Threat Assessment:  Al-Qaeda Members Included in FBI Alert, Officials Say

Suspected al-Qaeda members are among those listed in the FBI terrorism alert issued Monday, law enforcement officials said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 12).  Meanwhile, one of the targets for the potential attack might be the U.S. Embassy in Yemen, U.S. officials said (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2001).

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft described the 17 men listed in the alert as “individuals who may be associated with Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network.”  Other law enforcement officials said some suspected al-Qaeda members are among the men listed in the alert, but they did not give a number.

All of the listed suspects are still at large and their whereabouts are unknown, officials said.  They added that they know little about the backgrounds or activities of the identified men.  None of the men, mainly from Yemen and Saudi Arabia, were identified in investigations or intelligence reports, according to the New York Times.

Immigration records showed none of the men listed in the alert, including suspected ringleader Fawaz Yahya al-Rabeei, have entered the United States under their actual names, law enforcement officials said.  Each of the men, however, is believed to have used several aliases, the Times reported.  Al-Rabeei alone is believed to have used at least 14 different aliases (Johnston/Shanker, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Target:  Yemen

Plans to attack the U.S. Embassy in Yemen were included in the information taken from al-Qaeda members detained at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which formed the basis of the FBI alert, law enforcement and intelligence officials said.

One of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners said a cellmate in Afghanistan told him about the plan to attack the embassy, according to officials.  Terrorists planned to attack the embassy in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa with rocket-propelled grenades or mortars from a house purchased near the embassy, a U.S. intelligence officer said.

Authorities in Yemen have increased guards and blocked off the embassy, which is located on the edge of Sanaa, said Boulos Malik, an embassy spokesman.  A U.S. Marine security force also protects the embassy.

Last month, the U.S. State Department issued a warning regarding a “credible terrorist threat to U.S. interests in Yemen.”  There are 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. citizens in Yemen, though many are Yemenis with dual citizenship, State Department officials said (Savino/Strobel, Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 13).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  NRC Expected To Order Nuclear Plant Security Improvements

Federal officials will soon order security improvements for U.S. nuclear power plants to better protect against terrorist attacks, a nuclear industry lobbying group said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 4).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to tell nuclear plant operators to upgrade security measures related to employees, training and physical barriers around plants, the Nuclear Energy Institute said.  The group added that details of the planned upgrades could not be released because of security reasons.

Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.), a critic of the nuclear industry, yesterday offered support for the NEI announcement.

“I am surprised to hear about potential upgrades to nuclear reactor security from the nuclear industry rather than from the government agency charged with overseeing it,” Markey said in a statement.

Nuclear safety groups have called on the Bush administration to improve security at nuclear power plants to protect them from terrorist attacks, including those using hijacked aircraft.

“Our sense today is that these plants are sitting ducks,” said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute.

Leventhal criticized a nuclear power plant security review being conducted by the NRC, calling it “a topless to bottomless review” and saying that it is “meaningless and infinite in its scope” (Chris Baltimore, Reuters/Forbes.com, Feb. 12).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Army Wants Greater Domestic Role, General Says

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has been rehearsing its WMD response capabilities at its nearly 100 installations around the world, and wants to assume a greater role in preparing U.S. cities for any chemical or biological attacks, the commander of the Army’s Soldier and Biological Chemical Command said yesterday.

Speaking at a bioterrorism conference of military, state and local officials from across the nation, Maj. Gen. John Doesburg said the United States might soon be able to adequately respond to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction “within a day” if it uses all its resources.

“We’ve got it down to about three days, four days tops,” Doesburg said, referring to realistic response drills his command has been running at various Army posts since Sept. 11.  “Imagine what we could do if we used all our national resources.”

The key to a WMD response, Doesburg said, is having military, state and local officials already used to working together.  Such preparations would be best achieved if active military units with nuclear, biological and chemical expertise were given a greater role in helping prepare state and local officials for such an attack, he said.

“Who’s going to execute this?” Doesburg asked.  “I’d like to say we are, but I only own a small piece of the pie.”

Currently the Pentagon has assigned 24 National Guard “rapid response” teams to assist first responders, with eight more being trained or organized (see GSN, Feb. 8).  Each team consists of 22 full-time soldiers trained to identify and protect against nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and to assess the needs of first responders — firefighters, doctors and other emergency personnel.

Pooling Resources

The National Guard teams are needed, but they would not be enough in the event of a major WMD attack, Doesburg said.  Rather, they should merely be a part of a large-scale military rescue response, he said.

