Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 Articles & Other Documents:

Featured Article: U.N. Says Iran Is Working on Nuclear Arms

1. Iran Has Nuclear Explosive Testing Facility 2. Iran Dismisses Reported UN Claims of Nuclear Work 3. Iran Says IAEA's Documents on Its Missile Program "Baseless": FM 4. IAEA Says Foreign Expertise Has Brought Iran to Threshold of Nuclear Capability 5. China Tells Iran to Show 'Flexibility and Sincerity' over Nuclear Issue 6. Russia Says Timing of UN Report on Iran Nuclear Weapons ‘Wrong’ 7. Barak Not Optimistic about Int'l Will to Stop Iranian Nukes 8. Iran Says West Has ‘No Proof’ of Bomb Drive 9. Israeli Minister Warns Iran Strike is Possible 10. U.N. Says Iran Is Working on Nuclear Arms 11. N. Korea's Uranium Program Close to Being Operational: Source 12. Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Vulnerable to Theft: Report 13. Pakistani Nukes Are 'Very Hard Targets': Musharraf 14. Pakistan Rejects Reports of Nuclear Insecurity 15. Threat to Pak Nukes Exists: US 16. US Invites Russia to Take Part in Antimissile Flight Test 17. Russia Rebukes US 'Look But Don't Touch' Offer on Missile Defense 18. Osama Bin Laden Was Betrayed by His Deputy 19. Ex-U.S. General Urges Frank Talk on Cyber Weapons 20. Rethink China's Nuke Weapons Strategy 21. No Optimism on NK Nukes 22. Nuclear Terrorism Threat 23. James A. Baker, on Reducing Nuclear Arms 24. More Documentation Of Iran's Relentless Pursuit Of Nukes 25. The Growing Threat of Iran’s Nuclear Program 26. Now For a Real Iran Debate

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. 955, 8 November 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

Financial Times – U.K. 5 November 2011 Iran Has Nuclear Explosive Testing Facility By James Blitz and agencies A report by the UN nuclear watchdog next week will support allegations that Iran has built a nuclear weapons testing facility, Reuters reported on Saturday. In its report, Reuters cites sources stating that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has obtained satellite pictures of a large steel container for carrying out tests with high explosives that could be used in nuclear weapons. The images of the site at Parchin, near Tehran, and other evidence lend credence to allegations by IAEA member states that the installation was intended for nuclear-related explosives testing. According to the sources that briefed Reuters, the IAEA will also reveal evidence next week that Iran has carried out computer modelling of a nuclear weapon. Western diplomats contacted by the FT on Saturday said that they would make no comment on the Reuters report. In recent days, western diplomats have said the keenly awaited report will strengthen suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop a capability to make atomic bombs. However, the IAEA is expected to stop short of saying explicitly that Iran is definitely doing so. It was unclear when the container at Parchin was built or whether it was actually used for nuclear-related work. Iranian officials were not immediately available for comment. Suspicions of nuclear arms work at the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran date back at least to 2004 when a prominent nuclear expert said satellite images showed it could be a site for research, testing and production of nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its nuclear programme is peaceful, has previously denied the allegations. In 2005, Iran allowed U, nuclear inspectors to visit Parchin. The IAEA in May listed seven areas of concern regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, including high explosives manufacture and testing and the development, manufacture and testing of explosive components. One of the main hurdles in making an atomic bomb is designing a ring of conventional explosives to compress atomic material in the warhead core, igniting a nuclear chain reaction. Experiments have to be carried out to test the impact of explosions on bomb components. The IAEA report is expected to include other evidence of research and other activities that make little sense if not weapons-related, Western diplomats have said. Western powers believe Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies this, saying it is enriching uranium only to power reactors for electricity generation. Any evidence of nuclear weapons activities would strengthen calls for further sanctions against Iran. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d981ce22-07ba-11e1-b658-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1crjNHhn9 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Atlanta Journal-Constitution Saturday, November 05, 2011

