The United States in 2007 moved forward with a major expansion of intelligence-collection efforts focused on Iran’s disputed nuclear program as well as operations aimed at undermining the Islamic state’s government, the New Yorker reported in its July issue (see GSN, June 27).
The covert operations — headed by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command — were broadly described in a Presidential Finding signed by U.S. President George W. Bush, according to current and former U.S. military, intelligence and congressional officials. “The Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” said a person with knowledge of its contents, adding that it involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” However, many of the specific activities targeting Iran are not described in the document, raising concerns among senior U.S. lawmakers. Bush administration officials continue to debate whether military action is a viable option in addressing Iran’s nuclear program, which is focused on activities the Middle Eastern state could use to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran insists its nuclear program is purely civilian in nature. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Democratic lawmakers last year that attacking Iran would “create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America,” according to a senator quoting Gates from memory. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed by Adm. Michael Mullen, were also “pushing back very hard” against White House moves to promote military action against Iran, the source familiar with the finding said. Meanwhile, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned in a commentary that Iran might not be willing to consider a nuclear compromise proposal put forward by the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany. The proposal offers political and economic incentives to Iran in exchange for halting its uranium enrichment program. It might not “be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation before they are completed,” Fischer wrote. “Should this newest attempt fail, things will soon get serious. Deadly serious.” Speaking later, Fischer described a new concession offered to Iran by the six world powers. “The proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction activities in the U.N. Security Council,” even though Iran would still be required to halt enrichment as a precondition to formal negotiations, he said. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians — if they have good will” (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, July 7). Speaking on CNN, the U.S. envoy to Iraq yesterday rebuffed the New Yorker’s suggestion that the United States is carrying out covert operations across the Iraqi-Iranian border, Agence France-Presse reported. "I can tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran," Ambassador Ryan Crocker said (Agence France-Presse I/Google News, June 29). Iran is feeling the heat from international sanctions imposed in response to its nuclear intransigence, U.S. Principal Deputy Secretary of State Patricia McNerney said today during a trip to Australia. "There is that psychological sense of isolation and there is an impact that's happening," McNerney said.. "Unfortunately, these things tend to take time and I'm not sure that time is on our side, so we've got to think about how to increase that pressure," she said. "The Australian government is looking at some additional measures that they could take. We also will continue looking at additional measures the United States can take" (Rod McGuirk, Associated Press I/International Herald Tribune, June 30). Elsewhere, former Israeli intelligence chief Shabtai Shavit warned that Israel could face a nuclear attack if it fails to destroy Iran’s nuclear program within a year, AFP reported. The “worst-case scenario” that Israel faces is Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb in “somewhere around a year,” Shavit told the London Telegraph. "The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time." "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared. We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action" (Agence France-Presse II/Google News, June 28). In Tehran, the head of the Revolutionary Guards warned that Iran could respond to an attack by unleashing a missile barrage on Israel and blocking oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf through the Hormuz Strait, AP reported. "Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all of its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari told the conservative state-run Iranian newspaper Jam-e-Jam (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, June 28). A senior U.S. Navy officer responded today that Iran would not be allowed the halt traffic through the strait, AFP reported. “They will not close it. ... They will not be allowed to close it," Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the Fifth Fleet, said during a press conference (Agence France-Presse III/Spacewar.com, June 30). Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said yesterday that Israel is unprepared to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Reuters reported. “We do not see the Zionist regime in a situation in which they would want to engage in such adventurism," Mottaki said when questioned about a possible Israeli strike. "They know full well what the consequences of such an act would be” (Hashem Kalantari, Reuters/Washington Post, June 29). State media quoted Mottaki as saying that Iran continues to review the six-power compromise proposal “carefully and strongly,” and would indicate once it is finished, AP reported (Associated Press III/Yahoo!News, June 29).
