Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 Articles & Other Documents:

Featured Article: West Has No Evidence of Iran Atomic Bomb Program, Senior Turkish Diplomat Says

1. Israel Calls for ‘Paralyzing’ Sanctions on Iran to Contain Nuclear Weapons Strength 2. Bolton: Iranian Jamming Technology Could Be Worse News than Downed Drone 3. Analyst: Iran-Russia Ties to Further Consolidate after Putin's Return to Power 4. West Has No Evidence of Iran Atomic Bomb Program, Senior Turkish Diplomat Says 5. Iranian Official in Russia to Discuss U.S. Drone, Nuclear Issues 6. Iran to Invest in Namibia Uranium Project 7. Iran's Intelligence Chief Held Talks with Saudis 8. Foreign Minister: Resumption of Six-Party Talks Helpful for Nuclear Security Summit 9. US Envoy Says North Korea 'Must Change Behaviour' 10. N. Korea, U.S. Likely to Hold Nuclear Talks this Month: Sources 11. Black Sea Region Facing Chemical Threat 12. Swiss Nuclear Engineers Admit Involvement in Global Nuclear Weapons Trade 13. Pentagon Analyzing Chem, Bio Defense Programs 14. A Few Hacker Teams Do Most China-Based Data Theft 15. The Venezuelan Connection 16. Chávez Rejects Report Involving Venezuela In Plot Against the US 17. Why Iran Remains Defiant on the Nuclear Bomb 18. Nuclear Checkmate Threatening World 19. The Tehran, Havana, Caracas Axis in Latin America 20. A First Line of Defense 21. Peter Goodspeed: ‘Too late’ to Halt Iran from Getting Nuclear Weapon 22. Beyond Bonn II 23. Pakistan’s Nuclear Artillery? 24. Unfinished Business 25. North Korea’s Nukes

Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Al Arabiya – U.A.E. Israel Calls for ‘Paralyzing’ Sanctions on Iran to Contain Nuclear Weapons Strength Sunday, December 11, 2011 By Fredrik Dahl and Michael Shields VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran’s ruling clerics could use nuclear weapons to strengthen their grip on power and the world must urgently impose crippling sanctions to prevent them from building such arms, Israel’s defense minister Ehud Barak said on Sunday. Asked about prospects for an Israeli attack on its arch foe Iran’s nuclear sites, Barak said he still believed that it was “time for urgent, coherent, paralyzing” punitive steps targeting Iranian oil trade and its central bank. “Nothing short of this kind of sanctions will work,” Barak said, adding there was a need for a “direct attack, isolation, by the whole world” of the Iranian central bank. Speculation that Israel, which sees Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, could launch preemptive strikes against Iran was fuelled by a U.N. report last month which said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing a nuclear weapon. The Islamic Republic, which often lashes out at Israel over its assumed atomic arsenal, says allegations that it is seeking nuclear arms are based on forged evidence. Barak said he would “love to see the Arab Spring jumping over” the Gulf into Iran, referring to political upheaval in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and elsewhere over the last year. “This regime in Iran, the ayatollahs, they will be not be there I believe in 10 or 15 years. It is against the nature of the Iranian people and what happens all around the world. “But if they turn nuclear they might assure another layer of immunity, political immunity for the regime in the same way that Kim Jong-il assured his,” Barak said, referring to the North Korean leader and that country’s development of nuclear weapons. He suggested that the Libyan conflict could have taken a different course if Muammar Gaddafi had declared at the outset that “he has three or four nuclear devices”. Earlier this month, Barak said that an Israeli attack on Iran was not imminent. He has also said there were several months left in which to decide on such action. Turning to events in Palestine, he said Israel might at some stage have to “take more assertive action” in Gaza, where Palestinian fighters responded with rocket attacks on Israel after an Israeli air strike killed two Palestinians last Thursday. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/12/11/182060.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

FoxNews.com Bolton: Iranian Jamming Technology Could Be Worse News than Downed Drone December 11, 2011 By FoxNews.com

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

American officials insist that neither weaponry nor technology brought down a U.S. drone that was flying over Iranian territory earlier this month, but a former U.S. ambassador says if reports are true that Russia provided jamming equipment, the situation becomes all that much worse. "Some reports have said Russia sold (Iran) a very sophisticated jamming system a short time ago," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Fox News on Sunday. "Now, our military says that is not true, it came down because of a malfunction. I certainly hope that's right because if the Russians have provided Iran with sophisticated jamming equipment it means a lot else is at risk too." Bolton said Congress ought to be concerned if the Iranians are in possession of jamming technology that can bring down missiles, planes and communications and guidance systems "for a whole range of our weapon systems." On Sunday, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps senior commander said the regime will not return the drone, and in fact, considered the spy mission of the unmanned vehicle to be an act of war itself. "We are not the kind of country to allow our enemy to operate freely within our national security and to continue without any response, but regarding the kind of reaction we will show, our enemies will see its effects," said. Gen. Hossein Salami. The drone itself was shown on Iranian television and appears to be mainly intact, though a U.S. official told Fox News that it looks like one wing had been removed and put back on. President Obama was given different options by the Pentagon to go into Iran and either retrieve the RQ-170 or destroy it, but he declined because, sources say, he didn't want such a mission to be seen as an act of war. Bolton said that's not an adequate excuse. "The Iranians, in saying they would not give it back, said the very act of sending it over Iran was an act of war, which undercuts the Obama administration's assertion that we didn't go into try and destroy the drone after it was captured for fear of the Iranians saying exactly that. ... So while there may be a lot of good reasons not to go in that is not one." Bolton added there may be several reasons not to destroy the drone, but it's important to find out whether "the classified information and other intellectual property inside the drone was erased" before the Iranians got hold of it. "If they still got the electrons in there, that can reveal what was programmed into the drone it would be very bad news indeed," he said. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/11/bolton-iranian-jamming-technology-could-be-worse-news-than- downed-drone/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

FARS News Agency – Iran Monday, December 12, 2011 Analyst: Iran-Russia Ties to Further Consolidate after Putin's Return to Power TEHRAN (FNA) - Cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran will top the agenda of the Russian foreign ministry after Vladimir Putin's likely return to presidency, a prominent Russian academic figure stressed. Speaking to FNA, Vladimir Plaston, a lecturer at the Novosibirsk State University, said that Putin's reelection in the upcoming presidential polls will further strengthen Russia's will to expand ties with the Central Asia and the Islamic Republic Iran as this policy serves the interests of Russia and the other sides.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

He added that Putin's return to power will also "provide a previous opportunity for finding more grounds for Russia's long-term strategic cooperation with these countries. "There are abundant capacities for the expansion of Russia's ties with Iran that have not been exhausted yet," he noted. Putin pressed ahead with his bid to return to the presidency next year, filing papers to register his candidacy. In November 2011, senior officials of Iran and Russia's national security councils signed an agreement on strategic cooperation between the two countries during a meeting in Moscow. Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Undersecretary Ali Baqeri, and Undersecretary of the Russian Federation's National Security Council Yevgeny Lukyanov signed the agreement. Speaking to reporters after endorsing the agreement, Baqeri said the two sides had been working on the document for some time before it was inked. "This document includes different aspects of cooperation between the Iranian and Russian national security councils in various security, economic, political and intelligence fields," he explained. Also in November, Russia slammed the US-led West for pursuing the sanctions policy against Iran, saying intensified hostilities against Tehran are unacceptable and will only worsen chances of a negotiated solution. "Russia considers such extraterritorial measures as unacceptable and a violation of international law," Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at the time. "This will seriously complicate efforts to develop a constructive dialogue with Tehran," Zakharova said, according to the Interfax news agency. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007277123 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Ha’aretz Daily – Israel Monday, December 12, 2011 West Has No Evidence of Iran Atomic Bomb Program, Senior Turkish Diplomat Says Head of Organization of Islamic Cooperation tells Haaretz at Doha conference that Tehran has right to peaceful nuclear program, rejects military intervention. By Akiva Eldar DOHA - There's no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Prof. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the Secretary- General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) said on Monday, adding that even a recent and critical report by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog did not provide concrete of nefarious nuclear ambitions. Speaking at the Brookings Doha Center, the Turkish diplomat, who many see as a natural successor to Turkish President Abdullah Gul, also said, in response to an Haaretz query, that every country had a right to develop a peaceful nuclear program. İhsanoğlu said an outside interference was unlikely to change or alleviate the situation in Iran, citing Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan as instances in which intervention only served to hurt the citizens of those countries. However, the OIC chief urged the Arab world to increase pressure on Syria in order to end the ongoing crisis there, saying that Arab nations were successful in sparking change in Yemen, where diplomatic efforts led to a regime change.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Prof. İhsanoğlu added that the Islamic states failed to realize their intention to end the Syrian crisis, saying "promises weren’t kept, meetings were canceled." "If the regime in Syria continues to ignore pressures we'll witness more bloodshed, but eventfully no regime can ignore the will of the people," the OIC chief added. Regarding the Arab Peace Initiative, which the OIC backed 9 years ago, İhsanoğlu added that the offer was still on the table, adding that he felt it was the only way to end the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to the initiative, the Arab League proposed in March 2001, all 57 Muslim states would normalize their relations with Israel, in return for Israel withdrawing to the 1967 lines and offering a satisfactory solution for Palestinian refugees, in accordance with UN resolution 194. İhsanoğlu said he felt that Arab Spring movements would help Israel and Arab governments to resolve their differences, adding that the new governments in the Middle East express the national aspirations of the Arab people, and they sympathize with the Palestinian people. In the face of fears that the Arab Spring would lead to war, the Turkish diplomat said that "only dictators initiate wars," congratulating the Palestinian leadership for taking the initiative in its bid to join UNESCO. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/west-has-no-evidence-of-iran-atomic-bomb-program-senior- turkish-diplomat-says-1.401075 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Xinhua News – China Iranian Official in Russia to Discuss U.S. Drone, Nuclear Issues December 12, 2011 TEHRAN, Dec. 12 (Xinhua) -- Iran has sent a senior official to Moscow to meet Russian officials over the recent U.S. drone disputes as well as the nuclear issue, local Tehran Times daily reported Monday. Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, has travelled to Moscow to discuss the recent violation of Iran's airspace by a U.S. spy drone, the daily said. Iranian media reported last week that the Iranian military downed a RQ-170 U.S. reconnaissance drone aircraft in the eastern part of the country after finding that it had transgressed the eastern border. The state TV showed on Thursday the footage of the U.S. drone. Iran has urged the United Nations to condemn the U.S. drone's violation of the Iranian airspace, saying that Tehran would seek " clear and effective measures" to end such "dangerous and unlawful acts." Jalili, who is Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, will also discuss the nuclear issue with Russian officials, said Tehran Times. The West believes that Iran's nuclear program aims to produce nuclear weapons, while the Islamic republic insists that the program is for "civilian" purposes. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Friday that Moscow sees no military component in Iran's nuclear program and calls for further dialogues on the issue. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2011-12/12/c_131302004.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Press TV – Iran

