DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy January 2013 Acknowledgments The co-chairs of the Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy thank the following for their assistance with various aspects of the Project roundtables and report: David Barnett, Beth Singer Design LLC, Toby Dershowitz, Erin Elfrink, Laura Grossman, Jamie Kamlet, Chen Kane, Elizabeth Kittrie, Galia Nurko, Lolan O’Rourke, Debbie Rubin, Jonathan Schanzer, Abram Shanedling, Andrea Stricker, and Christina Walrond. For inquiries, contact [email protected] © Copyright 2013, The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy Co-Chairs: David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector, Michael Yaffe January 2013 • Washington, D.C. U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy Co-Chairs: David Albright, Mark Dubowitz, Orde Kittrie, Leonard Spector, Michael Yaffe January 2013 • Washington, D.C. ABOUT THE CO-CHAIRS David Albright, a physicist, is Founder and President of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. He has written numerous assessments on secret nuclear weapons programs throughout the world. Mr. Albright has testified many times on nuclear issues before the U.S. Congress and advised many gov- ernments. He cooperated actively with the IAEA Action Team on Iraq in the 1990s. The media frequently cite Albright, and he has appeared often on television and radio. He is an American Physical Society (APS) Fellow. Prior to founding ISIS, he worked as a Senior Staff Scientist at the Federation of American Scientists and as a member of the research staff of Princeton University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Mr. Albright is the author of Peddling Peril: How the Secret Nuclear Arms Trade Arms America’s Enemies (Simon & Schuster, 2010). Mark Dubowitz is the Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a non-partisan policy institute based in Washington, D.C. His policy work focuses on Iran and Syria, sanctions, nonproliferation, and the use of technology to encourage democratic change. Mr. Dubowitz has testified before the U.S. Congress on Iran sanctions issues and advised the U.S. government and foreign policymakers. Mr. Dubowitz heads FDD’s Iran sanctions project, which provides research and analysis on energy and financial sanctions and tracks the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Mr. Dubowitz also directs FDD’s Iran human rights project, which provides research on human rights sanctions. He co-leads FDD’s work on sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad and is a founding member of the FDD Syria Working Group. ii U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East Orde Kittrie is a tenured Professor of Law in the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where he is affiliated with the McCain Institute for International Leadership, and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Professor Kittrie has testified on nonproliferation issues before both houses of Congress and served on a special National Academies of Science committee, created by Congress, to make recommendations on how to improve U.S. nuclear, chemical and biological weapon nonproliferation programs. From 2008 to 2012, he chaired the Nonproliferation, Arms Control & Disarmament committee of the American Society of International Law. Prior to entering academia, Mr. Kittrie served for eleven years (1993- 2004) at the U.S. State Department. As the Department’s lead nuclear affairs attorney for three years, Kittrie participated in negotiating five U.S.-Russia nuclear agreements and a U.N. treaty to combat nuclear terrorism. In other assignments at the State Department, Mr. Kittrie directed the Office of International Anti-Crime Programs and was the lead attorney for arms and dual-use trade controls. Leonard Spector is Deputy Director of the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), and leads the Center’s Washington, D.C. office. Mr. Spector joined CNS from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), where he served as an Assistant Deputy Administrator for Arms Control and Nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Prior to his ten- ure at DOE, Mr. Spector served as Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Director of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Project. Earlier in his career, he served as Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Energy and Proliferation Subcommittee, where he assisted in drafting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. Michael Yaffe is a Professor and former Academic Dean at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University. Prior to joining the NESA Center in 2001, Dr. Yaffe was a career Foreign Affairs Officer in the U.S. Department of State where he concentrated on Middle East regional security and weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation. He served on U.S. delegations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory and Review Conferences, Madrid Middle East Peace Process’s Arms Control and Regional Security Working Group, General Conferences of the International Atomic Energy Agency, NATO, Conference on Disarmament, and other international forums. About the Co-Chairs iii Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE CHALLENGES FOR U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST 23 CHAPTER 2: IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM 24 A. Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Context 26 B. Next Steps in Economic Sanctions 26 1. Sanctions and Iran’s Nuclear Policy 28 2. Iran’s Nuclear Program Is Moving Ahead 31 3. Sanctions Have Had a Major Impact on Iran’s Economy But Have Not Altered Iran’s Nuclear Course 34 4. Additional Sanctions Necessary to Change Iran’s Nuclear Course 34 a. Existing U.S. sanctions on Iran must be implemented with much greater intensity and impact 35 b. The U.S. government should announce its intention to use sanctions to impose a de facto international embargo on all investments in, and trade with, Iran (other than provision of humanitarian goods) if Iran does not comply with applicable UN Security Council resolutions 37 c. If the U.S. government is unwilling to immediately announce its intention to use sanctions to impose a comprehensive trade embargo on Iran, the United States should, at a minimum, take other immediate steps 43 d. Continue working to ensure that implementation of sanctions on Iran does not inadvertently block the provision to Iran of humanitarian goods 45 C. Options for Next Steps to Constrain Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Programs 45 1. Enhancing Constraints on Supply of Goods Iran Needs for Its Nuclear and Missile Programs 45 a. Strengthen the U.N. Iran Sanctions Committee and its panel of experts 46 b. Encourage improved implementation by China 51 c. Encouraged improved implementation by Turkey 52 d. Improved implementation by other countries of transit concern 53 e. Further restrictions on Iranian access to the international financial system 54 f. Improved detection and disruption of procurement efforts 56 g. Careful monitoring of Iran’s plutonium options 57 2. Enhancing Covert Efforts to Delay and Constrain Improvement of Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Capabilities 57 a. Intelligence operations aimed at information gathering on program’s status 58 b. Sabotage iv U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East 58 3. Credible Threat of Military Action 59 a. Undertake additional overt preparations for the use of warplanes and/or missiles to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities with high explosives, so as to reinforce the credibility of this threat 60 b. Specify red lines or triggers for military action 61 c. Increase Iranian isolation, including through regime change in Syria 62 d. Potential Israeli air strike against Iran 62 4. If We Wake Up One Morning and Discover Iran Has Acquired a Nuclear Weapon Despite Our Best Efforts, What Will Be the Best Options for Attempting to Deter Its Use? What Steps Should Be Taken Now to Facilitate Those Deterrence Options? 63 a. U.S. policy should be to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon 65 b. Several deterrence-maximizing steps should be taken now in case Iran ends up acquiring a nuclear weapon despite U.S. best efforts 67 5. Negotiations, Incentives, and Concessions: What Would Constitute an Acceptable Deal? 73 CHAPTER 3: PROLIFERATION BY STATE ACTORS (OTHER THAN IRAN) IN THE MIDDLE EASt—ChALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 74 A. Overview 76 B. Reduce demand 76 1. Reinforce peaceful orientation of nuclear power programs in region 76 2. Reinforce United States security commitments 77 C. Control supply 77 1. Expand adherence to IAEA Additional Protocol and tighten United States nuclear cooperation agreements to preclude enrichment and reprocessing in the Middle East 79 2. Enhance Middle Eastern governments’ capacities to combat illicit trade in WMD-related technologies and materials and to protect against WMD 79 a. Establishment of a regional network of national WMD law enforcement coordinators 79 b. The United States also should create and promote mechanisms for facilitating interaction among the regional parties, the United States, and other exporting states on regulatory and law enforcement issues related to strategic trade and controlling sensitive dual-use goods 79 c. The United States should more vigorously encourage and assist regional governments to develop and implement effective laws and systems for preventing the proliferation of WMD, their means of delivery, and related materials 80 3. Cultivate a culture of nonproliferation responsibility and cooperation throughout the Middle East at the official level and in civil society and the private sector 80 4. Expand the scope of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) 80 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Revisiting South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program
    REVISITING SOUTH AFRICA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM ITS HISTORY, DISMANTLEMENT, AND LESSONS FOR TODAY Institute for Science and International Security The Institute for Science and International Security is a non- profit, non- partisan institution dedicated to informing the public about science and policy issues affecting international security. Its primary focus is on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to additional nations and to terrorists, bringing about greater transparency of nuclear activities worldwide, strengthening the international non- proliferation regime, and achieving deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. Copyright © 2016 by Institute for Science and International Security Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) Press 440 1st Street NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20001 USA www.isis- online.org @TheGoodISIS Library of Congress Control Number: 2016912653 CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform North Charleston, SC ISBN-13: 978-1536845655 ISBN-10: 1536845655 Front cover photograph credits: Armscor and Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa Limited. All unsourced photos in the book are from David Albright. REVISITING SOUTH AFRICA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM ITS HISTORY, DISMANTLEMENT, AND LESSONS FOR TODAY DAVID ALBRIGHT WITH ANDREA STRICKER institute for science and international security june 2016 Dedicated to all those who strive for a world free of nuclear weapons. CONTENTS Preface, ix Acknowledgements, xi Chapter 1: Laying the Foundation, 1 Chapter 2: Developing Nuclear Devices,
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon's Antitrust Paradox
    LINA M. KHAN Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox abstract. Amazon is the titan of twenty-first century commerce. In addition to being a re- tailer, it is now a marketing platform, a delivery and logistics network, a payment service, a credit lender, an auction house, a major book publisher, a producer of television and films, a fashion designer, a hardware manufacturer, and a leading host of cloud server space. Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and ex- pand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e- commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny. This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competi- tion to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the ar- chitecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive. These concerns are height- ened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have re- warded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.