The international community must make a renewed effort to free the world of nuclear weapons if it hopes to avoid disaster, four former top British officials said today (see GSN, Feb. 26). “During the Cold War nuclear weapons had the perverse effect of making the world a relatively stable place. That is no longer the case,” former defense secretary and NATO secretary general George Robertson and former foreign secretaries Malcolm Rifkind, Douglas Hurd, David Owen and said in a commentary in the London Times. “Instead, the world is at the brink of a new and dangerous phase — one that combines widespread proliferation with extremism and geopolitical tension. “There is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of nuclear weapons,” they added. “A new historic initiative is needed but it will only succeed by working collectively and through multilateral institutions.” However, “if serious progress is to be made it must begin with” Russia and the United States, which hold the largest nuclear arsenals. Roughly 5,000 U.S. warheads remain in deployment, while Russia is believed to have more than 6,000 warheads in the field. The commentary follows a similar call for disarmament from former U.S. officials including Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. Moscow and Washington should extend the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and resolve their dispute over Bush administration plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe, the commentary says. Security of uranium and plutonium stockpiles must also be augmented, the former officials said. There is sufficient material in the former Soviet Union alone to power another 40,000 weapons, they added, calling for nuclear security specialists to “be deployed in those countries that do not possess the necessary infrastructure or experience in dealing with stockpiles. “These specialists should be deployed to assist both in the monitoring and accounting for of nuclear material and in the setting up of domestic controls to prevent security breaches,” according to the commentary. The former officials said that changes are also required for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which was signed 40 years ago tomorrow, particularly regarding augmenting monitoring of compliance with the pact’s rules. They also called for entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. “Substantial progress towards a dramatic reduction in the world's nuclear weapons is possible. The ultimate aspiration should be to have a world free of nuclear weapons,” the former officials said. “It will take time, but with political will and improvements in monitoring, the goal is achievable. We must act before it is too late, and we can begin by supporting the campaign in America for a non-nuclear weapons world (London Times, June 30). Experts also see the need for changes to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. This is particularly true as the global community seeks to address known or suspected nuclear proliferation threats in Iran, North Korea and Syria. The pact requires the five recognized nuclear powers — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — to take “effective measures” toward disarmament but does not require that obligation to be completed by a certain date. Non-nuclear states are less likely to adhere to their commitments as they see the weapons holders making minimal progress toward relinquishing their arsenals, experts said. The world of “nuclear haves and have-nots … cannot be sustained indefinitely,” said Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association. “Nuclear weapons are dangerous no matter who possess them,” he said. The only penalty for a treaty violation is being reported to the U.N. Security Council. Treaty states are not required to submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and they for the most part determine where inspectors can and cannot go. The treaty has helped restrict the number of nuclear-armed nations, experts agreed. Alongside the five official powers, India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan are all known or widely assumed to hold atomic weapons. “There are only nine countries with nuclear weapons today,” said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund. “Why? A big part of the reason is the bipartisan, multinational effort that led to the NPT.” He argued, though, that “too often ‘realpolitik’ will influence decisions like the [U.S.-Indian civilian] nuclear deal that undermine the treaty. The NPT is very clear. All proliferation is bad, not just proliferation among potential enemies” (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, June 29). Another potential nuclear proliferation threat, experts told the Associated Press, could come from nuclear “rollback” nations — countries that conducted intense research in past decades but chose not or failed to produce an actual weapon. Such nations include South Korea, Sweden and Switzerland. Rollback is “a process, not an outcome,” said proliferation expert Rebecca Hersman of the National Defense University. Nations that once pursued nuclear weapons could do so again. South Korea ended its nuclear weapons effort in the 1970s. However, its advanced nuclear energy program could be utilized for rapid production of a weapon if the North Korean threat looms even larger. Japan carries a similar capability. Experts also noted nuclear programs in Taiwan, which might feel threatened by China, and atomic energy efforts in a host of Middle Eastern nations in the face of Iran’s ongoing nuclear development (Charles Hanley, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, June 28). The exit of the Bush administration could help strengthen the worldwide nuclear nonproliferation regime, AFP reported. The presidential candidates for the November election, Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), have both emphasized the need for Washington to lead disarmament efforts. Obama appears to back U.S. ratification of the test ban treaty, another step in its entry into force. McCain previously voted against ratification but has said he would reconsider the issue. “For the first time in history, both main party candidates have agreed to put America on a path towards a world without nuclear weapons and all the risks they bring,” Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), himself a former presidential candidate, said in a Financial Times commentary. It is still too early for complete optimism, Kimball said. “I am not predicting a brighter future quite yet,” he said. “The problem is that the future holds a great number of nuclear weapons related challenges and it is not going to be easy.” Washington should lead efforts to bring India, Israel and Pakistan into the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Those nations and China should also be pressed to join the test ban treaty and to put an official end to production of fissile material, he said (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, June 29).