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Iran Dismisses Reported UN Claims of Nuclear Work By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press TEHRAN, Iran — New intelligence the U.N. atomic agency plans to release on alleged nuclear weapons work by Iran is fabricated, the Iranian foreign minister said Saturday. Diplomats have told The Associated Press that the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to reveal intelligence in the coming week suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead, as well as other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms. Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi accused the IAEA of giving in to U.S. pressure to level accusations against Iran, which insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful aims like energy production. "Iran has already responded to the alleged studies in 117 pages. We've said time and again that these are forgeries similar to faked notes," Salehi told a news conference in Tehran. Salehi, Iran's former nuclear chief, asserted that allegations proven false in the past are being reproduced. "The Americans raised documents like this in the past: the Niger scandal," he said, referring to claims — based on a forgery — that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger. "The documents were used as a pretext to invade Iraq," Salehi said. "After killing tens of thousands of innocent people, it was discovered that it was a forged document." Iran has previously claimed that reports on alleged nuclear weapons activities were based on false information provided by a "few arrogant countries," a phrase authorities in Iran use to refer to the United States and its allies. Salehi accused the IAEA of violating its neutrality and siding with U.S. intelligence claims under new agency chief Yukiya Amano, saying he is using information that his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, said the agency could not authenticate independently. "The IAEA should not do things under pressure. ... Iran's nuclear issue is not a technical or legal issue. It's a totally political case," Salehi said. Iran has in the past dismissed investigations by the IAEA into the so-called Green Salt Project, which the U.S. alleged was an Iranian plan studying diverse components of a nuclear weapons program, including uranium enrichment and high explosives testing. But Washington has refused to hand over the original documents to the IAEA and only presented a copy to the agency to support its claims. Iran has argued that U.S. reluctance to hand over original documents reinforces its assertion that they are forged. Iran is already under U.N. sanctions for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce reactor fuel or material for a warhead. Iran insists its nuclear work is only to produce energy and conduct peaceful scientific research. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/iran-dismisses-reported-un-1218488.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Xinhua News – China Iran Says IAEA's Documents on Its Missile Program "Baseless": FM 6 November 2011

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

TEHRAN, Nov. 5 (Xinhua) -- Iran's Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi said Saturday the documents of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its missile program are "unfounded and baseless," the semi-official Mehr news agency reported. "The alleged documents claimed by the IAEA are baseless," Salehi said during a joint press conference with his visiting Burundian counterpart in Tehran, referring to reports that the IAEA will release some documents about Iran's missile program in the future. The United Nations nuclear supervision agency is expected to release a report on Iran's nuclear program next week, which is likely to hint at Iran's engagement in nuclear weapons work despite UN sanctions. Yukiya Amano, the IAEA Director General, had said at the UN General Assembly that while its too early to make conclusions just yet, the report may possibly exacerbate Middle East tensions. He urged Iran to cooperate with the IAEA to prove that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/06/c_131231279.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post IAEA Says Foreign Expertise Has Brought Iran to Threshold of Nuclear Capability By Joby Warrick Sunday, November 6, 2011 Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings. Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added. The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 — when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures. The U.N. nuclear watchdog is due to release a report this week laying out its findings on Iran’s efforts to obtain sensitive nuclear technology. Fears that Iran could quickly build an atomic bomb if it chooses to has fueled anti- Iran rhetoric and new threats of military strikes. Some U.S. arms-control groups have cautioned against what they fear could be an overreaction to the report, saying there is still time to persuade Iran to change its behavior. Iranian officials expressed indifference about the report. “Let them publish and see what happens,” said Iran’s foreign minister and former nuclear top official, Ali Akbar Salehi, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported Saturday. Salehi said that the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program is “100 percent political” and that the IAEA is “under pressure from foreign powers.” ‘Never really stopped’