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Iran to Invest in Namibia Uranium Project Monday, December 12, 2011 Iran's Industry, Mine and Commerce Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari says Iran is ready to invest in uranium mining projects and oil refineries in Namibia, Press TV reports. He said that Tehran is also ready to build a mining research center in the African country. "Unlike political ties, we have partial economic cooperation with Namibia. The Namibian officials are here to change all that. They say that the export of raw materials does not create new jobs," Ghazanfari told Press TV. "The only situation is to build processing units and mining and energy sectors. They want to fill part of this gap with the help of Iranian companies and private entities," the minister added. Namibia's Mine and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina also said that his country demanded Iranian experts to help the African state in its energy sector. "Namibia has got no much data on its minerals, therefore we need training our officials from our colleagues in Iran," he said. Namibia is the world's fourth-largest producer of uranium --accounting for 10 percent of global supply of uranium a key ingredient in the development of nuclear technology. http://presstv.com/detail/215268.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Wall Street Journal Tuesday, December 13, 2011 Iran's Intelligence Chief Held Talks with Saudis By ELLEN KNICKMEYER RIYADH—Iran's intelligence chief traveled to Riyadh for talks with Saudi Arabia's top intelligence officials, maintaining security contacts between the two neighbors even as Saudi leaders publicly accuse Iran of instigating political unrest and a nuclear arms race in the region. Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi talked Monday with Saudi Crown Prince Nayef, who is also the Saudi interior minister; Saudi intelligence director Prince Muqrin; and other top Saudi royals, the Saudi Press Agency reported Tuesday. Iranian and Saudi officials "reviewed a number of issues of common concern," the Saudi news agency said. Saudi accusations have mounted against Iran in recent months, with Saudi officials publicly accusing Shia- dominated Iran of inciting trouble among the Shia Muslim populations of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, and other Arab nations. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. also charge Iran with plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C. Additionally, Saudi officials have been increasingly outspoken in public warnings to Iran to back away from what many in the Gulf and the West contend is an Iranian push to develop a nuclear-weapons program. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses. "I really, sincerely hope Iranians listen to their wise people,'' Prince Muqrin, the intelligence chief, told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month. Despite the rhetoric between Iran and Sunni Muslim-led Saudi Arabia, the two countries maintain contacts under a late 1990s' security pact, Saudi political analyst Abdullah al-Shamri said Tuesday.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"I think there were indications from our side the last two months that the patience of Saudi Arabia might run out," Mr. al-Shamri said. "Iran may be wise to sit down" now with the Saudis. Saudi King Abdullah met Tuesday with the head of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, Abdul Latif Zayani. Their session was ahead of a GCC meeting later this month in Riyadh in which Gulf leaders are to discuss bolstering a regional military force, in part due to Arab unease over Iran's nuclear program. Reacting to that unease, former Saudi intelligence director Turki al-Faisal earlier in December raised the possibility of Saudi Arabia creating its own program for weapons of mass destruction, in response to what he said was Iran's program. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203518404577096031404782816.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Yonhap News – South Korea December 11, 2011 Foreign Minister: Resumption of Six-Party Talks Helpful for Nuclear Security Summit SEOUL, Dec. 11 (Yonhap) -- Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan expressed hope Sunday for North Korea to halt uranium enrichment and take other steps to roll back its nuclear development, saying such moves will lead to resumption of six-party talks and contribute to next year's Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul. Kim made the remark in an interview with Yonhap News Agency held in part to promote March's nuclear summit that is expected to bring together about 50 heads of state from around the world, including U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao. "If six-party talks resume after North Korea halts uranium enrichment activity and agrees to take pre-steps, it would be helpful for March's Nuclear Security Summit," Kim said. "However, it is up to North Korea to make a final decision and for now, it is difficult to predict resumption of six-party talks." South Korea, the U.S. and Japan have been exerting pressure on North Korea to halt its uranium enrichment program and take other concrete steps that demonstrate its denuclearization commitment before the stalled six- party talks resume. The talks involve the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. But the communist nation has called for restarting the talks without preconditions. Since earlier this year, the South and the U.S. have held two rounds of one-on-one talks with the North to try to persuade Pyongyang to take such "pre-steps," but no breakthrough has been made. Kim said that negotiations are under way to set up a new round of bilateral nuclear talks with the North, but it is hard to say whether and when the talks will be held. Earlier this year, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak offered to invite North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to the nuclear summit if Pyongyang firmly commits to nuclear disarmament and apologizes for last year's two deadly attacks on the South. Foreign Minister Kim stressed that the invitation is conditional on North Korea fulfilling its obligations related to the nuclear standoff, and the "underlying meaning" of the invitation is that the nuclear standoff should be resolved early. The minister also said that the nuclear summit is not a forum to deal with the North Korean nuclear standoff, but the summit will be helpful to show Pyongyang the international concern over its uranium enrichment activity.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

North Korea revealed last year that it was running a uranium enrichment facility, adding to international concerns about its nuclear capabilities. Uranium, if highly enriched, can be used to make weapons, providing Pyongyang with a second way of building atomic bombs in addition to its existing plutonium-based program. Late last month, Pyongyang said its enriched uranium production efforts are "progressing apace." Kim said the main agenda for the nuclear summit will include how to minimize the use of enriched uranium, which he said is "the most dangerous among fissile materials," and develop technologies for the goal. Also to be discussed at the summit will be how to ensure the safety and security of nuclear power plants, Kim said, voicing concern that atomic power plants can be a target of terrorist attacks. On the possibility of slapping fresh sanctions on Iran, Kim said South Korea has taken part in sanctions on the Middle Eastern nation and its position remains unchanged. But the government has to take into consideration the possibility of negative effects of such sanctions on the local economy. "We plan to announce possible steps before the end of this month," he said. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/n_interview/2011/12/11/39/4801000000AEN20111211000300315F.HTML (Return to Articles and Documents List)

AsiaOne News – Singapore US Envoy Says North Korea 'Must Change Behaviour' Agence France-Presse (AFP) December 12, 2011 The United States will consider meeting North Korean officials if they make good on nuclear disarmament pledges, but they first "must change their behaviour", according to a top US envoy. "The basic, most important point that has to be underscored is that it's really up to North Korea to take the right steps," Glyn Davies, the US special representative on North Korea, told reporters after meeting Japanese officials on Monday. "They need to change their behaviour. They need to cease their provocative actions. They need to fulfil their obligations to de-nuclearise," he added. The nuclear-armed North, having alarmed South Korea, the United States and others with revelations about its uranium enrichment programme, wants six-party disarmament talks to resume. Pyongyang says the enrichment is aimed at producing electricity but critics fear the project could give the isolated communist state a second way to make weapons in addition to its existing plutonium-based bombs. Washington may "soon" review Pyongyang's calls to re-start the talks, which involve the United States, China, the two Koreas, Japan and Russia, Davies said. But he added: "We are not there. We still have some ground to cover." The North quit the negotiations in April 2009, a month before staging its second atomic weapons test. "We may have a chance in a coming period relatively soon to test their proposition that North Korea is ready to do the right thing... so that we can begin to contemplate an eventual return to six-party talks," said Davies, a former ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency who took up his current post in October. The diplomat, who visited Seoul before Tokyo on an Asian tour that will next take him to Beijing, also met with families of Japanese nationals abducted by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s, reportedly for training as communist spies. http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20111212-315777.html

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Yonhap News – South Korea December 13, 2011 N. Korea, U.S. Likely to Hold Nuclear Talks this Month: Sources SEOUL, Dec. 13 (Yonhap) -- North Korea and the United States could still hold a third round of bilateral talks this month to revive the stalled six-nation negotiations on ending the North's nuclear weapons programs, a diplomatic source said Tuesday. Since earlier this year, Seoul and Washington have each held two rounds of one-on-one negotiations with North Korea to get the communist nation to take concrete steps to demonstrate its commitment to denuclearization before restarting broader six-party talks. After the second round of meetings in Geneva in October, both Pyongyang and Washington reported some progress, but there was no major breakthrough. North Korean and U.S. officials have recently had behind-the-scene contact, where the two sides apparently further narrowed differences on pending issues, including the North's denuclearization steps and Washington's possible resumption of food aid to Pyongyang, according to the source. "Depending on the situation, a possibility of holding a third round of meetings between North Korea and the U.S. before the year's end cannot be ruled out," the source said on the condition of anonymity. The source said the third round could take place "in the middle of this month." South Korea and the U.S. have demanded that Pyongyang halt its uranium enrichment activity and take other steps to show it is serious about giving up its nuclear programs before the resumption of the six-party talks involving the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. But the North, which walked out of multilateral negotiations in April 2009, has called for restarting the six-party talks without preconditions. Making a visit to Seoul last week, the top U.S. envoy on North Korea, Glyn Davies, urged Pyongyang to take concrete steps to resume the six-party talks. "I hope at some point, in the not too distant future, we will have an opportunity to get back to the table with them. But quite frankly we are not interested in talks for talks' sake," Davies told reporters. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2011/12/13/35/0401000000AEN20111213009500315F.HTML (Return to Articles and Documents List)

