By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The United States needs to develop a “new strategic vision,” including a focus on international cooperation, to counter the threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation, Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said yesterday.
The optimism for peace and security generated after the end of the Cold War has not been fully realized, Reed said yesterday at a conference held by the Center for Defense Information and Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The global village still has some very tough neighborhoods,” he said.
To counter the growing threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation, the United States needs to adopt a new strategic vision that focuses on three areas — pre-emptive action against terrorist groups, the containment and interdiction of WMD proliferation and the encouragement of collective security and arms control agreements, Reed said. Such actions cannot be sustained through a unilateral approach and will need the involvement of U.S. allies, he said.
While there has been debate over the necessity of pre-emptive action against Iraq, such a course is needed to defeat the threat of terrorism because it cannot be countered merely by deterrence, Reed said. He noted nostalgia for the Cold War, when the global security environment was akin to a game of checkers, as there were only a few moves each side could play. Now, the current situation, with terrorism a front-line concern, is more similar to a game of chess, where “a pawn can take a king,” Reed said.
The Bush administration, however, has gone too far in extending the threat of pre-emptive action to every country the United States has some sort of conflict with, which disrupts the strategy’s usefulness against terrorism, Reed said. He warned that other countries might take a similar approach to the use of pre-emptive action, noting the support Indian officials have offered because of the value of possible pre-emptive action against Pakistan.
WMD Proliferation
The threat of pre-emptive action could also help increase the risk of WMD proliferation, rather than reduce it, Reed said. For example, North Korea has cited what it perceives as threatening comments by the United States, such as its inclusion in the “axis of evil” as a rationale for the relaunch of its nuclear program.
Another proliferation concern is the lack of adequate funding for U.S. nonproliferation programs, such as the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, Reed said. While such programs were virtually stalled during the first two years of the Bush administration, due to a review and lack of certification, the White House now appears to be taking the issue more seriously and there is an increased momentum, he said (see GSN, Jan. 28).
Reed suggested that Bush, as a Republican president, might be able to achieve more success with arms control against a resistant Republican-led Congress, akin to a “Nixon goes to China” moment. A number of Bush appointees, however, seem to view the concept of arms control itself as failed, he said.
International Cooperation
The United States also needs to work to develop an international consensus to address the threats of terrorism and WMD proliferation, which should be done through international organizations, Reed said (see GSN, Feb. 21). While the Bush administration, has shown an “ideological distrust” of such organizations, it needs to recognize that security requires more collective action and not less, he added.
International cooperation is especially needed to address proliferation concerns, Reed said. He noted that arms control treaties often use measures such as sanctions, which would require international cooperation for enforcement, as a method of enforcing compliance.
The Bush administration has also made it more difficult to obtain international cooperation and support through its penchant for abandoning treaties, such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Reed said (see GSN, June 13, 2002). Such a stance sends a signal to the international community that the United States does not need its assistance, when in fact, it should be asking for it, he said.
The apparent lack of respect for treaties also damages U.S. credibility when Washington is attempting to persuade other countries to abide by such agreements, Reed said. For example, the United States lacks credibility in attempting to convince India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons, when it has itself failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, he said (see GSN, Feb. 21).
As the U.N. Security Council meets today to begin discussions over a U.S.-British resolution against Iraq, chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said yesterday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still has not made a “fundamental decision” to comply with inspections (see GSN, Feb. 26).
Blix did say he welcomed several recent letters from Iraq that contained new information about its weapons programs, but he added that these did not represent “full cooperation or a breakthrough.” Blix made his comments prior to delivering a 16-page report on the status of inspections to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The report had been due Saturday (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Feb. 27).
“We have a very long list of disarmament issues and it will require a big effort in order to clarify all of those,” Blix said. “I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision (to disarm), but there is some evidence of some increased activity. There is certainly more activity now,” he added.
A source close to Blix described the Iraqi letters, which contained information on the discovery of documents related to the destruction of prohibited items and the discovery of a R-400 bomb, as “peanuts” (James Bone, London Times, Feb. 27).
Competing Security Council Measures
Meanwhile, the Security Council is scheduled to meet behind closed doors today to begin discussions on both the British-introduced resolution on Iraq and a French-German-Russian counterproposal to extend the inspections process, according to Agence France-Presse. A vote on the resolution is not expected until at least mid-March (Robert Holloway, Agence France-Presse, Feb. 27).