“We need to pool the resources of the Defense Department and, yes, first responders,” Doesburg said.

All four of the armed services have chemical and biological protection units, with the Army and Marine Corps possessing the most assets.  These small units, which would need to be dramatically beefed up to assume a civil defense mission, would be ideal to lead a federal response after any WMD attacks, Doesburg said.

The active duty military units could use their command and control structure to coordinate any emergency responses by federal, state and local authorities, he said.  “They would be able to respond and get the right assets to the scene … quickly and rapidly identifying agents,” he said.

“We need to figure out how to best deploy the talents and skills of the [military chemical and biological] commands,” Doesburg said.  “It’s a tough mission and I don’t have a lot of answers.”

Since Sept. 11 the Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command has formulated and practiced a plan to respond to any weapons of mass destruction incidents at any Army facility, a plan that could serve as guidance for civilian emergency responses, he said.

Before then there was no set plans for the Army chemical and biological units to rapidly mobilize and react to such a WMD scenario.  Now the Army units have drastically reduced the amount of time they would need to respond, Doesburg said.  They hope to soon have their response times down to a day, he added.

“We’re going to provide a basic level of capability to every [Army] installation,” Doesburg said.

WMD Does Not Discriminate

Currently the Army has 67 posts in the United States and its two U.S. territories, Puerto Rico and Guam, with another 25 installations interspersed around the globe — mostly in South Korea, Japan and European countries, but also Kuwait and Afghanistan.  There are dozens more National Guard and Army Reserve installations.

Preparing Army posts for any WMD assaults can only be done with the help of local fire and rescue groups, he said.

“If [an attack] involves terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it doesn’t stop at a fence line.  Chemical and biological weapons don’t discriminate,” Doesburg said, noting that local authorities will also be scrambling to protect their own populace.

“We can win the war on terrorism,” he added.  “Before long we could have it so my parents in Iowa don’t have to worry anymore about chemical or biological weapons … we have all the resources both inside and outside the government.”

Back to top

Iraq I:  U.S. Reportedly Examining Plans to Overthrow Leader

The Bush administration is reportedly exploring options to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and is preparing for whatever diplomatic and military actions might be necessary, according to reports today.  No decision has been made on how and when such actions will occur (see GSN, Feb. 12).

A senior Bush administration official told Iraqi opposition group leaders recently that U.S. President George W. Bush has decided to topple Hussein.  “We were told that the president has made up his mind:  Saddam has to go,” an opposition official said.

The United States is considering several options, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday during Senate Budget Committee testimony.

“With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people,” he said.  “And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about” (Gordon/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Powell’s recent rhetoric indicating a hard-line U.S. stance against Iraq is significant because he has been viewed as a cautious voice in the administration, according to the New York Times.  Powell’s repeated reference to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil,” following Bush’s State of the Union address last month, indicates the Bush administration has reached consensus that Hussein must go, the Times reported.

“It’s hard to imagine Colin saying those words on his own a month ago,” said a senior administration official.  “Either he’s come into agreement with everyone else, or he’s decided to embrace the policy in hopes that, from the inside, he can control and modify it.”

Creating an Inspection Crisis

The administration plans to create an inspection crisis coinciding with the deadline for revising U.N. sanctions against Iraq at the end of May, the Times reported (see GSN, Feb. 11.

Officials believe Hussein will refuse to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq or will attempt to drag out the issue, according to the Times.  Iraqi refusal to accept inspectors would provide the United States with a reason to call for strong action (David Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

“If we put sanctions in place in May, then it gets harder for Iraq to make the case that it should not allow weapons inspectors,” said a senior administration official.  “But we know that it is only [a] matter of time before the weapons inspectors get stopped, and we have yet another bit of proof that Saddam will never give up.”

That would likely lead to a U.S. military campaign, and the United States could both encourage rebellions within Iraq and attack with U.S. military force.

How and When?

The military and other U.S. leaders have not concluded exactly how or when the campaign will occur, however.  The military has not prepared a final plan, said Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command.

Administration officials agreed an attack would not take place for several months, at least until the May sanctions deadline, the Times reported.  The Defense Department would need several months to end the campaign in Afghanistan and plan for striking Iraq, said one senior administration official.

Several difficult problems lie in the way of a U.S. campaign against Iraq, particularly the possibility that Iraq could use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. forces or Israel, the Times reported (Gordon/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13). 

Opposition from Allies

Another problem for the United States is opposition from several allies against going to war with Iraq.