    [Show full text]
  • Imports-Exports Enterprise’: Understanding the Nature of the A.Q
    Not a ‘Wal-Mart’, but an ‘Imports-Exports Enterprise’: Understanding the Nature of the A.Q. Khan Network Strategic Insights , Volume VI, Issue 5 (August 2007) by Bruno Tertrais Strategic Insights is a bi-monthly electronic journal produced by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of NPS, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Introduction Much has been written about the A.Q. Khan network since the Libyan “coming out” of December 2003. However, most analysts have focused on the exports made by Pakistan without attempting to relate them to Pakistani imports. To understand the very nature of the network, it is necessary to go back to its “roots,” that is, the beginnings of the Pakistani nuclear program in the early 1970s, and then to the transformation of the network during the early 1980s. Only then does it appear clearly that the comparison to a “Wal-Mart” (the famous expression used by IAEA Director General Mohammed El-Baradei) is not an appropriate description. The Khan network was in fact a privatized subsidiary of a larger, State-based network originally dedicated to the Pakistani nuclear program. It would be much better characterized as an “imports-exports enterprise.” I. Creating the Network: Pakistani Nuclear Imports Pakistan originally developed its nuclear complex out in the open, through major State-approved contracts. Reprocessing technology was sought even before the launching of the military program: in 1971, an experimental facility was sold by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) in 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
    Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Paul K. Kerr Analyst in Nonproliferation Mary Beth Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation August 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34248 Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Summary Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal probably consists of approximately 110-130 nuclear warheads, although it could have more. Islamabad is producing fissile material, adding to related production facilities, and deploying additional nuclear weapons and new types of delivery vehicles. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is widely regarded as designed to dissuade India from taking military action against Pakistan, but Islamabad’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal, development of new types of nuclear weapons, and adoption of a doctrine called “full spectrum deterrence” have led some observers to express concern about an increased risk of nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India, which also continues to expand its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan has in recent years taken a number of steps to increase international confidence in the security of its nuclear arsenal. Moreover, Pakistani and U.S. officials argue that, since the 2004 revelations about a procurement network run by former Pakistani nuclear official A.Q. Khan, Islamabad has taken a number of steps to improve its nuclear security and to prevent further proliferation of nuclear-related technologies and materials. A number of important initiatives, such as strengthened export control laws, improved personnel security, and international nuclear security cooperation programs, have improved Pakistan’s nuclear security. However, instability in Pakistan has called the extent and durability of these reforms into question. Some observers fear radical takeover of the Pakistani government or diversion of material or technology by personnel within Pakistan’s nuclear complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of David Albright, President of the Institute for Science And
    Testimony of David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security, before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Committee of Oversight and Government Reform Assessing the Iran Deal: Examining Iranian Non-Compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 April 5, 2017 The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) needs to be implemented more effectively and its nuclear conditions strengthened and better verified. A critical part of that effort is to determine the type and extent of Iranian non-compliance with provisions in the JCPOA and associated United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2231. The deal’s implementation under the Obama administration was too permissive and tolerant of Iran’s violations of the deal, its exploitation of loopholes, and its avoidance of critical verification requirements. The result was that Iran was able to push the envelope of allowed behavior in directions harmful to U.S. national security. Too often, the Obama administration made concessions, tolerated cheating, or avoided strengthening steps out of a misplaced fear that Iran would walk away from the deal or that somehow President Rouhani’s presidency needed protecting. This led to absurd situations where U.S. officials badgered European JCPOA country officials to support initiatives clearly favoring Iran that were contrary to their own views and interests. One must ask based on the JCPOA’s implementation so far, why have the deal in the first place if verification steps or strengthening measures have been avoided for fear of the JCPOA failing? Until today, the Trump administration has continued to implement the deal.
