploy more than two dozen of the S-400 Triumph systems around Russia by 2015, RIA Novosti reported. “While working on the S-400, we have been developing a fifth-generation air-defense system, which will be more compact, more maneuverable, and will certainly have superior technical characteristics,” said Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin (RIA Novosti, Aug. 9). Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.