The United States has indicated it is willing to fight Iraq without significant allied support.  “There may be times when we have to act alone,” Powell said.  “We can’t have our national interest constrained by the view of the coalition.”

“At some point … the Europeans with butterflies in their stomachs — many of whom didn’t want us to go into Afghanistan — will see that they have a bipolar choice:  they can get with the plan or get off,” said a senior administration official (Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

European leaders including German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who has a pro-U.S. reputation, criticized the “axis of evil” phrase and U.S. intentions to attack Iraq, according to the Times (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Fischer said the United States should not treat its allies as satellite states.  “The international coalition against terror is not the foundation to carry out just anything against anybody, and particularly not on one’s own,” he said.  “All the European foreign ministers see it that way.”

French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and European Union Foreign Affairs Commissioner Christopher Patten have also criticized recent U.S. unilateralist tendencies (Steven Erlanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Russian President Vladimir Putin also warned the United States against expanding the war on terrorist to Iraq without strong evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks (see GSN, Feb. 6).  Without “incontrovertible evidence … “there can be no attack,” he said (Mara Bellaby, Associated Press, Feb. 12).

New Attention, Same Old Concerns

Despite all the recent attention on U.S. plans regarding Iraq since Bush’s speech last month, U.S. concerns about Hussein are not new, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday.

The United States has maintained no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq and continually demanded that Hussein allow weapons inspectors to return, he said (Kathleen Rhem, American Forces Press Service/Defense Department news, Feb. 12).

Iran and North Korea

Although Bush included Iran and North Korea with Iraq in an “axis of evil,” the United States hopes to continue diplomatic discussions with Iran and North Korea, Powell said.  “With respect to Iran and with respect to North Korea, there is no plan to start a war with these nations,” he said (Gordon/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 13).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Defeating Hussein Would be a “Cakewalk,” Adelman Says

Contrary to some predictions, it would be extremely easy for the United States to defeat Iraq and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, wrote Ken Adelman, director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency under former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, in a column today for the Washington Post (see related GSN story, today).

Adelman gave four reasons why any U.S. military operation against Iraq would be a “cakewalk.”  The first is that it was relatively easy for the United States to defeat Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

Adleman quoted a report from the Brookings Institution that said Iraq currently has 400,000 active duty troops and 100,000 in the elite Iraqi Republican guard.  These Republican Guard forces “would probably fight hard against the United States — just as they did a decade ago during Desert Storm.”

“Somehow I missed that,” Adelman wrote.  “I do remember a gaggle of Iraqi troops attempting to surrender to an Italian film crew.  The bulk of the vaunted Republican Guard either hunkered down or was held back from battle.”

The second reason the United States would easily defeat Iraq is that the Iraqi military has become significantly weaker since 1991, according to Adelman.  The Iraqi army is one-third the size it was during the Gulf War and still relies heavily on Soviet-era tanks.  The Iraqi air force, which was small in 1991, is half its former size today, Adelman wrote.  He added that the Iraqi military has also received little to no weapons upgrades, spare parts or training.

While the Iraqi military has become weaker, the U.S. military has gained in strength since the Gulf War, as has been demonstrated by the recent conflict in Afghanistan, according to Adelman.  Two of the biggest improvements to the U.S. military have been the rise of precision bombing and battlefield intelligence, Adelman wrote, noting that more than 80 percent of the ordnance used in Afghanistan consisted of smart bombs.

The last factor that significantly improves the U.S. chance for victory in a military confrontation with Iraq is the United States’ strengthened conviction after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to Adelman.

At the eve of the Gulf War, former U.S. President George Bush faced strong opposition from Democrats and a divided public, which led to a need for a strong international coalition.  Today, however, President George W. Bush “does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as ‘coalition partners’ to convince the Washington establishment that we’re right,” Adelman wrote, adding that in today’s climate U.S. citizens know the value of the war on terrorism.

“Hussein constitutes the number one threat against American security and civilization,” Adelman wrote.  “Unlike Osama bin Laden, he has billions of dollars in government funds, scores of government research labs working feverishly on weapons of mass destruction — and just as deep a hatred of America and civilized free societies.”

“Once President Bush clearly announces that our objective is to rid Iraq of Hussein, and our unshakable determination to do whatever it takes to win, defections from the Iraqi army may come even faster than a decade ago,” Adelman wrote (Ken Adelman, Washington Post, Feb. 13).

Back to top

India I:  Musharraf Hints at Indian Nuclear Tests

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said yesterday he had information that India might have conducted or might soon conduct a nuclear test explosion.