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Although the IAEA has chided Iran for years to come clean about a number of apparently weapons-related scientific projects, the new disclosures fill out the contours of an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected. Beginning early in the last decade and apparently resuming — though at a more measured pace — after a pause in 2003, Iranian scientists worked concurrently across multiple disciplines to obtain key skills needed to make and test a nuclear weapon that could fit inside the country’s long-range missiles, said David Albright, a former IAEA official who has reviewed the intelligence files. “The program never really stopped,” said Albright, president of Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. The institute performs widely respected, independent analyses of nuclear programs in countries around the world, often drawing from IAEA data. “After 2003, money was made available for research in areas that sure look like nuclear-weapons work but were hidden within civilian institutions,” Albright said. U.S. intelligence officials maintain that Iran’s leaders have not decided whether to build nuclear weapons but are intent on gathering all the components and skills so they can quickly assemble a bomb if they choose to. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are peaceful and intended only to generate electricity. The IAEA has declined to comment on the intelligence it has received from member states, including the United States, pending the release of its report. But some of the highlights were described in a presentation by Albright at a private conference of intelligence professionals last week. PowerPoint slides from the presentation were obtained by The Washington Post, and details of Albright’s summary were confirmed by two European diplomats privy to the IAEA’s internal reports. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, in keeping with diplomatic protocol. Albright said IAEA officials, based on the totality of the evidence given to them, have concluded that Iran “has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device” using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core. In the presentation, he described intelligence that points to a formalized and rigorous process for gaining all the necessary skills for weapons-building, using native talent as well as a generous helping of foreign expertise. “The *intelligence+ points to a comprehensive project structure and hierarchy with clear responsibilities, timelines and deliverables,” Albright said, according to the notes from the presentation. Soviet scientist’s assistance According to Albright, one key breakthrough that has not been publicly described was Iran’s success in obtaining design information for a device known as a R265 generator. The device is a hemispherical aluminum shell that is lined with pellets of high explosives and electrically wired so the detonations occur in split-second precision. The explosions compress a small sphere of enriched uranium or plutonium to trigger a nuclear chain reaction. Creating such a device is a formidable technical challenge, and Iran needed outside assistance in designing the generator and testing its performance, Albright said. According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran’s Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country’s nuclear program. Documents provided to the U.N. officials showed that Danilenko offered assistance to the Iranians over at least five years, giving lectures and sharing research papers on developing and testing an explosives package that the Iranians apparently incorporated into their warhead design, according to two officials with access to the IAEA’s confidential files.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Danilenko’s role was judged to be so critical that IAEA investigators devoted considerable effort to obtaining his cooperation, the two officials said. The scientist acknowledged his role but said he thought his work was limited to assisting civilian engineering projects, the sources said. There is no evidence that Russian government officials knew of Danilenko’s activities in Iran. E-mails requesting comment from Russian officials in Washington and Moscow were not returned. Iran relied on foreign experts to supply mathematical formulas and codes for theoretical design work — much of which appear to have originated in North Korea, diplomats and weapons experts say. Additional help appears to have come from noted Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose design for a device known as a neutron initiator was found in Iran, the sources said. Khan is known to have provided nuclear blueprints to Libya that included a neutron initiator, a device that shoots a stream of atomic particles into a nuclear weapon’s fissile core at the start of the nuclear chain reaction. One Iranian document provided to the IAEA portrayed Iranian scientists as discussing plans to conduct a four-year study of neutron initiators beginning in 2007, four years after Iran was said to have halted such research. “It is unknown if it commenced or progressed as planned,” Albright said. The disclosures come against a backdrop of new threats of military strikes on Iran. Israeli newspapers reported last week that there is high-level government support in Israel for a military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. “One of the problems with such open threats of military action is that it furthers the drift towards a military conflict and makes it more difficult to dial down tensions,” said Peter Crail, a nonproliferation analyst with the Arms Control Association, a Washington advocacy group. “It also risks creating an assumption that we can always end Iran’s nuclear program with a few airstrikes if nothing else works. That’s simply not the case.” Special correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iaea-says-foreign-expertise-has-brought-iran-to- threshold-of-nuclear-capability/2011/11/05/gIQAc6hjtM_story.