NTV.ru – Russia Black Sea Region Facing Chemical Threat At the beginning of 2011 Ukrainian and Russian mass media revealed the facts on the highest threat to entire Black Sea region which originates from WW-ll era Soviet chemical weapon buried at the sea bottom. Different sources of mass media report that about 800 to 1200 metal containers with up to 2400 tons of anthrax are located along the entire coast of the Crimea. They were hastily sunk in 1941 before the onset of the Nazi troops. The content of only one container is enough to destroy all life within a radius of 40 kilometers.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Commissioned by the Ministry of ecology of Ukraine environmental enterprise ”Sitall” set location of 500 containers and identified 11 areas of their flooding. In 2010, the warranty periods of preserving the integrity of the containers expired. The “Sitall” enterprise director pointed out that “Theoretically it is possible that in 2011 these containers are likely to be faulted. Kharkov scientific laboratory “Voenkonveer 43”, as a part of its private studies, reported on the leakage of the barrels. 24 containers were flooded near the area famous as “Swallow nest”. It appears that arsenic content in water is greater than the rate in more than 100 times. This means that the mustard gas and lewisite are likely to have leaked into the sea water. Meanwhile, the authorities of the Crimea are very well informed on this issue. At the time of the research, the Prime Minister Vasily Dzarty led autonomy, Ministry of environmental protection, and his Deputy, Georgy Psarev, was the Chief environmental inspector. The situation is quite simple for all research scientists noted as “secret”, however the results of the research of “Sitalla” company weren’t confirmed during the interview with the authorities. “I do not see a big problem, and I haven’t heard anything of “Sitalla company research” said Vice Premier Psarev. I do not believe in the data which was revealed by the Kharkov Institute”. MES on the chemical threat is known. The Director of the Department of civil protection EMERGENCY Vasily Kvashuk confirmed that the problem really exists. “I would not like to talk about that on television and scare the residents of the city of Sevastopol and Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The problem is vital, we know where these tanks are located. “assured Kvashuk. In addition to the fact that the location of 700 containers at the bottom of the Black Sea is yet to be established, it’s still not know where the 360 containers with sarin and soman are located in the sea of Azov which were flooded by Khrushchev in 1956. According to the “Sitalla”, these capacities are already covered with a thick layer of silt. But due to the small depths of the Azov Sea their negative impact on the environment is very large. It is planned to start the recycling procedure of the barrels of chemical weapons this year but the budget hasn’t been provided yet. According to the data of the Accounting Chamber of Ukraine, within the last 10 years 55 million UAH has been received from the public Treasury as a part of State programs to clear the explosive devices along the coast of Sevastopol and Kerch. However, the planned activities have been implemented only in the third, and the Crimean Black Sea coast remains with ammunition and the remnants of chemical flooding of great patriotic war times. Containers, aerial bombs and artillery shells over time began to crumble, creating a potential threat to the loss of a recreational complex peninsula. The Ministry for emergency situation has been indifferent to the problems of ecology and also to those who live and visit the Crimea for more than 10 years. The Head of the Accounting Chamber, Valentin Simonenko, says that the Black Sea bottom could have been cleaned up from the dangerous “heritage” of war with the budget if had been allocated. The Black Sea is in danger to become a dead sea unless the Ministry of Ecology together with the local authorities to start addressing the problem. If there was any experience to neutralize the military subjects, than to disarm one vessel would take at least 25 years. Specialist offer to expedite disposal either one vessel would take at least 25 years. Specialist offer to expedite disposal either by moving munitions into modern lightweight containers guarantee tightness of 700 years, or use special generators, at a molecular level, you can neutralize poison fighting. Some sources of mass media brought up even a greater point. The containers can be obtained by terroristic organizations. Especially if we take into consideration the geographic location of the region,

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 shallow waters where chemical are located (150-15 meters) and weak territorial sea control by the law enforcements. English video media report http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/223440 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Ha’aretz Daily News – Israel Tuesday, December 13, 2011 Swiss Nuclear Engineers Admit Involvement in Global Nuclear Weapons Trade Friedrich Tinner and his sons investigated over several years on suspicion of doing business with Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who supplied Iran, Libya and North Korea. By Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA) A family of three Swiss engineers has admitted involvement in the development of nuclear weapons, the general attorney said Tuesday, announcing a plea bargain to speed up the trial centering on Libya's former weapons program. Friedrich Tinner and his sons Urs and Marco were investigated over several years, on suspicion that they did business with Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and his nuclear smuggling network, which has supplied not only Libya, but also Iran and North Korea. The three now face maximum sentences of five years each, if the Federal Criminal Court accepts their deal with the prosecutor. If the bargain goes through, many unknown details of the case will likely never come to light, because there would be an abbreviated trial, with no presentation of evidence. The Tinners owned a high-tech company which is believed to have helped make centrifuge parts for Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi's planned nuclear facility. Gadhafi gave up his military nuclear plans in 2003, after Western intelligence agents discovered a ship carrying the parts from Dubai to Libya. Urs Tinner maintains he was an informer for the US spy agency CIA, but the Attorney General's office said it was impossible to verify this after "the Swiss government in the summer of 2007 declined to authorize the prosecution of the relevant offences, which are of political nature." Media and experts have accused the government of giving in to pressure from the United States by shredding large parts of the evidence as a way to prevent the spreading of nuclear arms knowhow. http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/swiss-nuclear-engineers-admit-involvement-in-global-nuclear- weapons-trade-1.401217 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Security Newswire Pentagon Analyzing Chem, Bio Defense Programs Monday, December 12, 2011 The U.S. Defense Department in August initiated a "strategic review and analysis" of its defense operations against biological and chemical weapons threats, Defense News quoted a high-level Pentagon official as saying on Thursday (see GSN, Sept. 29, 2010).

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"We needed to relook the whole" of the department's activities on biological and chemical defense as the Pentagon looks for ways to manage hundreds of billions of dollars in spending reductions over the next 10 years. The final amount remains to be determined as Washington struggles with options for cutting the federal deficit. While it is not yet known how the budget situation will affect biological and chemical defense operations, "there's a shared understanding that the (weapons of mass destruction) threat is very real, very serious and it is still a very high priority," the official said. The source also highlighted the need for close cooperation with partner nations in countering potential strikes involving such weapons. Deals with Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom to collaborate in defeating "the unique threats that are coming our way" grow in importance as funding drops for defense operations, the official said. "We recognize, more so than ever, it's our partnerships that's going to enable us to field the best capabilities for our forces, for our nations working together," the official noted. The Defense Department is also conducting drills with South Korea aimed at "taking a look at the biodefense problem in that region," according to the official. The program involves a "whole of government approach" that encompasses the South Korean Defense Ministry, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and police and other agencies. "We're helping our colleagues there go through some of the learning experiences we had in the United States in that interagency environment," the official said. "It's a new challenge for them, but the threat is ever more present on the peninsula today." North Korea, longtime antagonist to both Seoul and Washington, is believed to operate an active biological weapons program that has produced thousands of tons of disease agents such as anthrax and smallpox (Marcus Weisberger, Defense News, Dec. 8). http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20111212_6248.php (Return to Articles and Documents List)

BusinessWeek Monday, December 12, 2011 A Few Hacker Teams Do Most China-Based Data Theft By LOLITA BALDOR, Associated Press (AP) WASHINGTON (AP) — As few as 12 different Chinese groups, largely backed or directed by the government there, commit the bulk of the China-based cyberattacks stealing critical data from U.S. companies and government agencies, according to U.S. cybersecurity analysts and experts. The aggressive but stealthy attacks, which have stolen billions of dollars in intellectual property and data, often carry distinct signatures allowing U.S. officials to link them to certain hacker teams. Analysts say the U.S. often gives the attackers unique names or numbers, and at times can tell where the hackers are and even who they may be. Sketched out by analysts who have worked with U.S. companies and the government on computer intrusions, the details illuminate recent claims by American intelligence officials about the escalating cyber threat emanating from China. And the widening expanse of targets, coupled with the expensive and sensitive technologies they are losing, is putting increased pressure on the U.S. to take a much harder stand against the communist giant. It is largely impossible for the U.S. to prosecute hackers in China, since it requires reciprocal agreements between the two countries, and it is always difficult to provide ironclad proof that the hacking came from specific people.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Several analysts described the Chinese attacks, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigations and to protect the privacy of clients. China has routinely rejected allegations of cyberspying and says it also is a target. "Industry is already feeling that they are at war," said James Cartwright, a retired Marine general and former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A recognized expert on cyber issues, Cartwright has come out strongly in favor of increased U.S. efforts to hold China and other countries accountable for the cyberattacks that come from within their borders. "Right now we have the worst of worlds," said Cartwright. "If you want to attack me you can do it all you want, because I can't do anything about it. It's risk-free, and you're willing to take almost any risk to come after me." The U.S., he said, "needs to say, if you come after me, I'm going to find you, I'm going to do something about it. It will be proportional, but I'm going to do something ... and if you're hiding in a third country, I'm going to tell that country you're there. If they don't stop you from doing it, I'm going to come and get you." Cyber experts say companies are frustrated that the government isn't doing enough to pressure China to stop the attacks or go after hackers in that country. Much like during the Cold War with Russia, officials say the U.S. needs to make it clear that there will be repercussions for cyberattacks. The government "needs to do more to increase the risk," said Jon Ramsey, head of the counter threat unit at the Atlanta-based Dell SecureWorks, a computer security consulting company. "In the private sector we're always on defense. We can't do something about it, but someone has to. There is no deterrent not to attack the U.S." Cyberattacks originating in China have been a problem for years, but until a decade or so ago analysts said the probes focused mainly on the U.S. government — a generally acknowledged intelligence gathering activity similar to Americans and Russians spying on each other during the Cold War. But in the last 10 to 15 years, the attacks have gradually broadened to target defense companies, then other critical industries, including energy and finance. According to Ramsey and other cyber analysts, hackers in China have different digital fingerprints, often visible through the computer code they use, or the command and control computers that they use to move their malicious software. U.S. government officials have been reluctant to tie the attacks directly back to the Chinese government, but analysts and officials quietly say they have tracked enough intrusions to specific locations to be confident they are linked to Beijing — either the government or the military. They add that they can sometimes glean who benefited from a particular stolen technology. One of the analysts said investigations show that the dozen or so Chinese teams appear to get "taskings," or orders, to go after specific technologies or companies within a particular industry. At times, two or more of the teams appear to get the same shopping list and compete to be the first to get them or to pull off the greatest haul. Analysts and U.S. officials agree that a majority of the cyberattacks seeking intellectual property or other sensitive or classified data are done by China-based hackers. Many of the cyberattacks stealing credit card or financial information come from Eastern Europe or Russia. According to experts, the malicious software or high-tech tools used by the Chinese haven't gotten much more sophisticated in recent years. But the threat is persistent, often burying malware deep in computer networks so it can be used again and again over the course of several months or even years.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The tools include malware that can record keystrokes, steal and decrypt passwords, and copy and compress data so it can be transferred back to the attacker's computer. The malware can then delete itself or disappear until needed again. Several specific attacks linked to China include: — Two sophisticated attacks against Google's systems stole some of the Internet giant's intellectual property and broke into the Gmail accounts of several hundred people, including senior U.S. government officials, military personnel and political activists. — Last year, computer security firm Mandiant reported that data was stolen from a Fortune 500 manufacturing company during business negotiations when the company was trying to buy a Chinese company. — Earlier this year, McAfee traced an intrusion to an Internet protocol address in China and said intruders took data from global oil, energy and petrochemical companies. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Weimin, did not respond Monday to the specific allegations about government-supported cyber-attacks but said Internet security is an issue the world needs to address collectively. The international community should "prevent the Internet from becoming a new battlefield," Liu said at a daily media briefing in Beijing. For the first time, U.S. intelligence officials called out China and Russia last month, saying they are systematically stealing American high-tech data for their own economic gain. The unusually forceful public report seemed to signal a new, more vocal U.S. government campaign against the cyberattacks. The next step, said Cartwright, must be a full-throated U.S. policy that makes it clear how the U.S. will deal with cyberattacks, including the attackers as well as the nations the attacks are routed through. Once an attack is detected, he said, the U.S. should first go through the State Department to ask the country to stop the attack. If the country refuses, he said, the U.S. will have the right to stop the computer server from sending the attack by whatever means possible while still avoiding any collateral damage. Associated Press writer Alexa Olesen in Beijing contributed to this report. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9RJ2D9G0.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