    [Show full text]
  • Monopolizing Free Speech
    Fordham Law Review Volume 88 Issue 4 Article 3 2020 Monopolizing Free Speech Gregory Day University of Georgia Terry College of Business Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Gregory Day, Monopolizing Free Speech, 88 Fordham L. Rev. 1315 (2020). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol88/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MONOPOLIZING FREE SPEECH Gregory Day* The First Amendment prevents the government from suppressing speech, though individuals can ban, chill, or abridge free expression without offending the Constitution. Hardly an unintended consequence, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously likened free speech to a marketplace where the responsibility of rejecting dangerous, repugnant, or worthless speech lies with the people. This supposedly maximizes social welfare on the theory that the market promotes good ideas and condemns bad ones better than the state can. Nevertheless, there is a concern that large technology corporations exercise unreasonable power in the marketplace of ideas. Because “big tech’s” ability to abridge speech lacks constitutional obstacles, many litigants, politicians, and commentators have recently begun to claim that the act of suppressing speech is anticompetitive and thus should offend the antitrust laws. Their theory, however, seems contrary to antitrust law.
    [Show full text]
  • Aum Shinrikyo, Al Qaeda, and the Kinshasa Reactor: Implications of Three Case Studies for Combating Nuclear Terrorism
    CHILD POLICY This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CIVIL JUSTICE service of the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE 6 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY organization providing objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SUBSTANCE ABUSE and private sectors around the world. TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. This product is part of the RAND Corporation documented briefing series. RAND documented briefings are based on research briefed to a client, sponsor, or targeted au- dience and provide additional information on a specific topic. Although documented briefings have been peer reviewed, they are not expected to be comprehensive and may present preliminary findings. Aum Shinrikyo, Al Qaeda, and the Kinshasa Reactor Implications of Three Case Studies for Combating Nuclear Terrorism Sara Daly, John Parachini, William Rosenau Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003.
    [Show full text]
  • End- Ing Us Participation in the Nuclear Agreement with Iran Hearing
    PROTECTING AMERICA FROM A BAD DEAL: END- ING U.S. PARTICIPATION IN THE NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 6, 2018 Serial No. 115–84 Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://oversight.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 31–273 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:27 Sep 20, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\31273.TXT APRIL KING-6430 with DISTILLER COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking Darrell E. Issa, California Minority Member Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Thomas Massie, Kentucky Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark Meadows, North Carolina Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Ron DeSantis, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Dennis A. Ross, Florida Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Mark Walker, North Carolina Jamie Raskin, Maryland Rod Blum, Iowa Jimmy Gomez, Maryland Jody B. Hice, Georgia Peter Welch, Vermont Steve Russell, Oklahoma Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Mark DeSaulnier, California Will Hurd, Texas Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Gary J. Palmer, Alabama John P.