Canada proposed Tuesday that the council give Iraq until March 31 to fully comply with inspections, or then authorize military action, according to the National Post.
The proposal was contained in a two-page document that Canadian U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker privately gave to council members. The proposal calls for inspectors to prioritize Iraq’s remaining disarmament tasks and to provide time frames to be used as benchmarks. The council would receive weekly briefings throughout March, with a “final report” on March 28, the Post reported.
The Canadian proposal offers a timetable for continued inspections past the end of March only if inspectors report to the council “substantial Iraqi compliance” in the March 28 briefing, according to the Post. “If the inspectors have reported continued Iraqi evasion, all necessary means could be used to force them to disarm,” the proposal says.
U.S. officials did not comment on the Canadian proposal. Council diplomats who side with the U.S.-British stance on Iraq, however, reacted with caution.
“There is a certain amount of appeal in somehow combining the U.S.-U.K.-Spanish proposal and the French-Russian-German proposal,” said a diplomat. “But I am not sure they are combinable. The Canadian one has the advantage over the French of actually having a sense of urgency. But it isn’t really gripping the core problem of Iraq’s failure to comply. It is trying to put the burden on the inspectors,” the diplomat added.
The Canadian proposal also failed to find overwhelming support among French and German diplomats. They said they objected to the establishment of any deadlines.
“I don’t see how this would bridge the gap,” said a diplomat supportive of the French-German position. “We are not in favor of any type of deadline or showdown,” the diplomat added (Steven Edwards, National Post, Feb. 26).
French President Jacques Chirac yesterday once again reiterated his country’s firm opposition to a new U.N. resolution seeking to authorize military action against Iraq.
“We are opposed to every new resolution,” Chirac said. “We have a common goal of eliminating the arms of mass destruction in Iraq, but we do not share the same view on the means to attain this goal,” he added (Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, Feb. 27).
U.S. Diplomatic Efforts
The United States might be having more luck in persuading Russia, another permanent council member, to support the new resolution, according to the Washington Post. Russian lawmaker Mikhail Margelov, as well as other sources, said yesterday that Russia would probably not veto the new resolution.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has informed U.S. President George W. Bush and other senior U.S. officials that he does not believe war with Iraq is necessary, officials said, but Putin has also indicated, that Russia would not block such action.
“Putin tries to think strategically and longer-term: ‘Whose side do I want to be on when the dust settles,’” a U.S. official said, adding that the White House has made clear to Putin the importance of the Iraqi issue (Slevin/LaFraniere, Washington Post, Feb. 27).
The United States also appears to be making headway among the nonpermanent members of the Security Council, according to the Los Angeles Times. Pakistan indicated to the United States yesterday that it would support the new resolution on Iraq, U.S. and Pakistani officials said.
“We are very good allies of the United States and value our relationship and want to see that blossom,” a senior Pakistani official said in an interview with the Times. “The issue of Iraq will not become a problem between us,” the official added.
There are concerns that Pakistan’s support for a war against Iraq could lead to a rise in domestic unrest, which could be reduced if U.N. inspectors find Iraq in material breach of its obligations, the senior Pakistani official said. Even without this, however, Pakistan will still support the resolution, the official added.
“It’ll help us politically to have U.N. inspectors come back and say Iraq is in final material breach. But will the (Pakistani) government fall if this does not happen? No,” a second Pakistani official said. “A lot of American flags are being burnt, but we can weather that,” the official added.
The United States has not attempted to buy Pakistan’s support, such as through increased economic aid, Pakistani officials said.
“We are not asking any price for our support. The U.S. has not leaned on us. We have a principled position. We’re aware of each other’s point of view and agreed on what Iraq has to do,” the senior official said (Farley/Wright, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 27).
One way Bush could increase support for the U.S. position on Iraq among European leaders is by keeping a tighter rein on U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar said yesterday.
Rumsfeld has often been the focus of European opposition to the U.S. position on Iraq, according to the Wall Street Journal. Rumsfeld has come under criticism for a number of remarks, such as by comparing Germany to Libya and Cuba because of Berlin’s approach to the Iraq crisis.
“I did tell the president that we need a lot of (U.S. Secretary of State Colin) Powell and not much of Rumsfeld,” said Aznar, who met with Bush over the weekend at his Texas ranch. “Ministers of defense should talk less, shouldn’t they? The more Powell speaks and the less Rumsfeld speaks, that wouldn’t be a bad thing altogether,” he added (Kempe/Vitzthum, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 27).