The Singh administration in India hopes by the end of September to enact a fiercely contested civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, the Indo-Asian News Service reported yesterday (see GSN, June 25). “It is tough, but it may just be doable,” said one administration source. The deal, which would make nuclear fuel and equipment available to New Delhi, faces opposition from supporters of the governing party who believe it would give Washington undue influence over Indian affairs. The opponents have threatened to force early elections if the administration moves to implement the agreement. The possibility of a September deadline might be raised during informal discussions between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President George W. Bush at a meeting next month of the Group of Eight industrialized nations. Officials in Washington have argued that time is running out for approval of the agreement here as the November presidential election approaches. To implement the nuclear deal, the Indian administration must first sign an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency that would allow international inspectors to enter India’s civilian nuclear facilities. The U.N. nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation governing board would then meet to approve the safeguards pact. “A lot will depend on how soon the meeting of the board can be called. It may take from a few weeks to 40 days,” the Indian administration source said. New Delhi must also win a waiver from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group allowing India to import uranium even though it has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Indian officials have expressed concern that NSG member states Ireland, New Zealand or Sweden might veto the waiver. Indian officials also hope to secure a U.S. guarantee that entering the deal would not force New Delhi to adhere to U.S. positions on nuclear policy issues such as joining the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (Indo-Asian News Service/Yahoo!News, June 29). Singh said he would deliver the final version of the nuclear agreement to Indian lawmakers “before I proceed to operationalize (the deal),” Agence France-Presse reported. The prime minister expressed hope that "we can still work out an outcome that will satisfy all parties. ... I am only saying you will allow me to complete the negotiations,” the Press Trust of India reported. “All that I want is the authority to proceed with the process of negotiations through all stages like the IAEA and the NSG that will not tie down the hands of the country," he said (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, June 30). Meanwhile, the chief of India’s governing Congress party has called for high-level party officials to prepare for elections, a move that hints at possible administration plans to move forward on the agreement, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. Sonia Gandhi met with the party members this weekend to discuss upcoming national and local elections, Congress party spokesman Janardan Dwivedi said yesterday. "This meeting was about poll preparations. The Lok Sabha (parliament's lower house) elections were also discussed," Dwivedi said (Agence France-Presse II/Google News, June 29).
North Korea should follow up on its latest denuclearization moves by eliminating its nuclear arsenal, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday (see GSN, June 27). Pyongyang agreed last year to shutter its nuclear operations. It has halted operations at its Yongbyon complex and moved to disable three key plants, including the nation’s sole plutonium-producing reactor. Last week, the regime issued the long-overdue declaration of its nuclear programs and demolished the reactor cooling tower. “In the next phase we do have to move on abandonment. That is the purpose of six-party talks” involving China, Japan, Russia, the United States and both Korea, Rice said during a trip to Seoul. She noted that North Korea to date has only acknowledged U.S. suspicions regarding uranium enrichment and nuclear proliferation activities, Agence France-Presse reported. Washington seemingly backed off its demand that Pyongyang provide details on those suspected programs as part of the declaration. “There are documents that are referred to in the declaration concerning those two issues, HEU and proliferation,” Rice said. “Thus far ... we don’t have the answers we need about either, but I expect that the North will live up to the obligation that it has undertaken to take those concerns seriously and to address them” (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, June 28). Pyongyang reportedly acknowledged in the declaration that it had collected roughly 30 kilograms of weapon-usable plutonium and used 2 kilograms in its October 2006 nuclear test blast, Kyodo News reported. One nuclear weapon generally contains 4 to 8 kilograms of the material. North Korea’s total plutonium holdings, including unextracted material in used fuel rods and material that remains in equipment at Yongbyon, is believed to total 44 kilograms, the source said (Kyodo News I, June 28). Rice today was in Beijing, where she met with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, AFP reported. “We’re all encouraged” by progress on North Korean denuclearization, she said. “(However) everybody emphasizes