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Star Tribune – Minneapolis, MN China Tells Iran to Show 'Flexibility and Sincerity' over Nuclear Issue By: Associated Press November 8, 2011 BEIJING - Iran needs to show "flexibility and sincerity" over its nuclear program, China's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday, as tensions rise ahead of the release of a new report on its atomic activities by a U.N. agency. Spokesman Hong Lei said China is firmly opposed to any use of force against Iran to prevent it from acquiring an atomic weapon. "China always holds that the Iranian nuclear issue should be properly solved through dialogue and cooperation," Hong told a daily news briefing. "The Iranian side should also show flexibility and sincerity," he said. U.S. officials say the government will use the International Atomic Energy Agency report as leverage in making its case to other countries that sanctions against Iran should be expanded and tightened and that the enforcement of current sanctions should be toughened. China is Iran's biggest trading partner but has supported previous U.N. sanctions aimed at pressuring the Iranian government to suspend enrichment and start negotiations on its nuclear program — which it has refused to do.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The report, which is expected to be issued Wednesday, will suggest that Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead and include satellite imagery of what the IAEA believes is a large steel container used for nuclear arms- related high explosives tests, diplomats told the AP. One senior U.S. official predicted it would stiffen the resolve of U.S. allies, particularly in Europe, to step up pressure on Iran to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful, as it claims. Hong did not say whether China would support tougher sanctions on Iran or other new measures, but said China is firmly against the use of force in international affairs. "At present, it is imperative to prevent new turbulence in the Middle East security situation," he said. http://www.startribune.com/world/133420573.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Bloomberg News Russia Says Timing of UN Report on Iran Nuclear Weapons ‘Wrong’ By Ilya Arkhipov and Henry Meyer November 8, 2011 Russia criticized the United Nations for planning to release a report today that may show Iran is trying to move closer to having a nuclear weapon, saying the timing is “wrong.” This report dwells on the past, a Foreign Ministry official in Moscow said by phone. Its release will, “without a doubt, strain the atmosphere” and hinder the start of serious negotiations, the official said, declining to be identified in line with government policy. The scientist in question is Ukrainian, the official said, declining to elaborate. The International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to publish this week its quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear work, in which inspectors are expected to conclude for the first time that Iran is working toward nuclear weapons. The report may show that the Persian Gulf country used information from a Russian scientist to explore how to raise the yield of atomic warheads, said three officials with knowledge of the document. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that an Israeli military strike against Iran would be a “serious mistake” with “unpredictable consequences.” Israeli President Shimon Peres said the possibility of using force to halt the Iranian program was drawing nearer, Reuters reported Nov. 4. Lavrov told reporters in Moscow that a Russian offer to resolve the dispute by lifting sanctions in stages in return for Iranian cooperation on inspections was “still on the negotiating table.” Lavrov said he hoped “no actions will be taken that could destroy these chances.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-08/russia-says-timing-of-un-report-on-iran-nuclear-weapons-wrong- .html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Jerusalem Post – Israel Barak Not Optimistic about Int'l Will to Stop Iranian Nukes Defense minister: IAEA report presents best opportunity to impose "deadly sanctions"; Israel does not want war, hasn't authorized any operation. By JPOST.COM STAFF November 8, 2011

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that he is not optimistic that the international community has the will to come together in order to put a stop to Iran's nuclear program, in an interview with Israel Radio Tuesday. Nonetheless, the short period of time following the impending release of an Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Tehran's nuclear program presents the best opportunity for convincing the world to act against Iran. While the defense minister said he was not optimistic about any international action against Iran, specifically "deadly sanctions" targeting its financial institutions as well as physical sanctions, "I hope it will happen," he said. Addressing the IAEA report, the reported contents of which have been leaked to various international newspapers in recent days, Barak said, "we've known these things for years." "We know more [about Iran] than The Washington Post knows and we know more than the IAEA does," he added. Israel is expecting the United