Blair Survives Internal Dissent
British lawmakers yesterday approved a government-sponsored motion supporting Prime Minister Tony Blair’s approach to the Iraq situation. More than 100 lawmakers from Blair’s own Labor Party, however, failed to side with him in the vote, according to the Associated Press.
The British House of Commons voted 434-124 in favor of a motion supporting Blair’s efforts to resolve the Iraq situation through the United Nations and calling on Iraq “to recognize this as its final opportunity” to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction.
British lawmakers also voted yesterday 393-199 against an amendment to the motion that said “the case for military action against Iraq (is) as yet unproven.” In that vote, 122 Labor members supported the amendment, making it the largest internal revolt since the party took control, AP reported.
The House of Commons will get another opportunity to vote on military action if the conflict with Iraq continues to escalate, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said. Such a vote might have to occur after a conflict begins, however, in order to maintain the safety of British troops in the region, he added (Beth Gardiner, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Feb. 27).
Inspections
U.N. inspectors visited at least 11 suspect Iraqi sites yesterday, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency press release.
Biological experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission visited al-Aziziyah Range, where they inspected excavated munitions and fragments and conducted an aerial survey. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors traveled to al-Muthana site, where they resumed the destruction of mustard gas-filled artillery shells. UNMOVIC chemical inspectors also visited the Dar al-Salam Sulphuric acid facility and al-Naif Sulphonic Acid facility.
An UNMOVIC missile inspections team visited al-Shika Company to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and to establish a comprehensive monitoring system. A second missile team inspected and tagged equipment that had been previously destroyed by inspectors, but later rebuilt, at al-Amin Factory. Inspectors then traveled to al-Basil Company to tag a piece of equipment there that had been previously destroyed by inspectors but was later rebuilt.
Inspectors based in the northern city of Mosul visited two sites — the Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Unit in Mosul and the Badush Cement Factory, the IAEA release said.
IAEA inspectors visited the Ibn al-Beythar Research Center in the Taji area, north of Baghdad. They also conducted a radiation survey in the Zafaraniya area of Baghdad (IAEA release, Feb. 26).
For further information, see:
UNMOVIC
IAEA Iraq Action Team
U.N. Resolution 1441
Experts from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have conducted hundreds of inspections in Iraq since resuming the post-Gulf War inspection regime Nov. 27. More than 200 U.N. personnel, including about 100 inspectors, are now based in the country at two facilities in Baghdad and Mosul. The following chart summarizes some of the inspectors’ recently reported activities.
| Date | Site | Activity | | Feb. 27. | Al-Aziziyah Range | UNMOVIC biological inspectors inspected excavated munitions and fragments and conducted an aerial survey (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Al-Muthana | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors resumed the destruction of mustard gas-filled artillery shells (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Dar al-Salam Sulphuric acid facility | See GSN, Feb. 27. | | Al-Naif Sulphonic Acid facility | | Al-Shika Company | UNMOVIC missile inspectors worked to verify Iraq’s declaration of the site and to establish a comprehensive monitoring system (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Al-Amin Factory | UNMOVIC missile inspectors inspected and tagged equipment that had been previously destroyed by inspectors, but later rebuilt (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Al-Basil Company | UNMOVIC missile inspectors tagged piece of equipment there that had been previously destroyed by inspectors but was later rebuilt (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Unit in Mosul | See GSN, Feb. 27. | | Badush Cement Factory | | Ibn al-Beythar Research Center in the Taji area, north of Baghdad | | Zafaraniya area of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 27). | | Feb. 25 | Al-Rasheed Company | See GSN, Feb. 26. | | Al-Fatah Factory | | Electronic Base factory | | Al-Kadhimiya Company | | Al-Qa Qaa Storage | | Al-Falha Egg Production Company | | Baji underground refinery | | Department of Food Technology of the College of Agriculture and Forestry at Mosul University | | Department of Plant Protection of the College of Agriculture and Forestry at Mosul University | | Khalil customs post | | Mosul Ammunition Storage Facility | | Al Tahdi electronics research and electrical repair factory | | Nida | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 26). | | Feb. 24 | Al-Rasheed Company | See GSN, Feb. 25. | | Al-Qaid Factory | | Al-Eyz State Company | | Al-Mutasim Factory | | Baghdad Institute of Technology | UNMOVIC chemical inspectors conducted a rebaselining inspection (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Airfield southwest of Baghdad | See GSN, Feb. 25. | | Munitions test range southwest of Baghdad | | Old munitions destruction site | UNMOVIC biological inspectors inspected munitions fragments (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Environmental Engineering Laboratory at Mosul University’s Department of Civil Engineering | See GSN, Feb. 25. | | Mosul Airfield | UNMOVIC biological inspectors inspected shelters and bunkers related to the site (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Area southwest of Baghdad | IAEA inspectors conducted a car-borne radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Al-Midlad State Company | IAEA inspectors inspected the use of high-strength magnets at the sites (see GSN, Feb. 25). | | Al-Karama | | Al-Razzi State Company | | Al-Yarmook | | Missile engine and guidance system production plant | See GSN, Feb. 24. | | Missile engine and guidance system production plant | | Chemical and explosives plant | | Anti-aircraft missile maintenance facility | | Feb. 23 | Al-Rafah | UNMOVIC missile inspectors observed a static test of an al-Samoud 2 missile (see GSN, Feb. 24). | | Al-Quadissiya | See GSN, Feb. 24. | | Al-Melad | | Al-Murage Company for Perfume Production in Baghdad | | Tabook State Company, formerly known as the Karbala Ammunition Filling Plant | | Veterinary College at Mosul University in Mosul | | Ninevah Food Industrial Company in Mosul | | Al-Muthanna area | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (see GSN, Feb. 24). | | Feb. 22 | Ibn al-Haytahm | UNMOVIC missile inspectors inventoried al-Samoud 2 missile components and subassemblies (IAEA release, Feb. 22). | | Undisclosed area | UNMOVIC missile inspectors inspected the remains of a liquid engine propellant test stand and tagged two pieces of manufacturing equipment (IAEA release, Feb. 22). | | Al-Nasser | IAEA release, Feb. 22. | | Iraqi Army Liquid Propellant Analytical Laboratory in west Baghdad | | Research center in the Baghdad area | UNMOVIC biological inspectors observed the destruction of a small amount of previously monitored out-of-date bacterial growth media (IAEA release, Feb. 22). | | Testing laboratory in the Baghdad area | | Yarmouk GE Site area | IAEA inspectors conducted a radiation survey (IAEA release, Feb. 25). | | Al-Kadessiya General Establishment | IAEA release, Feb. 22. | | Al-Nahrawan munitions factory | | Feb. 21 | Musaayib Power Station | UNMOVIC missile inspectors checked for possible storage of missile-related items (IAEA release, Feb. 21). | | Area west of Baghdad | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted an aerial inspection of an undisclosed site (IAEA release, Feb. 21). | | Area northwest of Baghdad | UNMOVIC biological inspectors conducted an aerial inspection of an undisclosed site (IAEA release, Feb. 21). | | Feb. 14-20 | See GSN, Feb. 21. | |
 |
U.S. officials confirmed yesterday that North Korea has restarted its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, as it indicated it would do earlier this month (see GSN, Feb. 6).
“North Korea started its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. It had been closed since 1994,” said a U.S. official. “This is certainly less provocative than starting up the reprocessing facility, but it is significant nonetheless,” the official added, referring to an adjoining facility capable of removing weapons-usable plutonium from the reactor’s spent fuel (Andrew Buncombe, London Independent, Feb. 27).
“We have no evidence the reprocessor has started up yet,” a senior U.S. official told the New York Times (see GSN, Jan. 31). “Either they are stopping just short of that, or they are waiting to turn the screws once again,” the official added (David Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 27).
The White House criticized the development. “With each step it takes to advance its nuclear capability, North Korea further isolates itself from the international community,” said White House spokesman Sean McCormack.
GlobalSecurity.org, an online think tank, has posted satellite photographs of Yongbyon on its Web site, including two January pictures that show test runs of the coal-fueled plant that powers the nuclear reactor.
“They are getting close to the top of the escalation ladder. There’s not much more they can do without provoking a U.S. military strike,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org.
A strike on the nuclear reactor would not entail serious radiological problems, Pike said, because the spent fuel is not highly radioactive. However, if North Korea reactivated the reprocessing facility and the United States attacked it, the consequences could be much more severe.