the hard work ahead.” Envoys from the six nations should meet for talks again “pretty soon,” Rice said. “I don’t think it will be weeks. There are scheduling issues. We have to get people together” (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, June 30). One source said negotiations could reconvene late next week in Beijing, Kyodo News reported (Kyodo News II, June 29). North Korea’s plutonium stockpile has almost certainly grown while U.S. President George W. Bush administration took a hard line on the regime over the years, experts told the Associated Press. Washington in 2001 walked away from direct talks with North Korea and then accused the regime of conducting an illicit uranium enrichment program. Pyongyang in turn pulled out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The two nations would later join the six-party talks and eventually engage again in direct diplomacy. “He is leaving his successor a problem that is much worse than the one he inherited,” said Jon Wolfsthal, a former U.S. monitor at Yongbyon. “They might have had one or two nuclear weapons when he came into office. We weren’t sure. And now they’ve got 10, and we are. “There’s no way the verification process [for the nuclear declaration] will be even running by the time the Bush administration leaves office” in January, he added. The administration also faced criticism for last week moving to remove North Korea from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and to lift some trade sanctions. “It’s shameful. This represents the final collapse of Bush’s foreign policy,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now a frequent critic of Bush’s foreign policy (Terence Hunt, Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle, June 27). Experts question Pyongyang’s willingness to ultimately give up its nuclear arsenal. “North Korea is not going to give up their nuclear weapons easily,” said Chinese analyst Xu Guangyu. “This is the last card they have to play with America. They want to keep their card to see what the next president will do with North Korea” (Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, June 28). “North Korea’s refusal to provide full transparency on its nuclear programs raises serious questions over its commitment to fulfill even more difficult future requirements,” said Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation (Yonhap News Agency, June 28).
Jordan over the weekend signed preliminary civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with Canada and the United Kingdom, opening the door for the Gulf nation to receive nuclear fuel and equipment to help run a planned atomic energy program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, May 15). Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission chief Khaled Tukan said the deal signed with London yesterday would help create a new energy source for Jordan, which today imports about 95 percent of its power. “The memorandum will pave the way for signing a cooperation agreement between the two countries later this year,” Tukan said, adding that the deal would promote “the establishment of a reliable source of nuclear fuel for future civilian light-water nuclear reactors” (Agence France-Presse I/Google News, June 29). Tukan said that Amman and Ottawa would together consider installing a Canadian heavy-water reactor in Jordan that can run using nonenriched uranium. “Canada will help Jordan prepare economic feasibility studies to examine the possibility of introducing the CANDU energy reactor into Jordan,” Tukan said. A comprehensive agreement is set to be signed by the end of 2008. Jordan and other Middle Eastern nations have announced plans to pursue civilian nuclear power amid concern that Iran could its developing nuclear capabilities toward military purposes (see related GSN story, today; Agence France-Presse II/Google News, June 28).
A “small number of personnel” at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., tested positive for internal plutonium contamination following a leak early this month, the laboratory said Friday (see GSN, June 25). Laboratory officials said the low-level radiation emitted by plutonium could cause cancer and pose other health risks following inhalation or ingestion, the Associated Press reported. People contaminated in the spill were receiving treatment to purge the substance from their systems, the officials said. A limited number of plutonium particles spilled out of a cracked vial on June 9, some possibly entering the city’s sewage system after NIST researchers washed their hands. Tests have turned up no evidence of danger posed by the material, said acting Boulder City Manager Maureen Rait As of Friday, 29 people had been tested for plutonium contamination, NIST spokeswoman Gail Porter said. She did not say exactly how many tested positive because more rigorous testing is planned for all laboratory workers. The results from the new tests, designed to detect lower contamination levels, are expected in about a month. Trace amounts of plutonium were discovered Thursday in three areas inside another building on the NIST campus, laboratory officials added. The plutonium was said to have been found on the belongings of a laboratory worker who left the affected laboratory after the spill occurred but before it was reported (Ivan Moreno, Associated Press/Denver Post, June 28).
| 
Back to top