El Universal – Caracas, Venezuela The Venezuelan Connection The onslaught would be against the information technology systems of the White House, nuclear power plants and federal agencies, such as CIA, FBI, the Pentagon and the top-secret National Security Agency (NSA). Some of the meetings were held inside the Venezuelan mission in the Mexican capital city, according to the pseudo-pirates Monday December 12, 2011 By Casto Ocando/Julio Mota When the events occurred four years ago, Consul Livia Acosta Noguera acted as the Cultural Affairs Officer at the Venezuelan Embassy in Mexico. Ex professors and graduates from the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) who pretended to be hackers or cyber-pirates managed to record several conversations where the diplomat requested information about an alleged sabotage on the United States to submit it to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. "I would like to make emphasis on what you gave me, the last thing (...) the president (Chávez) already had a look at it," the diplomat said, based on the recordings obtained by Univisión Investiga.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

In another talk, Acosta commented that General Alexis López, then the head of the presidential guard, presumably provided President Chávez with the information forwarded by her from Mexico. The diplomat also asked hackers for forged information against dissidents of Chávez's government, the students elaborated. The onslaught would be against the information technology systems of the White House, nuclear power plants and federal agencies, such as CIA, FBI, the Pentagon and the top-secret National Security Agency (NSA). Some of the meetings were held inside the Venezuelan mission in the Mexican capital city, according to the pseudo-pirates. The students related that the story started in 2006, when young people specialized in information technology were recruited by UNAM Professor Francisco Guerrero Lutteroth to organize a cyber-attack team against US servers from Mexican territory. One of the recruits, then student Juan Carlos Muñoz Ledo, covertly recorded the meetings when learning that the purpose of the operation was attacking targets in US territory, he told Univisión. Muñoz Ledo was also worried, he added, that, in addition to the cyber-attack, the possibility of physical attacks had been pondered. "The objectives of the plan discussed were attacking the United States firstly in a cybernetic manner and afterwards, doing it in a physical manner. This is what both the Embassies of Iran and Venezuela particularly wanted, under the aegis of Cuba, obviously," Muñoz Ledo averred. Muñoz Ledo incorporated other students to help document the presumed conspiracy planned from 2006 to 2010. "The point is that I made the decision to implement an action, as it were, to substantiate all of it," commented Muñoz Ledo, 33, in an interview with Univisión from Mexico. "It was the right thing," he added. The operations received the "blessing" of Roy Chaderton, the Venezuelan Ambassador to Mexico in 2007 and 2008, as testified by the very hackers. The team used tiny audio microphones and hidden video-cameras in order to record dozens of hours of talks, running the risk of being captured. The embassies of Venezuela, Iran and Cuba took the lead in the scheming, Muñoz Ledo elaborated. Iranian and Venezuelan diplomats, the expert warranted, took a "very, very active" part in planning the attacks. In late 2006, Venezuela would have neither diplomatic relations nor an ambassador to Mexico, following an impasse between then Mexican President Vicente Fox and his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chávez. Nevertheless, Professor Guerrero Lutteroth included in the plot Livia Acosta, the Venezuelan Cultural Affairs Officer at that time. According to Muñoz Ledo, the scholar opted to include Acosta for her closer ties with President Chávez. "And here she came as a direct contact with the Chávez Administration." "Let us strike the Empire" As testified by Nohemí Cabral, a friend of Muñoz Ledo who also engaged in the underground recordings of the plot, Acosta had access to President Chávez's security officers. "She had a direct relationship with security people of President Hugo Chávez," Cabral told Univisión in an interview. In one of the recorded talks, the very Acosta clarified that she had access to a high-ranking Venezuelan officer, General Alexis López. "The defense chief, that is, the security chief, of the president is my friend," Acosta avowed to students. "And here, he is with the president, and here he goes with the president to and fro," she added. "He is called Alexis López; he is a general," she boasted.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

In another recorded talk, Acosta needed to clarify that she was delivering all the sensitive information about the intended onslaught directly to the Venezuelan president. "I would like to make emphasis on what you gave me, the last thing (...) the president (Chávez) already had a look at it," the diplomat expressed, based on the recordings. Univisión tried to get General López's view of Acosta comments; however, there was not answer to the requests. Nor were ever replied several e-mails and requests from Univisión seeking a version from Consul Acosta. As appears from the recordings, a portion of the information that Acosta purported to give Chávez was highly sensitive: the passwords to access to security computer systems of nuclear power plants and arsenals in the United States. She was also interested in retrieving the list of private companies and banks that Ambassador Ghadiri wanted to hit in retaliation for the economic and financial sanctions imposed on Iran. In a meeting, where Muñoz Ledo informed Acosta that he had found the passwords "of any and all nuclear plants in the USA," Acosta exclaimed, "Great! You'd rather give it to me as well to send it to the president," she said in reference to Hugo Chávez. Nuclear power plants targeted by the group included Turkey Point, in Florida, and two twin nuclear power plants in Arkansas, known as Arkansas Nuclear One. "Livia Acosta expressed much interest in the information supplied to Dr. Ghadiri, both on the nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons," Cabral avouched. She was one of the students who managed to gain the diplomat's confidence. In Cabral's words, Acosta was interested in an attack on the US nuclear arsenal. "She was keenly aware of what was being sought (...) particularly at the request of the Iranian ambassador, Dr. Ghadiri, which was directly attacking the US nuclear arsenal; therefore, she fully agreed with that," Cabral asserted. Acosta even suggested action strategies, one of the persons familiar with the plot told Univisión. "What Livia Acosta says is 'let us strike a bit,' 'let us strike a bit for the United States to move, for it to stop believing it is almighty," declared Sara María Gómez, another student who joined Muñoz Ledo's team to substantiate the plot. According to Gómez, the embassies both of Iran and Venezuela were willing to retrieve the passwords to access to the nuclear power plants to "directly attack security systems." Scheming against Venezuelan opponents But nuclear power plants were not the only target of the intended conspiracy. The plot also contemplated wreaking havoc among the servers of federal agencies, such as the National Security Agency, FBI, CIA and the White House. "Major leagues," Acosta uttered in a chat with Muñoz Ledo, referring to a potential attack on three of the most important federal intelligence agencies. The Venezuelan consul had a veto power on the scheming framed by Professor Guerrero Lutteroth, with the presumed advice of Cuba's intelligence services, Muñoz Ledo upheld. "Francisco (Guerrero Lutteroth) would say: 'Well, this ought to be shown to Livia and if there is anything what she says no, that means that it is not going' (...) So, she never said no to certain operation. Why? Because she knew that the (Cuban) G2 supported Francisco," Muñoz Ledo noted.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Guerrero Lutteroth's proposals, presumably endorsed by the consul, included forging of documents to discredit Venezuelan dissidents and opponents. For instance, the recorded talks describe the endeavors at forging "retroactive" bank transfers to prove that dissenting General Raúl Baduel was receiving money from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a bipartisan organization created to strengthen democratic institutions around the world, and from drug kingpin Hermágoras González Polanco, charged with drug traffic in the United States. The consul specifically requested the hackers to find information about Venezuelan militaries entering Mexico to ascertain whether they had embarked upon a conspiracy against Chávez's government, for their alleged links in Miami. "We have a little problem: incoming Venezuelan militaries and it seems they are working on a plot here in Mexico; but they come in, scheme here and leave, don't they? And I need to know who they are," Acosta required, based on the recordings. "What I do know is that they met with some Venezuelan and have a contact person in Miami and scheme against Venezuela; I can imagine that they have the US support," she added. Act of war? The consul's curiosity was not limited only to the alleged anti-Chávez plotters .She was also willing to keep watch on the National Action Party (PAN), the organization of former Mexican President Vicente Fox, an outspoken enemy of Chávez. "I would like you to get in touch with anybody inside the PAN; (to get to know) what the PAN recorded about Venezuela; what they are fabricating," she requested the university students. The recordings give a glimpse of the close ties between Acosta and the Embassy of Iran in Mexico. In one of the talks, the cultural affairs officer at that time admitted to have met in a visit to the Mexican province with then Iran's Ambassador Ghadiri, an ambitious diplomat who would travel all over Mexico to disseminate the influence of Islam. During one of the recorded meetings, Livia Acosta rejoiced at Ghadiri: "The Iran's ambassador is wonderful!" To the mind of experts of the US intelligence community queried by Univisión, while the intention of Iranian diplomats does not surprise, the involvement of Venezuelan diplomats is particularly worrisome. "It is a matter of concern that the government of Venezuela is indeed making plans against the United States," said John Kiriakou, a former agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who led the CIA counter-terrorist operations immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Kiriakou conceded that such conspiracy could be regarded as "an act of war" and "a crime" not only to the detriment of the United States, but also Mexico. "We do not undertake such planning against the government of Venezuela," he underscored. Kiriakou highlighted that should Venezuelans work with Iranians in such actions, it is something "even more concerning, something for which we will need to plan." http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/111212/the-venezuelan-connection (Return to Articles and Documents List)