“If it was bombed, and the fuel in it was dispersed, it could create a mini-Chernobyl, and I underline the word ‘mini’ because Chernobyl was dozens of times larger,” Pike said (John Donnelly, Boston Globe, Feb. 27).
The reactor at Yongbyon could turn out enough spent fuel in one year to produce about 13 pounds of plutonium, enough to make a single nuclear weapon, according to experts (Diamond/Nichols, USA Today, Feb. 27).
Diplomacy Continues
After meeting today in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov issued a joint statement urging a peaceful resolution to the crisis and expressing their support for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
“The two sides pointed out that an equal and constructive dialogue between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will be of great significance to resolving the ‘D.P.R.K.’s nuclear issue’ and realizing the normalization of U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations,” the statement said (Xinhua News Agency/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 27).
Expert Says North Korea Threat Overblown
The nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs of North Korea are not nearly as sophisticated as often portrayed, therefore there is a window of opportunity to resume talks to halt the programs before they pose a more serious threat to regional stability, a nongovernmental nuclear expert said yesterday in New York.
“The reality of the North Korean threat has been greatly exaggerated in certain respects, certainly in terms of their capability to have nuclear weapons, to put them on missiles, to target them and shoot them,” said Robert Alvarez of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
“I think we have reasonable period to time to get back on track. But time’s a wasting,” he said. “Technically speaking,” if North Korea immediately decided to start producing plutonium, “it could probably happen in a period of several months” and “meaningful amounts [could be produced] in about one year,” said Alvarez at a news conference that included satellite photographs of uranium and plutonium plants and missile sites.
Referring to the possibility that North Korea might take uranium from its reactor and transfer it to a reprocessing site to produce weapon-grade plutonium, he said, “It’s the crossing of that threshold that really is the important issue … Once you get to that point it’s almost a point of no return.”
He said North Korea probably would not take “tangible steps” towards reprocessing, he said, because “they recognize what an important bargaining chip this really is.” However it could happen if “pushing and shoving continues,” said Alvarez. “Then there would be the very real possibility of life with a nuclear-armed, starving North Korea,” he added.
Alvarez, who was an adviser on North Korea at the Energy Department during the Clinton administration, said the Bush administration’s policy of isolating the country is not working. “If the United States persists in its heavy handed isolation, the collapse of a heavily armed North Korea will have a very serious impact on political stability in this region and also on the nonproliferation regime,” he said.
He said the Agreed Framework of 1994 “should not be terminated. We’re in a situation where the policy of isolation is merely fueling and escalating confrontation.” That agreement involved North Korea halting its nuclear program — which it says is for energy production — in exchange for fuel oil and assistance in building light-water reactors that are more “proliferation resistant.” That agreement is at the point of collapse with both the United States and North Korea accusing the other of violating its provisions.
“There is so much animus against the Agreed Framework” that it would be difficult to resurrect it, Alvarez said. The best choice may be to “come up with something else that looks like the Agreed Framework and then go 10 steps backwards … it beats where we’re heading right now.”
Alvarez said neither the nuclear weapons nor missile programs are the imminent threat they are often portrayed as being. Both the North’s uranium-powered nuclear reactor and the reprocessing complex that extracts weapon-grade plutonium from uranium fuel rods are based on designs from the 1950s, he said.
The North’s short-range missiles are based on Soviet Scuds from the 1980s, said Alvarez. He showed satellite photographs that he said showed the launch sites for the Nodong longer-range missiles are at the end of dirt roads and lack basic infrastructure. Missiles have to be moved to the site in parts, assembled and then fired, he added. He called the Nodong “the poor man’s ballistic missile.” The missile billed as able to reach the western United States might be able to hit “one of the islands off of Alaska, but that’s about it,” he added (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Feb. 27).
For further information, see:
Agreed Framework Text
KEDO
By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire
Economic concerns are driving Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran and the assistance will most likely continue unabated unless the United States makes an effort to compensate Moscow for the business it would lose, according to Russian and U.S. lawmakers (see GSN, Dec. 16, 2002).
Russia is currently assisting Tehran with the construction of a nuclear reactor at the southern city of Bushehr, which Iranian officials said is being developed for civilian energy needs. Earlier this month, Iran announced it has expanded its nuclear efforts and will begin mining its own uranium. A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency recently visited Iran to examine its nuclear efforts (see GSN, Feb. 24).