States to take the lead in pushing the United Nations and other Western countries to impose tougher, new sanctions on Iran following the publication of the incriminating IAEA report. The report is tentatively scheduled to be published on Tuesday or Wednesday. Some of the sensitive information expected to be revealed in the report is believed to have come from intelligence agencies in the US and the United Kingdom. Asked whether Israel needs the approval of the United States to launch an attack on Iran, the defense minister said that Israel appreciates and respects the United States and that Washington stands with Israel in many different ways, but that at the end of the day, "Israel is a sovereign state." The government has been working for years at showing the world that the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran is one that affects the whole world, not just Israel. But Israel is responsible for her own safety and protecting herself, Barak said. Jerusalem does not want war, he said in the interview, but even if it is drawn into a war against its will, fears of mass casualties are unfounded. "There's no chance in such a situation for 500,000 killed, not 5,000 or even 500 killed." He added that no decision had been taken regarding a military operation. One of the consequences of the Arab Spring, the defense minister explained, is that Israel must be able to rely upon itself. "Israel is the strongest country in the region and it will stay that way," he said. http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=244786 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Khaleej Times – U.A.E. Iran Says West Has ‘No Proof’ of Bomb Drive By Agence France-Presse (AFP) 8 November 2011 YEREVAN — Iran said on Tuesday that the West had no proof it was developing nuclear weapons, as the Islamic Republic braced for a UN report expected to provide new evidence that it is seeking the atomic bomb. Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi denied the UN atomic watchdog report could undermine Iran’s insistence that its nuclear programme is peaceful while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Tehran did not even need the bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on the Iranian nuclear programme is being published just after Israel’s President Shimon Peres warned that a pre-emptive attack on Iran had become more likely.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

“There is no serious proof that Iran is going to create a nuclear warhead,” Salehi said, responding to a question about the IAEA report during a visit to neighbouring Armenia. “The West and the United States are exerting pressure on Iran without serious arguments and proof,” he said. The IAEA report, thought to be set for release Wednesday, is said by diplomats in Vienna to be the watchdog’s harshest report yet against Iran’s nuclear programme. It is to contain evidence of activities suggesting work that could be used for developing nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, though stopping just short of definitively saying that is the case, diplomats said. Previous IAEA assessments have centred on Iran’s efforts to produce fissile material — uranium and plutonium — which can be put to peaceful uses such as power generation or be used to make a nuclear bomb. In typically defiant style, Ahmadinejad said his country “does not need an atomic bomb” and would instead “act thoughtfully” to confront US threats against it, according to state media. However he warned: “If America wants to confront the Iranian nation, it will certainly regret the Iranian nation’s response.” Peres warned on Sunday that a strike against Iran was becoming more likely, in one of the starkest warnings by the Jewish state to Tehran in recent times. “The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option,” Peres said. Avigdor Lieberman, the hawkish foreign minister of Israel, said only “crippling sanctions” would be able to thwart Iran, the Maariv newspaper reported. Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi shrugged off Peres’ warning, saying the reports were just “media clamour” and the Islamic republic was able to face down any threat. “We have repeatedly said that our country’s defensive capability, whether at sea, by missile, or underwater, is very high and up-to-date and we have the might to fend off any threats,” the ISNA news agency quoted Vahidi as saying. But President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia — which has a history of close ties with the Islamic Republic — said that Israeli threats were “extremely dangerous rhetoric” that could result in a “catastrophe”. “All this could lead to a very big conflict and that would be a catastrophe for the Middle East,” he told reporters on a visit to Berlin. Salehi repeated Tehran’s position that its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes only. “We have repeatedly stated that we are not going to create nuclear weapons,” he said. “Our position has always been that we will never use our nuclear programme for purposes other than peaceful ones.” The United States — which last month accused Iranian officials of masterminding a thwarted plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington — is keen to use the report to build world support for more sanctions on Iran. “We certainly expect it to echo and reinforce what we’ve been saying about Iran’s behaviour and its failure to live up to its international obligations,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney. Germany’s foreign ministry called for “greater political and diplomatic pressure” on Iran while French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said sanctions should be toughened but “everything must be done” to avoid a military conflict.