 “Some information, some news even of maybe a possibility of a nuclear test is most untimely, and may I also say provocative,” Musharraf said in a Washington briefing sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (see GSN, Feb. 11).

Musharraf has no conclusive evidence to prove India is considering such a test but has shared his information with U.S. authorities, he said.

When asked whether the two rivals could fight a limited, conventional war without escalating to nuclear conflict, Musharraf said only that even a non-nuclear war would be expensive (see GSN, Jan. 17).  Both countries face poverty and economic development challenges, so neither should initiate a war, he said.

The initiation of a nuclear conflict is unthinkable, he said, adding that both India and Pakistan must act responsibly.

Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee today denied Musharraf’s statement regarding Indian nuclear testing, saying it was an attempt to mislead the world, the Press Trust of India reported (see related GSN story, today).

India has no intention to test nuclear weapons in the near future and will abide by its moratorium on nuclear testing, Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh said in an interview in Monday’s Financial Times (see GSN, Feb. 11).  India and Pakistan last conducted nuclear tests in 1998.

Musharraf planned to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush today to discuss a range of issues including economic assistance, military relations, Afghanistan and education, a senior Bush administration official said yesterday.

Mediation Needed

Any attempt to negotiate a lasting peace between the two countries must involve all the issues that they disagree on, including the dispute over Kashmir, Musharraf said.  Practical negotiations could not “sideline” the Kashmir issue.

“We expect sincerity and purposeful negotiations from India,” he said, but added that outside facilitation is necessary to seriously address the ongoing conflict.  “Bilateralism has failed,” he said.  Musharraf thanked U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell for helping ease tensions in the region (see GSN, Jan. 22).

Musharraf said he does not expect a solution to the conflict and Kashmir dispute in the near future.  “One needs to go step by step,” he said.

The first step is dialogue, he said.  Next, the countries must accept that Kashmir is central to India-Pakistan relations, then eliminate whatever either country views as unacceptable and finally reach a solution.

Dealing with Terrorism

Musharraf described his vision for creating a liberal, tolerant, progressive, Islamic — but not theocratic — state in Pakistan.  A major step toward that vision is curbing religious extremism and sectarian violence, he said.

Musharraf said he has already taken several actions to end terrorism, including:

*         Banning several extremist parties (see GSN, Jan. 4);

*         Reforming the madrassas, Islamic religious schools, and

*         Issuing instructions to control the “misuse of mosques for activities other than religious activity.”

The majority of the Pakistani public has welcomed these actions and Musharraf’s condemnation of terrorism in his Jan. 12 speech, he said.

Back to top

India II:  Nuclear Testing Claims Disputed

Indian officials today rejected Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s recent statement in Washington that he has information indicating that India has recently conducted or plans to conduct a nuclear test (see related GSN story, today).

“These accusations are totally without basis,” said Indian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao.  India continues to abide by a voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests, she said (see GSN, Feb. 11).

India and Pakistan last conducted nuclear tests in May 1998 (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 13).

Musharraf’s statement was an attempt to mislead the international community, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said, adding India has no plans to conduct another nuclear test.

“Washington has told him that [U.S. officials] know that [Indians] are not doing it,” Vajpayee added (Press Trust of India/Times of India, Feb. 13).

“Some information, some news even, of maybe a possibility of a nuclear test, is most untimely, and may I also say provocative,” Musharraf said yesterday, although he added he had no conclusive evidence (Reuters/Yahoo.com, Feb. 12).

U.S. Officials Say Musharraf’s Statement Baseless

A U.S. official said Musharraf’s indication of an Indian nuclear test is “baseless.”

“We don’t have any information that would suggest anything like that having occurred,” the official said.

“I would like to think that if that had happened, there would be some alarm bells ringing in Washington, and I haven’t heard any, so I am skeptical,” said another U.S. official (Reuters/Yahoo.com, Feb. 12).

Back to top

India-Russia:  Officials Sign Kudankulam Nuclear Project Contract

Indian and Russian officials yesterday signed a $500 million contract to provide equipment and materials for the Kudankulam nuclear power plant under construction in southern India (see GSN, Jan. 7).

“This is the biggest-ever deal signed by [the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited] with any country,” said NPCIL chairman V.K. Chaturvedi in Moscow.

The contract “provides for the supply of two most advanced VVER-1000 reactors with 2,000 megawatts total capacity and other equipment with long production cycle like steam turbines and generators,” Chaturvedi said.