El Universal – Caracas, Venezuela Chávez Rejects Report Involving Venezuela In Plot Against the US

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"Television shows were broadcast on US networks claiming that Venezuela is scheming terrorist attacks with Iranian terrorists against the United States. They are using a lie as an excuse to attack us; we must be attentive," said President Hugo Chávez EL UNIVERSAL Monday, December 12, 2011 Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez on Monday rebutted as a "lie" a report broadcast by Univision network according to which Venezuela and Cuba are involved in an alleged Iranian scheme to launch cyber attacks against US nuclear plants. The Venezuelan president said they were looking for "excuses" to attack his country. "Television shows were broadcast on US networks claiming that Venezuela is scheming terrorist attacks with Iranian terrorists against the United States. They are using a lie as an excuse to attack us; we must be attentive," said President Chávez during a radio and television mandatory broadcast. The president also noted, without explicitly mentioning Univision, based in New York, that the report is "pointing to Cuba," in addition to Venezuela, in order to "assault" the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), outspokenly critical of the US policies, Efe reported. Univision described the current Venezuelan consul in Miami, Livia Antonieta Acosta, as an accomplice in the alleged plot. On Monday, the US State Department described Univision report as "very disturbing," adding that the White House is "assessing the actions" to be taken, US State Department Spokesman Mark Toner told reporters. "Right now we have no information to ascertain" the Univision report, Toner said. http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/111212/chavez-rejects-report-involving-venezuela-in-plot- against-the-us (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post OPINION Why Iran Remains Defiant on the Nuclear Bomb By Ray Takeyh December 9, 2011 Attention has returned to the potential nuclear threat building in Iran. It has long been assumed that the regime seeks the bomb for its deterrent power or as a means of projecting influence in a politically volatile region. As important as these considerations may be, Iranian nuclear calculations are predicated on a distinctly domestic calculus: The Islamic Republic perceives it can reclaim its international standing better with the bomb than without one. Instead of conceding to intrusive U.N. resolutions or amending their behavior on issues of terrorism and regional subversion, Iran’s rulers sense that once they obtain the bomb, they can return to the international fold on their own terms. Iranian officials claim that Washington’s hostility goes far beyond the nuclear issue. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has denigrated prospects of diplomatic settlement and claims that Washington exploits the nuclear issue in hopes of extending its sanctions policy to other countries. “The change of behavior they want — and which they don’t always necessarily emphasize — is in fact the negation of our identity,” Khamenei insisted in an August 2010 speech. This indictment encompasses Western nations as well as the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. After a critical IAEA report was released last month, a senior adviser to Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, dismissed Iran’s culpability and stressed that the “IAEA will never agree on Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities.”

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

A clerical oligarchy trapped in a mind-set conditioned by conspiracies and violent xenophobia paradoxically views both American entreaties and sanctions as an affirmation of its perspective. Offers of diplomatic dialogue made in respectful terms are seen as indications of Western weakness and embolden the regime to sustain its intransigence. Conversely, coercive measures are viewed as American plots to not just disarm the Islamic Republic but also to undermine its rule. Armed with the ultimate weapon, the Islamists think, they may yet compel the West to concede to Iran’s regional aggrandizement. Ali Larijani, the speaker of parliament who is often wrongly depicted in Western circles as a pragmatist, has mused that “If Iran becomes atomic Iran, no longer will anyone dare to challenge it because they would have to pay too high of a price.” Iranian elites may not be misreading the lessons of proliferation. Historically, when a nuclear power has emerged, after a period of sanctions and censure the international community has not only acquiesced to the country’s new capabilities but also invests in the perpetuation of that regime — partly out of fear of the unknown. If Tehran achieves the bomb, some — and not just in Moscow and Beijing — will argue that the regime’s collapse is too dangerous to contemplate. If no reasonable successor to the theocratic regime is clear, economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and aid to dissident forces are likely to be deprecated. After all, if Iran were to undergo a period of prolonged disorder, characterized by the breakdown of central authority, political convulsions and/or ethnic separatism, what would happen to its nuclear arsenal and resources, its scientists and technicians? Before international pressure erodes state power, many are certain to marshal arguments similar to those aired on behalf of a problematic Pakistani government that is a custodian of a dangerous nuclear arms industry. The case of China is similarly suggestive — and disconcerting. Once a rash, revolutionary Chinese regime detonated its bomb in 1964, many around the world argued China was too dangerous to be left alone to nurture its grievances. The task at hand was not to insist on disarmament but to embed China’s bomb in the international security architecture. Iran similarly hopes that once it discharges a nuclear device, the international focus will no longer be on its domestic repression or aid to terrorist groups but on its reintegration into the global economy as a means of mitigating the adverse consequences of its bomb. To be sure, this is a perilous path. Tehran could face further sanctions and possibly military retribution. Yet for a supreme leader who has spoken of creating a “real resistance economy” and who tends to discount the prospect of military strikes, the dividends of defiance outweigh the advantages of accommodation. A clerical leadership whose sense of confidence is shadowed by its imagined fears sees the bomb as a means of ameliorating its vulnerabilities while escaping its predicament on the cheap. The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-iran-remains-defiant-on-the-nuclear- bomb/2011/12/08/gIQAQQ2agO_story.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Gulf Daily News – Bahrain OPINION/Letters Nuclear Checkmate Threatening World Saturday, December 10, 2011 Some of us believed that at the end of the Cold War in 1991 American and Soviet nuclear rockets would be left to rust and rot in their silos. Indeed, we actually saw the Ukraine, where the Soviets made most of their rockets and based many, calling in American engineers to help dismantle them. Moreover, Ukraine decided to forsake nuclear power status - for which the world should give more praise than it does.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

President George H W Bush and even more so Ronald Reagan before him did quite a lot for nuclear disarmament. At a summit in Iceland, Reagan and Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev panicked most of their advisers and Western commentators when they nearly agreed to total nuclear disarmament. Only Reagan's persistence in demanding to keep alive research into "star wars" anti-missile systems and Gorbachev's unwillingness to agree to this stymied an agreement. Both sides were equally at fault. Despite all his rhetoric and bear hugging of Russia's first president Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton achieved very little. His successor George W Bush did only a bit more. Hopes were focused on Barack Obama who was chosen to be honoured with the Nobel Prize partly because it was thought he would be a standard bearer for disarmament. Apart from an initial agreement with Vladimir Putin to reduce superpower long-range rockets down from 2,200 warheads each to 1,500, still enough to blow up most of civilisation, Obama has done precious little. The resistance in Congress to ratifying this pact was immense and passage only came on the promise of spending $80 billion to modernise nuclear forces. Even Bush junior's plan to base an anti-ballistic missile system on Polish soil to deter Iranian missiles has been modified only somewhat in an attempt to satisfy legitimate Russian concerns about it being used to intercept a Russian attack. More American compromise is needed on this, such as moving the site to Romania, nearer to Iran and further from Moscow and finding a way for Moscow to share the running and control of the system. Turning the page, the US has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which would help stymie the further spread of nuclear arms to other countries. If you can't test you don't know if you have a workable bomb. The next stage in the disarmament process should be getting rid of short-range tactical missiles base in Europe. Moscow is insisting that the first step must be the US removing all its tactical weapons from Europe, which is fair given their proximity to Moscow. Obama has pledged to fight for "a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons". The idea behind this is to stop in their tracks any country thinking of building a nuclear armoury whilst setting limits on the renewing of warheads by those who already have them. But these negotiations have been blocked by Pakistan, worried about its lack of a force that matches the size of India's. The recent US-India civil nuclear co-operation agreement has increased Pakistani reservations. All this adds up to very little nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile the main issue - the number of long distance super- destructive rockets held by Russia and the US - is not on the agenda despite Obama's pledge in Oslo to work towards zero possession. The US Senate is an immoveable brake on Obama. And the Russians, observing the power of the US Senate to probably refuse to approve any new treaties, stops them suggesting opening negotiations. But how is it, 11 years after the end of the Cold War, that either side can justify nuclear weapons? Is Russia an enemy or is it not? Successive American presidents have said it is not. The Russians say the same thing about the US and Europe. Non-enemies don't have nuclear weapons pointed at each other. At least that is what basic morality and common sense would say. Certainly they are never going to be used. So what is it all about? Don't the US and Russia want to set an example to the rest of the world, as is their sworn obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? After all sauce for the goose is good for the gander might say the Iranians and those in the Middle East that will probably emulate Iran if it does go nuclear.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Obama is checkmated. Therefore the world is checkmated. What a terrifying impasse this is. J P http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=319379 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Miami Herald OPINION/Other Views Saturday, December 10, 2011 The Tehran, Havana, Caracas Axis in Latin America By Jose Azel The International Atomic Energy Agency warns, in its recent report, that Iran appears to have conducted advanced research on a miniaturized warhead that could be delivered by medium range missiles. The implications for U.S. foreign policy extend beyond the Middle East. Iran is an increasingly important politico-economic player in Latin America. Its influence transcends geography, language, culture and religion. At the heart of this growing Iranian influence is a peculiar trilateral political configuration with Cuba and Venezuela. The basis of this eccentric alignment is not East-West political philosophy, or a coalition based on congruent economic models, or North-South ideological affinity. Even more perplexing, it is a strategic alliance that transcends profound theological differences. What, then, brings together Fidel Castro, a Marxist-Leninist atheist; Hugo Chávez, a putative socialist Christian; and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a product of Islamic fundamentalism? What allows the Iranian theocracy, so removed from Latin America by ethnicity, customs and values, to play an increasingly influential role in this hemisphere? If we answer these questions in terms of the growing economic ties among these countries, and there are many, licit as well as illicit and covert, we would be basing our analysis on strict Western economic rationality. We mistakenly would be extrapolating our logical model to Castro, Chávez and Ahmadinejad. A second analytical mistake is to scrutinize Iran’s influence in discrete country-by-country terms rather than in terms of the synergies and symbiosis of the Tehran-Havana-Caracas alliance. We would further compound our error if we formulate U.S. foreign policy in similarly disconnected terms. As world events have repeatedly demonstrated, we eventually gain the Socratic insight that we know very little of the logical reasoning models of autocratic leaders like Ahmadinejad, Castro and Chávez. Although it may seem that way to us, these countries do not pursue an irrational foreign policy. The analytical challenge for the United States is how to understand, in our cultural and analytical milieu, actions arising in another. In the case of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, the unifying point seems to be virulent hostility toward the United States, liberal democracy and market economies. In other words, the Ahmadinejad-Castro-Chávez nexus is fundamentally an anti-American political alignment. As such, it follows its own logic and rules of engagement. Recall, for example, that in 1979, with the victory of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Fidel Castro abandoned his support of the communist Iranian People’s Party (IPP) and embraced Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocratic anti-communist regime. In Castro’s logic the Ayatollah’s anti-Americanism trumped his anti-communist ideology. The growing Iranian influence in Latin America, together with its Cuban and Venezuelan connections, should be understood in this context of an anti-American alliance determined, above all other considerations, to undermine U.S. national interests. For example, Cuba and Venezuela have become the most strident defenders of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the three countries have formed a strategic partnership to evade U.N. and U.S economic sanctions. Cuba’s