    [Show full text]
  • Certifying Iran's Compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
    Research memo Certifying Iran’s Compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Understanding the Roles of the IAEA, the Joint Commission, and the United States By Tzvi Kahn1 September 2017 Introduction On August 31, major Western media outlets reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had once again certified Iran’s compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.2 This assertion, which purported to reflect the IAEA’s seventh and latest post-implementation report on Tehran’s nuclear activities, mirrors statements by the Iranian government and key world leaders in response to the agency’s previous reports. The IAEA has repeatedly affirmed “that Iran has implemented the deal faithfully, fully, and completely,” said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on July 16.3 Federica Mogherini, the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, said on July 20 that the UN watchdog “has certified six times – not once, six times – the full implementation of the deal’s provisions.”4 These accounts are false. In fact, the IAEA has never certified Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Rather, the IAEA’s mandate with respect to the JCPOA primarily entails monitoring and reporting on Tehran’s nuclear-related actions (or lack thereof) pursuant to the JCPOA’s provisions. The determination of whether Iranian conduct constitutes compliance with the JCPOA remains the prerogative of the individual parties to the agreement: China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Iran, with the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iraqi Maze: Searching for a Way Out
    DAVID ALBRIGHT & KEVIN O’NEILL The Iraqi Maze: Searching for a Way Out DAVID ALBRIGHT & KEVIN O’NEILL David Albright, a physicist, is President of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, DC. In 1996, Albright served as an inspector on an IAEA Action Team mission to Iraq. Kevin O’Neill is the Deputy Director of ISIS. Both have published widely on nuclear nonproliferation issues. Among their most recent publications are Solving the North Korean Nuclear Puzzle (ISIS Press, 2000), and Challenges of Fissile Material Control (ISIS Press, 1999), which they jointly edited. ver a decade after the end of the 1990-91 Gulf be the likelihood that he will seek a renewed WMD capa- War, the challenge to international security posed bility both for credibility and because every other strong Oby Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass de- regime in the region either has it or is pursuing it.”3 struction (WMD) remains unresolved. Following the war, Analysts have been particularly concerned about the the UN Security Council imposed an extraordinary set of Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Michael Eisenstadt, a constraints and obligations on Iraq to ensure that it does Persian Gulf security expert at the Washington Institute not possess WMD and long-range missiles for their deliv- for Near East Policy, has pointed out that although sev- ery. Now, however, these constraints and obligations are eral Middle Eastern countries have chemical and biologi- in a state of disarray. U.S. President George W. Bush has cal weapons, nuclear
    [Show full text]
  • Iran's Nuclear Programs
    1800 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 1.202.775.3270 Fax: 1.202.775.3199 Web: www.csis.org/burke/reports Iran’s Strategic Competition with the US and Arab States – Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Capabilities Anthony H. Cordesman Abdullah Toukan Alexander Wilner Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy October 17, 2011 The Challenge of Nuclear Forces and Weapons of Mass Destruction Current & Potential Nuclear Powers 3 3 Iran’s Nuclear Programs: DNI Assessment - February 2010 The Iranian regime continues to flout UN Security Council restrictions on its nuclear program. There is a real risk that its nuclear program will prompt other countries in the Middle East to pursue nuclear options. We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. I would like to draw your attention to two examples over the past year that illustrate some of the capabilities Iran is developing. First, published information from the International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that the number of centrifuges installed at Iran’s enrichment plant at Natanz has grown significantly from about 3,000 centrifuges in late 2007 to over 8,000 currently installed. Iran has also stockpiled in that same time period approximately 1,800 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. However, according to the IAEA information, Iran also appears to be experiencing some problems at Natanz and is only operating about half of the installed centrifuges, constraining its overall ability to produce larger quantities of low-enriched uranium.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq Nuclear Chronology
    Iraq Nuclear Chronology 2009-2006 | 2005 | 2004-2003 | 2002-1992 | 1991-1990 | 1989-1980 | 1979-1956 Last update: February 2009 As of February 2009, this chronology is no longer being updated. For current developments, please see the Iraq Nuclear Overview. 2009-2006 12 February 2009 Mohammed Naji Mohammed of the United Iraqi Alliance coalition is pursing a parliamentary resolution to seek at least one billion dollars from Israel for its 1981 air strike on the Osirak reactor [Note: See NTI Israel and Iraq Nuclear Chronologies 7 June 1981]. Mohammed is using UN Security Council Resolution 487 as justification for the claim, which "considers that Iraq is entitled to redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel." —"Iraq MPs seek reparation for 1981 Israeli attack on nuclear reactor," Haaretz, 12 February 2009. 1 December 2008 President George W. Bush admits his biggest regret during his eight-year presidency is the intelligence failure that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Such accusations were central to his administration's case to invade Iraq, but later proved inaccurate. President Bush declined to comment on whether he would have gone to war if intelligence had stated that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. [Note: See NTI Nuclear Chronologies, January and February 2003]. —Suzanne Goldenberg, "Iraq my biggest regret, Bush admits," Guardian, 2 December 2008; "Bush calls flawed Iraq intelligence biggest flaw," Reuters, 1 December 2008. 19 August 2008 Iraq signs the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Iraq is the 179th state to sign the treaty, and the 21st signatory of the 26 states in the treaty-defined critical region of the Middle East and South Asia.
    [Show full text]