U.S. officials, however, have alleged that Iran is using the facilities to develop a nuclear weapons program. Russian officials concur that they do not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, but have argued that Russian assistance has served strictly peaceful purposes.
“We definitely do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons,” said Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Margelov testified yesterday to the U.S. House International Relations Committee regarding Russian relations with Iran and Iraq.
“I would like to stress here that our nuclear sector needs contracts and if the United States of America, if other Russian partners and antiterrorist coalitions can offer such contracts, that can be good for our nuclear industry, that will, I think, limit its cooperation with Iran. They have to survive, so try to help them,” he said.
Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) said that he had discussed that issue with Russian nuclear officials.
“We do realize that your nuclear industry needs to survive and there are certainly more creative ways of achieving that survival than to close our eyes to exports to Iran, which we view as extremely, extremely dangerous and destabilizing,” Lantos said.
Faced with a string of congressional criticism of Russia’s collaboration with Iran, Margelov criticized Washington for oversimplifying the situation. He said the “axis of evil” label — affixed by U.S. President George W. Bush to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea — was a public relations tool.
“In the United States, these countries are often defined as ‘axis of evil.’ I used to be much involved in the Soviet propaganda machine. Lately I worked for some American consulting companies, for at least five years. Therefore, I understand that directly defining the enemy facilitates many goals, particularly in the sphere of public relations,” Margelov said.
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton visited Moscow this week and urged Russian officials to end their nuclear relationship with Iran. The Los Angeles Times quoted a U.S. official as saying that recent revelations of Iranian nuclear facilities were creating concern in Moscow.
“They are now more persuaded than they were before that Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weapons program,” the official said. “I think for some time the Russians felt that Iranians can’t develop a nuclear weapons program. I think they’re beginning to see that in fact they are,” the official added.
During a Heritage Foundation panel yesterday, several nonproliferation experts said any nuclear cooperation with Iran was fraught with danger.
The Iranian nuclear projects are “very disturbing, even if they are placed under inspection,” said Leonard Spector, from the Washington office of the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Drawing a parallel with the current North Korean nuclear crisis, Spector said the nuclear projects allow Iran to expel inspectors and quickly move toward developing nuclear weapons.
“One has to ask why Russia was prepared to provide such a powerful reactor … where is this leading?” Spector asked.
“This is one of the issues that puts Russian credibility on the line,” said Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who participated in both the congressional hearing and the Heritage panel.
Cohen also encouraged an economic solution to the situation.
“We should be considering an economic package that will bring to closure Russian nuclear cooperation with Iran, will provide full disclosure of private prior cooperation and will finalize a list of unstable or terrorist-supporting countries that the Russians should not sell nuclear, dual-use or military technology,” he said.
It remained unclear if an end to Russian cooperation would stop Iran’s nuclear program. Countries other than Russia are most likely assisting Iran as well, and Tehran could be close to running the nuclear effort on its own, experts said.
Running a nuclear plant is not easy and current unclassified information suggests that Iran still needs outside assistance, Spector said.
U.S. intelligence agencies, however, do not share their latest reports with the public, he added.
Panel members also criticized Moscow for being shortsighted in its nuclear cooperation. The same nuclear technology Moscow is currently sharing could be widely proliferated and eventually aimed at Russia, Cohen said.
While Margelov told the House committee that Iran is an “important regional partner,” Russian relations with Iran are not always harmonious, several experts said.
This is “an anomalous period in the Russian-Iranian relationship,” said panel member Michael Eisenstadt, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Eisenstadt noted, however, that the Bushehr project has taken about twice as long as was originally intended and is not due to be completed for several years. Russia, he suggested, might be attempting to make money from the project without providing Iran a nuclear capability.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if this drags on,” he said.
Classified U.S. nuclear threat reports indicate that rogue states and terrorist groups have learned that they can make nuclear weapons with low-enriched uranium or materials obtained from spent nuclear fuel, USA Today reported today (see GSN, Feb. 12).
Historically, international efforts have sought to limit the spread of nuclear weapons by focusing on strictly controlling two hard-to-make materials, highly enriched uranium and plutonium, according to USA Today.
Five years ago, however, scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory were able to design a small nuclear weapon using low-enriched uranium, USA Today reported. The weapon had the capability to destroy a square mile of a city.
Interested parties could obtain LEU from research reactors, of which many use uranium containing le | |
Back to top