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 sophisticated intelligence and counter intelligence capabilities are reportedly shared with Iran and Venezuela. Moreover, the triumvirates’ influence has expanded now to include Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Increasingly, the Tehran, Havana, Caracas bloc speaks with a unified anti-American voice in a concerted effort to undermine U.S. influence by any means at its disposal. The geopolitical alignment of Tehran, Havana and Caracas, if it can be described as ideological at all, is based on an ideology of hate towards the United States and democratic governing principles. Often, the formulation of U.S. foreign policy is imbued with inherent tensions between policies anchored on our democratic principles and policies based on our national interests. In this case, a rare congruence exists for clarity of purpose in a coordinated U.S. foreign policy that blends our support of democratic values and human rights in Iran, Cuba and Venezuela with our national security concerns. José Azel is a senior scholar at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. He is the author of “Mañana in Cuba: The Legacy of Castroism and Transitional Challenges for Cuba.” http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/10/2539364/the-tehran-havana-caracas-axis.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Russia Beyond the Headlines – Russia OPINION/Analysis A First Line of Defense Will Russia’s new Aerospace Defense Forces shift the balance in the dangerous missile defense game taking place in Eastern Europe? December 12, 2011 By Andrei Kislyakov Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov keeps his promises. He said that he would create the Aerospace Defense Forces, a new military unit, by Dec. 1. As promised, they are in place and already have a mission. The Kaliningrad radar station intended to improve Russia’s response to incoming missile attacks from the northwest has been put on operational duty. The station covers a sector that was previously the responsibility of radar bases in Mukachevo, Baranovichi and Skrunde during the Soviet era. “It greatly expands the range of information for subsequent decision-making by the country’s top leadership,” said Lieutenant-General Oleg Ostapaenko, commander of the Aerospace Defense Forces. The new station, like the new aerospace forces, is to form Russia’s first line of defense against the increasing threat of strategic missile attacks. Russia’s efforts are in response to the Pentagon’s plans to deploy anti-ballistic missiles in Europe that are close to the Russian border, a plan that is undermining the global collective security system. Since the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, basic arms control agreements have been under constant bombardment. In late November, the State Department announced that the U.S. was no longer bound by its commitments to Russia under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Russia retaliated with a vengeance. In a televised address to the nation, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared that Russia would withdraw from the New START treaty and would renounce its disarmament plans if the United States continued to build its anti-missile defense system in Europe. Medvedev first ordered an immediate increase in the strength of the strategic nuclear forces by creating a national Aerospace Defense System. He also announced that Russia would deploy “strike systems,” notably Iskander missiles, throughout the country’s west and south.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The strategic ballistic missiles put in service in the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be fitted with advanced capabilities for penetrating missile defense systems and efficient new warheads, Medvedev said. As a result, the already shaky bilateral arms control agreements are being laid on the altar of anti-ballistic missiles. On Dec. 7, the 1987 Russian-American Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Shorter Range Missiles marked its 24th anniversary. It is difficult to say what will happen to this key disarmament agreement, given President Medvedev’s latest statement and Russia’s threat to pull out of it. The consequences from such a move could be dire. In February 2007, Yury Baluyevsky, then chief of the Russian General Staff, said that Russia might withdraw unilaterally from the 1987 treaty. The move was directly linked to the deployment of the American missile defense program in Europe. Russia, for its part, had declared several years earlier that it would give an asymmetric response to Washington’s plans by further developing its strategic offensive assets. First Deputy Prime Minister and former Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov also described the treaty as a relic. In principle, there is nothing extraordinary about asymmetric tactics. As global anti-missile systems are developed, modernization of the existing arsenal of nuclear weapons is a natural response. Shorter and medium-range ballistic missiles – those with a range of up to 3,100 miles – have always been regarded as strategic nuclear weapons. It is such missiles – the American Pershing-2s in Western Europe and the Soviet SS- 20 Pioneer missiles stationed in Eastern Europe and the Far East that provided the “critical mass” effect that, in the mid-1980s, almost triggered a real nuclear conflict between the two powers. Does Russia stand to gain if it resumes production of this type of missile and thus launching them becomes a possibility? It is difficult to believe, in spite of numerous declarations, notably those by the director of the Moscow Thermal Technology Institute, Yury Salomonov, that Russian industry has everything it needs to build such missiles. There are considerable resources required in order to restore the entire production chain. Besides, it hardly makes sense to build something that is 40 years old, especially when considering that most of the missile’s production took place in Ukraine. The military facet to the problem is of course paramount. In the years from 1985 to 2011, Russia lost a significant share of its operational military space, while the Americans since then have acquired more. Russia will have to look for deployment sites in the country’s relatively small European region. In contrast, the U.S. Air Force has no need to resume production of Pershing-2 missiles. It would suffice to open cheap land bases equipped with standard Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are allowed, and fit them with nuclear warheads. Considering that the U.S. maintains the capacity to build 500 of these missiles a year, the potential threat from Tomahawks alone is easy to imagine. As a plan B, Russia may deploy the conventional warheads of its Pioneers, or a truncated version of the Topol-M2 mobile inter-continental ballistic missile. The concept of missile defense calls for balance; the distribution of weaponry should be appropriate and preferably not asymmetric. The situation could change significantly if Russia countered the American missile defense system with its own adequate defensive response – which, according to the Russian military and political leadership, is the essence behind the newly created Aerospace Defense Forces.

Andrei Kislyakov is a reporter at Russia Beyond The Headlines. http://rbth.ru/articles/2011/12/12/a_first_line_of_defense_13961.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