Indian agencies will commission and build the equipment with Russian technical assistance, Chaturvedi said (Press Trust of India, Feb. 12).  He added that India and Russia are expected to sign a contract next month on sustained shipments of Russian nuclear fuel to the Kudankulam plants.

In November of last year, India and Russia signed a memorandum to begin cooperation on the Kudankulam project, according to the Press Trust of India (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2001).  Russia is expected to provide more than $1.5 billion in assistance and equipment for the two Indian nuclear power plants.  India has also placed orders totaling more than $220 million with Ukraine and other Commonwealth of Independent States countries (Press Trust of India/BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Feb. 13).

Back to top

Anthrax:  New Tests Can Distinguish Between Ames Strain Stocks, Expert Says

A researcher in the FBI’s “Amerithrax” investigation into the recent anthrax attacks said yesterday that he can determine differences between various stocks of the Ames strain (see GSN, Feb. 11).

Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University said his new analytical method can distinguish between stocks of the Ames strain held by different laboratories and research facilities.  The information could help determine which facility kept the strain of anthrax most closely related to that used in the attacks.  This, in turn, could help narrow down the potential suspects, according to the New York Times (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Previously, Keim had developed a genetic fingerprint test for anthrax, but it could not determine the difference between various Ames strain stocks, according to the Times.

The new method examines two rings of DNA in the anthrax bacterium called plasmids, the Times reported.  Keim focused on one of these plasmids, known as a poly-A tract, and determined that stocks of the Ames strain differed in their gene sequences (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001).

Using the new method, Keim said he is able to determine the differences between the Ames strain held by four laboratories and a natural strain of Ames anthrax taken from a goat in 1997 (Nicholas Wade, New York Times, Feb. 13).

False Alarm in Olympic City

A false positive test for anthrax alarmed officials at the Salt Lake City airport for more than two hours last night, according to the Associated Press.

A recently installed screening system first detected anthrax, according to the AP.  After a second test also indicated anthrax, officials put emergency response plans into motion, but they did not stop airport operations and issued no warnings, the AP reported.

Further laboratory testing came back negative four times, which led officials to believe the initial tests were wrong.

“We don’t believe this indicates the equipment is faulty at all,” said Scott Williams, deputy director of the Utah Health Department.  “These tests are extremely sensitive and we know that at the first level there is the possibility of a false result” (Associated Press/New York Times, Feb. 13).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Yucca Mountain Will Do Little to Protect Waste, Makhijani Says

Construction of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository would do little to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on a spent-fuel cooling pool at a U.S. nuclear power plant, said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, in an op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post (see GSN, Feb. 12).

Makhijani wrote that officials have called spent-fuel pools at U.S. nuclear plants major security concerns and have said a single repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would help alleviate that risk by consolidating all the spent fuel in one location.

Makhijani argued, however, that because spent fuel must be cooled in water for several years before it can be shipped anywhere, cooling pools must remain at nuclear plants as long as such plants are in operation.

A completely new approach to nuclear waste security is needed, according to Makhijani.

“To end the security vulnerability of spent fuel-pools, existing nuclear power plants must be phased out,” he wrote.  He added that while this would be difficult, since nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. energy supplies, it could be done in an orderly fashion.

The Bush administration, however, is considering relicensing the more than 100 U.S. nuclear power plants far beyond their current licenses, according to Makhijani.  This would effectively defeat the idea of Yucca Mountain as a consolidation point, since it would result in dozens of nuclear plants continuing to operate throughout the country, needing on-site spent-fuel pools, Makhijani wrote.

“Given relicensing, Yucca Mountain, which is crisscrossed with geological faults, may well run out of room before it can take the spent fuel from existing power plants, to say nothing of new ones,” Makhijani wrote.

Yucca Mountain itself is not a suitable site for a waste repository, according to Makhijani.  The computer models used by the Energy Department have several uncertainties and regulations have been changed or removed to accommodate the site, Makhijani wrote.

“It’s possible to do a far better job, but the Energy Department seems incapable of it,” Makhijani wrote.  “President Bush should declare both Yucca Mountain and the Energy Department unsuitable for the job and create a blue-ribbon commission to recommend a new program for him” (Arjun Makhijani, Washington Post, Feb. 13).

Back to top

Correction

A story in the yesterday’s Global Security Newswire incorrectly spelled the name of arms control analyst Kathy Crandall and misidentified her as working for the Physicians for Social Responsibility.  She is the director of the Nuclear Disarmament Partnership.

Back to top