National Post – Canada OPINION/Full Comment

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Peter Goodspeed: ‘Too late’ to Halt Iran from Getting Nuclear Weapon By Peter Goodspeed December 12, 2011 Though it may be years before Iran becomes an overt nuclear weapon state, Tehran “is already close enough to obtaining a nuclear weapon to be considered a de facto nuclear country,” says a study just published by the Washington-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre. Using data released last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles and United Nation’s reports on Iran’s recent non-nuclear weapons research, U.S. weapons expert Gregory Jones concludes: “Iran is a de facto nuclear weapon state (and) there is little that can be done except to hope *to+ maintain control over their nuclear weapons.” “If Iran were to now make an all-out effort to acquire nuclear weapons, it could probably do so in two to six months,” says Mr. Jones, who is employed as a part-time researcher with the Rand Corp. “However, given the ineffectiveness of Western counteraction thus far, Iran has no need to make such an all-out effort,” he adds. “Rather Iran will probably continue on its current course, producing an ever growing stockpile of enriched uranium and carrying out additional research to produce non-nuclear weapons components.” The study says Iran is on the brink of tripling its production of 19.7% enriched uranium which can be rapidly refined to weapon’s grade. “Using Iran’s currently operating centrifuges at the the (Natanz) Fuel Enrichment Plant, the batch recycling (to make weapons grade enriched uranium) would take about two months,” Mr. Jones says. If Iran has an as yet undetected clandestine nuclear enrichment facility, it might be able to speed that process up. The report notes that IAEA inspectors believe Iran has been working secretly with a Russian weapons scientist, identified as Vyacheslav Danilenko, to develop a sophisticated “multipoint” nuclear trigger for a bomb and is “now in a position to build nuclear weapons that are significantly lighter and have a smaller diameter.” Smaller, lighter weapons would allow Iran to place nuclear bombs on the warheads of its medium and long range ballistic missiles. “In light of the IAEA’s information about Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons and in particular, Iran’s acquisition of a multipoint initiations system from a Russian nuclear scientist, it is clear that Iran is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons,” the study says. Mr. Jones estimates it will take “between two and six months before Iran could have the non-nuclear components for a nuclear weapon ready for use.” He says missile deliverability is not a necessary requirement for any Iranian nuclear weapon. “There are other viable means for Iran to be able to deliver a nuclear weapon,” the study says. “Unfortunately, vehicle delivery of bombs (up to now all conventional) has become quite common in the region and many such attacks have been carried out.” Mr. Jones’ report was released just as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) for Public Policy published a report that concludes: “There is a real chance that Western efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will fail.” The conservative Washington think-tank spent six months studying Iran’s nuclear threat and concludes that any serious U.S. policy on Iran must operate on the assumption that Iran will become a full-fledged nuclear power by 2013. Days after he was first elected, U.S. President Barack Obama declared a nuclear Iran was unacceptable and he has repeatedly pledged “to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Now, however, U.S. analysts seem to be pivoting away from a policy of deterrence to one of containment. But the American Enterprise Institute study warns that “containment is hardly a cost-free policy” and says “little thought has gone into what an effective containment and deterrent regime will require of the United States and its allies.” Any coherent containment policy “should seek to block any Iranian expansion in the Persian Gulf;” “induce a retraction of Iranian influence” and “work toward a political – if not physical – transformation of the Tehran regime,” the study says. That could require “a constant and significant conventional force presence around Iran’s perimeter” the report notes. It warns that with pending budget cuts and U.S. military drawdowns in the Middle East, Washington may not be in a position to conduct a full-fledged containment operation against Iran. “Consider the military costs alone,” says the report: “a renewed offensive nuclear deterrent, both in the United States and extended to the region; prolonged counterintelligence, counterterrorist and counterinsurgency operations around Iran’s perimeter; a large and persistent conventional covering force operating throughout the region and a reinforcing force capable of assured regime change; and energetic military-to-military programs with coalition partners.” “Such a deterrent posture is not only near or beyond the limits of current U.S. forces,” the study says, “but also would certainly surpass the capabilities of the reduced U.S. military that proposed budget cuts would produce.” Peter Goodspeed is an award winning reporter with the National Post. He specializes in foreign affairs writing and has worked as a foreign correspondent and foreign editor for 25 years. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/peter-goodspeed-too-late-to-halt-iran-from-getting-nuclear- weapon/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Pakistan Observer – Pakistan OPINION Monday, December 12, 2011 Beyond Bonn II By Air Cdre Khalid Igbal (R) As expected, Bonn II Conference did not go beyond the rhetoric. Conference convened to encourage talks with the Taliban and boost the regional cooperation, brought forth the reality of a dead ended peace process sans Pakistan. Though Taliban had been engaged in peace talks for years, they also didn’t show up for the event; they branded the conference as a sham. Just as Iran’s foreign minister arrived for the conference, his country’s reported that Iranian forces downed an American drone that strayed into Iranian airspace. Candace Rondeaux, an analyst at the International Crisis Group opined, “The narrative of regional cooperation being built up in Washington and other Western capitals in no way matches reality.” Bonn II was a political conference. Leaders of the international community pledged to support Afghanistan after foreign troops’ withdrawal. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said, “Today, the international community sends a clear message to the people of Afghanistan: We will not abandon you. We stay at your side.” In exchange for good governance, the international community was ready to stand by Afghanistan for 10 years after NATO’s combat troops withdraw from that country in 2014. Conference acknowledged the burden of Afghanistan’s neighbours, in particular Pakistan and Iran, in providing temporary refuge to millions of Afghans in difficult times. Hillary Clinton said, “We continue to believe that Pakistan has a crucial role to play,” adding that she was encouraged by remarks by a Pakistani government official that ‘it will continue cooperation, including in the fight

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 against terrorism’. Hillary Clinton acknowledged Pakistan’s importance to the Afghan peace process and expressed regret about Islamabad’s boycott. “We would, of course, have benefited from Pakistan’s contribution to this conference,” she said. Much of the attention in Bonn was on Afghanistan’s economic needs. The Afghan government estimates that it will need around $10 billion a year in international aid for many years to come to prevent its administration and security forces from collapsing. However, many analysts say that the estimates are exaggerated. Actual levels of international financial support for Afghanistan will be determined during a pledging conference in Japan next year. Ahead of the Bonn gathering, Afghan officials had floated the concept of “transition dividend” under which coalition nations would commit to invest in Afghanistan part of the money that they save by pulling out their troops in coming years. This point was dropped from the conference’s declaration as donor nations were reluctant to make commitments. Afghanistan indicated its resolve to do its share. Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassul said, “Today, Afghanistan also reaffirms in the strongest possible terms our determination to fight corruption and the culture of impunity that have undermined the development of our national institutions and internal strength and credibility”. President Karzai said, “The Afghan people do not wish to remain a burden on the generosity of the international community for a single day longer than absolutely necessary.” Pakistan is a key player in the Afghan crisis. It wields critical influence with some Taliban groups. It could convince them to a part of Afghan peace process. But American delusion of victory continues to blind it from ground realities. Apparently, until the US drawdown is completed its forces will be operating aggressively in the Afghan Provinces bordering Pakistan. ‘The Guardian’ has opined on 03 December that Washington is planning “a substantial offensive in eastern Afghanistan aimed at insurgent groups based in Pakistan, involving an escalation of aerial attacks on insurgent sanctuaries” in Pakistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser, wrote recently that “If America sought influence in Central Asia and Afghanistan, it had to come through Pakistan,” and for the US “to treat Pakistan as subservient as opposed to a friend, let alone an equal,” was a grave error. “The American public,” Brzezinski said, “are being sold a half-baked truth. The problem within Afghanistan lies within Afghanistan” and not in Pakistan. Robert Dreyfuss in his article “Bonn Meet Falls on Face” carried by The Diplomat on 07 December opined that ‘Despite the pomp and ceremony –the just-concluded conference...fell flat on its face’... Perhaps the principal reason why no breakthrough occurred is that Pakistan is increasingly alienated from the process...Underneath its reaction to the recent event, however, are Pakistan’s real, strategic concerns. Following this year’s cascading series of events that have roiled the US-Pakistan ties, neither side can any longer maintain the fiction that their relationship isn’t adversarial and that they have sharply divergent objectives in Afghanistan.” Boycott of the conference has triggered a fresh Pakistan bashing spree in the western media. As usual, focus in on the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Ann Murlin has reported a narration of recent Pentagon war games under the title ‘Doomsday War Games’: “....At least one (nuclear weapons) site is occupied by Islamist units...Both US and other national intelligence services have concluded that sympathetic elements of the ISI have provided Islamist officers leading the breakaway army units with the activation codes needed to arm the nuclear weapons under their control...” Graham Allison, an expert on nuclear weapons who directs the ‘Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs’ says: “There are three threats”. The first is “a terrorist theft of a nuclear weapon, which they take to Mumbai or New York for a nuclear 9/11. The second is a transfer of a nuclear weapon to a state like Iran. The third is a takeover of nuclear weapons by a militant group during a period of instability or splintering of the state.” Earlier in November, Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder in an article “The Pentagon’s Secret Plans to Secure Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal” had reported for ‘National Journal’ that “Much of the world, of course, is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons...The single biggest threat to the US security...would be the

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon...Pakistan would be an obvious place for a jihadist organization to seek a nuclear weapon or fissile material...Its security services are infiltrated by an unknown number of jihadist sympathizer... And the weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country”. This scenario building is not purely fictional. It is a well orchestrated campaign to mould the international opinion. Physical threat to Pakistan’s nuclear assets is real. However, it is not from the non-state actors operating in Pakistan; threat is from America itself. Considerable effort has been put in by the American forces to plan such an eventuality; special teams have been trained and put through rehearsals. America may engineer a crisis scenario in Pakistan to justify such action. Unfortunately, Pakistan military’s inability to put up a timely military response to Abbottabad and Salala border post attacks have further emboldened the Americans to think that such a misadventure is a doable. Pakistan’s political and military leadership needs to put its act together and plug all loopholes to deter America from undertaking such misadventure. All intruding aircraft must be shot down to dispel the impression of lack of capacity and capability.

The writer is international security, current affairs analyst and a former PAF assistant chief of air staff. http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=129630 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Arms Control Wonk OPINION Pakistan’s Nuclear Artillery? By Jeffrey Lewis 12 December 2011 This is, purportedly, a very interesting Urdu-language article in a Pakistani paper, The News. I don’t read Urdu, so as far as I know, this is just a recipe for chicken biryani. According to some translations floating around, the article cites a “Western diplomat” claiming that former Pakistani President Pervez told US officials that Pakistan had developed “among the world’s smartest nuclear tactical devices.” Now, since nuclear weapons don’t take IQ tests, I think “smart” in this context means “neatness or trimness of appearance.” In other words, miniaturized. I don’t know if any of this is true, but the Pakistanis seem to be making a lot of noise lately about their tactical nuclear stockpile. “Look at us! We have tactical nuclear weapons!” Mark Hibbs, in a forthcoming article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, mentions that, during his most recent trip to Islamabad, he was directly told that Pakistan was developing very small, low-yield nuclear weapons. A few weeks after his visit, Pakistan tested a short-range artillery rocket, Nasr. In case you had any doubt, the Pakistan’s official press release stated that the Nasr “carries nuclear warheads of appropriate yield.” The Nasr is an artillery rocket — I have never before encountered this term Battlefield Range Ballistic Missile or BRBM. Usman Ansari in Defense News quoted a Pakistani academic, Mansoor Ahmed, arguing that “the diameter size of Nasr suggests that the warhead would be less than 1 kilogram, and would be of sub-kiloton range, suitable for battlefield use and could be a fission boosted sub-kiloton fission device.” I can’t find reliable data on the Nasr, so I used the Mark I Eyeball to observe that the Nasr (top) looks a lot like an M30/31 MLRS rocket (bottom). Both rockets have a similar range.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The M30 carries a 90 kg unitary penetrator and is about 20 centimeters in diameter. That’s actually too small for even the smallest US nuclear weapon ever designed, the W54. (Aw, look at the little feller.) Now, of course, maybe the Nasr is 30 centimeters in diameter (I certainly am not/not claiming to be able to eyeball rocket dimensions to within a few centimeters) or Pakistan just made a really little warhead. I really wonder whether Pakistan could develop such a small warhead with any confidence. The general view has been that Pakistan would probably need testing to develop a miniaturized plutonium implosion device, to say nothing of the sort of boosted little devil we are talking about. I am no warhead designer, but here is how the National Academies described the situation in 2002: Pakistan similarly could manufacture and stockpile its enriched uranium fission weapons without further testing, and it could make progress toward a plutonium implosion weapon (perhaps even producing and stockpiling one of simple—and inefficient—design, in which it could have some confidence). Now, as I have noted before “simple—and inefficient—design” is a term of art that usually means too big for a missile, let alone a little rocket like NASR. I am skeptical, I must admit, but still intrigued. This is a smart little puzzle, isn’t it? http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4866/pakistans-nuclear-artillery (Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times OPINION/Commentary December 13, 2011 Unfinished Business FRANK KLOTZ, SUSAN KOCH and FRANKLIN MILLER WASHINGTON — In September 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced a series of sweeping measures fundamentally reshaping the American nuclear arsenal. One of them called for all U.S. ground-force tactical nuclear weapons to be returned from overseas bases and dismantled. Similarly, all tactical nuclear weapons on surface ships and attack submarines, as well as those associated with land-based naval aircraft, were to be withdrawn. Eight days later, President Mikhail Gorbachev reciprocated, declaring that similar steps would be taken for Soviet nuclear forces. As a result of these so-called Presidential Nuclear Initiatives, or P.N.I.’s, thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides were ultimately taken out of service and in some cases eliminated altogether — all based on unilateral, parallel actions, and all without an arms control treaty. Presidents Bush and Gorbachev succeeded in bypassing the time-consuming treaty process largely because of the momentous changes taking place at the time. A year earlier, Germany had been reunited and the Warsaw Pact dissolved. The month before the P.N.I.’s were announced, Soviet hard-liners had attempted a coup against the Gorbachev regime, raising serious questions about who was really in charge of the country and its vast nuclear weapons stockpile. Crises create opportunities for bold action; both presidents rightly seized the moment. Now, 20 years later, the subject of reducing tactical nuclear weapons has again come to the fore. Signing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in April 2010, President Obama announced that the United States intended to pursue further reductions in all categories of nuclear weapons — including, for the first time, tactical and nondeployed warheads. Voting to approve the treaty, the U.S. Senate called for negotiations with Russia to address the disparity in U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear weapons and to secure and reduce those weapons in a verifiable manner.

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The specific size of that disparity is a matter of debate. Neither the United States nor Russia has publicly disclosed the number and locations of the tactical nuclear weapons they possess. Unofficial estimates vary widely. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies credits the United States with 500 operational warheads, with fewer than half of those deployed in Europe. The 2009 report of the bipartisan U.S. Strategic Posture Commission cited reports that Russia has 3,800 operational tactical nuclear warheads, plus numerous reserves. Although others offer different estimates, Russian weapons clearly outnumber U.S. weapons by an overwhelming margin. As the United States and Russia continue to reduce long-range, strategic nuclear weapons to increasingly lower levels, this disparity in tactical nuclear weapons looms larger, with potentially serious implications for the overall nuclear balance between the two countries and the continued efficacy of the U.S. nuclear umbrella for its allies. Moreover, Russian military doctrine and public statements by senior Russian officers suggest that Moscow places high value on a large tactical nuclear force for deterrence and potential escalation in military conflicts. Negotiating a reduction in tactical and nondeployed nuclear weapons won’t be easy. There are serious technical challenges related to verifying compliance, and U.S.-Russian differences on a range of strategic issues, especially missile defenses, cloud the prospects for “getting to yes” in formal negotiations anytime soon. There is, however, some unfinished business concerning the 20 year-old P.N.I.’s that both governments could take up now to help lay the foundation for future talks. The U.S. government has been quite open about the steps taken to implement the P.N.I.’s. The day after Bush’s announcement, the Pentagon provided a very detailed account of the number and types of American tactical nuclear weapons deployed abroad and on ships. More recently, in May 2010, the United States made public the actual size of its nuclear weapons stockpile for each year since 1962, as well as the specific number of weapons dismantled annually since 1994. The Russians have been far less forthcoming. As a result, serious questions have existed almost from the outset about Russian implementation of the P.N.I.’s, as well as the role of tactical nuclear weapons in their military strategy. By way of contrast, the United States and Russia have grown accustomed to sharing considerable information about their longer-range strategic nuclear forces. For years, they have routinely exchanged and updated information on the disposition of retiring nuclear-capable bombers and missiles. Similar processes could be applied to the types and numbers of tactical nuclear systems affected by the P.N.I.’s. Lingering doubts about actual implementation would be reduced; the overall relationship would benefit from greater openness. The next logical step would be for both countries to disclose, on a reciprocal basis, the location, types and numbers of tactical nuclear weapons that remain. This should pose few problems for the United States and its allies; well-informed accounts of deployed American weapons have been around for years. But disclosing such data might prove difficult for Russia, given its penchant for secrecy and the political risks of confirming it does indeed possess a far greater number of these weapons. If such difficulties can be overcome, these two steps would enhance transparency and mutual confidence. In the process, they could help pave the way to future negotiations on reducing both tactical and nondeployed nuclear weapons. Frank Klotz is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Susan Koch is an independent consultant. Franklin Milleris a principal at the Scowcroft Group. All three have served in senior positions at the U.S. Department of Defense and on the National Security Council staff. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/unfinished-business.html

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

FrontPage Magazine OPINION North Korea’s Nukes By Frank Crimi December 13, 2011 A classified briefing given in November to congressional leaders by officials in the Obama administration revealed that North Korea is in the process of building its first road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, an ICBM capable of striking the continental United States. North Korea’s primary strategic missile — the long-range Taepodong-2 intercontinental missile — is a fixed-site ICBM with a range of up to 9,300 miles. However, the road-mobile ICBMs, which are more difficult to locate on radar and thus easier to hide, can be set up and launched much more quickly than fixed-site missiles. It is believed the new mobile ICBM is an adaptation of the North Korean Musudan mobile intermediate-range missile, already deployed by North Korea and reportedly capable of reaching American military bases in Okinawa and Guam. Needless to say, the development of a North Korean nuclear-armed mobile ICBM, according to a military analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, would pose “a spectacular challenge” to the United States. Of course, it should be noted that the news of North Korea’s pursuit of a mobile ICBM has long been acknowledged by the Obama administration. In January 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the North Koreans’ pursuit in developing a road- mobile ballistic missile posed “a huge problem,” adding “As we’ve found out in a lot of places, finding mobile missiles is very tough.” In fact, Gates had gone on to warn that North Korea’s potential road-mobile ICBM — coupled with its continued development of long-range missiles and continued development of nuclear weapons — makes it very likely that “North Korea could strike the U.S. with a nuclear warhead-tipped missile by 2015.” Gates’ belief that North Korea is in the process of becoming “a direct threat to the United States,” was echoed in a recent statement issued by Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ros-Lehtinen wrote, “As the North Korea threat grows, so do other threats. North Korea is a legendary proliferator and you can be certain that the regime will not keep its technological advances to itself, but share with the likes of Iran and Syria.” Not surprisingly, despite being under UN sanctions for conducting nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, North Korea has continued to share nuclear technology with other nations, assistance which includes setting up nuclear production and testing facilities in both Syria and Iran. In fact, shortly after the release of Ros-Lehtinen’s statement, new reports surfaced that North Korea recently sent a contingent of engineers to Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities. According to one Western diplomat, “Hundreds of North Korean scientists and engineers are working at about 10 nuclear and missile facilities in Iran.” So, given that North Korea is now adding to its ballistic missile arsenal – already estimated to number over 1,000 medium-and long-range missiles — it prompted several Republican lawmakers to write Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressing concerns that the Obama administration immediately “correct its priorities regarding the missile defense of the homeland.”

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Those misplaced defense priorities have been on glaring display in the Obama White House’s efforts to respond against an array of growing long-range missile threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Specifically, the Obama administration has sacrificed US homeland ballistic missile defense by systematically reducing the number of American long-range missile interceptors as well as outright cancelling entire missile defense programs. For starters, in September 2009 the Obama administration cancelled a proposed ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) missile site based in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Begun by the second Bush administration, that system was designed to provide additional protection to the US homeland from long-range Iranian nuclear missiles that are estimated to be operational by 2015. Since then President Obama has, among other things, reduced the planned number of GMD interceptors in Alaska and California from 44 to 30 and cancelled both the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) and Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) long-range missile defense programs. Most disturbingly, the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation, pushed by the Obama White House and ratified by the US Senate in December 2010, recognizes the linkage between reduction of strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems, a position the Russians have sought for years. As such New START imposes an array of restrictions on American missile defense options, restrictions which include limiting the American option of converting its strategic offensive missile launchers into defensive interceptors. Instead, the Obama administration’s American missile defense system policy has been geared toward sacrificing long-standing homeland ballistic missile defense in favor of supporting regional missile defense. That policy shift is currently on display as the United States and NATO are locked in a battle with Russia over the deployment of a Europe-based missile system consisting of 24 interceptor missiles based in Poland and Romania and an advanced radar system located in Turkey. While that defense system is designed to defend Europe’s NATO members from potential missile attacks launched from outside Europe, in particular from Iran, Russia has objected to its deployment, fearing the system will be used against its own ICBMs. The Russians, however, may not be the only ones prepared to quash the Europe-based missile system. Specifically, Congress, locked in deficit reduction talks with the Obama administration over a mandate beginning in 2013 to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, may be sympathetic to pulling the plug on a missile system aimed at primarily defending Europe. As Kurt Volker, ambassador to NATO during the George W. Bush administration says “A missile defense system for NATO? It’s going to be hard to keep people committed if they think the US is picking up the tab for Europe.” Nevertheless, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States and NATO are prepared to deploy the missile defense system, arguing that no country outside of the NATO alliance will have a “veto over whether NATO protects itself by building a missile defense system against the threats that we perceive are the most salient.” Perhaps given its relentless pursuit to acquire nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States, Mrs. Clinton may want to extend those “salient threats” to also include North Korea. Frank Crimi is a writer living in San Diego, California. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/13/north-koreas-nukes/

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 964, 13 December 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530