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle11.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2011/November/middleeast_Novemb er200.xml§ion=middleeast (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Boston Globe Israeli Minister Warns Iran Strike is Possible By Amy Teibel, Associated Press November 8, 2011 JERUSALEM—Israel's defense minister warned on Tuesday of a possible Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program and rejected suggestions the Jewish state would be devastated by an Iranian counterattack. Ehud Barak spoke a day before the United Nations' nuclear agency was expected to release a critical report on the Iranian program. The report is expected to implicate Iran in bomb building and erase any doubts about the nature of the program, which Iran says is designed to produce energy, not weapons. Barak told Israel Radio he didn't expect the International Atomic Energy Agency report to persuade Russia and China to impose what he called "lethal" sanctions on Iran to pressure Tehran to dismantle its nuclear installations. "As long as no such sanctions have been imposed and proven effective, we continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table," he said. The "all options on the table" phrase is often used by Israeli politicians to mean a military assault. The U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Tehran, but none has succeeded in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. On Tuesday, Barak suggested adding a naval blockade that would cut off Iran's economic lifeline, oil. Israel views Iran as its greatest threat because of its nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated references to the destruction of the Jewish state and Iran's support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups. With most of its population concentrated in a narrow corridor of land along the Mediterranean, Israel's homefront could be vulnerable to a counterattack if Israel were to strike. An Israeli attack would also likely spark retaliation from local Iranian proxies, the Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip to Israel's south and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon along Israel's northern border. Barak lashed out against recent media reports and statements by current and former officials suggesting that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were intent on attacking Iran, over the objection of Israeli defense chiefs. Any Israeli attack would likely draw Iranian retaliation, with media reports suggesting as many as 100,000 Israelis could be killed. "This outlandish depiction (by the media) of two people, the prime minister and the defense minister, sitting in a closed room and leading the entire country into an adventurist operation is baseless and divorced from reality," he said. A larger forum of Cabinet ministers would have to make that decision -- if it is made at all, he said. "We haven't decided yet to embark on any operation," he said. "We don't want war." But if Israel is dragged into one, he said, "I tell you there won't be 100,000 casualties, and not 10,000 casualties and not 1,000 casualties," he said. "And Israel won't be destroyed." In 1981, Israel stunned the world with an airstrike on an unfinished nuclear reactor in Iraq that destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. Israeli warplanes also destroyed a site in Syria in 2007 that the U.N. nuclear watchdog deemed to be a secretly built nuclear reactor, though Israel never acknowledged responsibility for the attack.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Iran's program would be significantly more difficult to cripple because its facilities are scattered, and some are mobile and built underground. http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2011/11/08/israeli_minister_doesnt_rule_out_iran_stri ke/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Wall Street Journal November 8, 2011 U.N. Says Iran Is Working on Nuclear Arms By JAY SOLOMON WASHINGTON—The United Nations' nuclear agency for the first time publicly charged Iran with developing the technologies used to develop nuclear weapons, a move that could lead to increased economic and diplomatic isolation for Tehran. The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program released Tuesday, specifically outlined its conclusions that Tehran has conducted advanced research on developing a miniaturized warhead that could be delivered by medium-range missiles. The IAEA also said its inspectors have uncovered credible evidence that Iran has worked to develop the uranium metal used in producing warheads and that it has conducted computer simulations of nuclear detonations. The agency also said it believed Iran had conducted preparatory work for a nuclear test. While some of this work could have civilian purposes, the report said much of it is "specific to nuclear weapons" development. The IAEA said it had acquired more than 1,000 pages of documents detailing Iran's alleged work on developing nuclear weapons and that the information came from the IAEA itself, from Iran and from more than 10 member states of the U.N. agency. "All of this information, taken together, gave rise to concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the IAEA report said. Iran has repeatedly denied that its nuclear program is for military purposes. But the release of the report is expected to buttress efforts by the U.S and European countries to impose new financial sanctions on Iran. The Obama administration is currently deliberating whether to sanction Iran's central bank, a move that some U.S. officials believe could virtually freeze Iran out of the global financial system. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577026103201770154.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Yonhap News – South Korea November 7, 2011 N. Korea's Uranium Program Close to Being Operational: Source JEJU ISLAND, Nov. 7 (Yonhap) -- North Korea is close to being able to produce a small number of nuclear weapons per year through its uranium enrichment program (UEP) at the country's main nuclear plant, a senior South Korean official claimed Monday. The official claimed the UEP at the Yongbyon nuclear complex is a "small industry" that can be used to mass produce atomic weapons, citing reports that there are some 2,000 centrifuges located there.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"It seems that North Korea has completed 70 percent of the process to be able to make one or two nuclear weapons per year," the official, asking for anonymity, told Yonhap News on the margins of a disarmament conference on the resort island of Jeju. Pyongyang may have spent at least nine years establishing its UEP at Yongbyon, the official said, adding it is hard to monitor the nuclear facility in the communist state. Seoul and Washington have insisted that Pyongyang suspend the program and allow international inspectors to verify the suspension ahead of the aid-for-disarmament six-party talks, which have been suspended since late 2008. Pyongyang insists on reopening the forum without any preconditions. Highly enriched uranium can be used to make weapons, providing Pyongyang with a second way of building nuclear bombs in addition to its existing plutonium program. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2011/11/07/9/0401000000AEN20111107009300315F.HTML (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Economic Times – India 5 November 2011 Agence France-Presse (AFP) Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Vulnerable to Theft: Report WASHINGTON: Pakistan has begun moving its nuclear weapons in low-security vans on congested roads to hide them from US spy agencies, making the weapons more vulnerable to theft by Islamist militants, two US magazines reported today. The Atlantic and the National Journal, in a joint report citing unnamed sources, wrote that the US raid that killed Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May at his Pakistani compound reinforced Islamabad's longstanding fears that Washington could try to dismantle the country's nuclear arsenal. As a result, the head of the Strategic Plans Divisions (SPD), which is charged with safeguarding Pakistan's atomic weapons, was ordered to take action to keep the location of nuclear weapons and components hidden from the United States, the report said. Khalid Kidwai, the retired general who leads the SPD, expanded his agency's efforts to disperse components and sensitive materials to different facilities, it said. But instead of transporting the nuclear parts in armoured, well-defended convoys, the atomic bombs "capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads," according to the report. The pace of the dispersal movements has increased, raising concerns at the Pentagon, it said. Pakistan has long insisted its nuclear arsenal is safe and the article quotes an unnamed official from the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency saying: "Of all things in the world to worry about, the issue you should worry about the least is the safety of our nuclear program." The Pentagon declined to comment on the article but a senior US military official told reporters in Washington today that the United States remains confident Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure. "I believe the Pakistan military arsenal is safe at this time, well guarded, well defended," said the military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The article, based on dozens of interviews, said the US military has long had a contingency plan in place to disable Pakistan's nuclear weapons in the event of a coup or other worst-case scenario.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) has for years trained for a potential "disablement campaign" that its forces would lead and that would require entering more than a dozen nuclear sites and seizing or defusing atomic weapons, it said. The operation would use sensitive radiological detection devices that can pick up trace amounts of atomic material and JSOC has even built mock Pashtun villages with hidden mock nuclear-storage depots at a site on the East Coast to train elite Navy SEAL and Delta Force commandos, the report said. Although Pakistan has suggested it might shift towards China and forsake its ties to Washington, Chinese officials have reached an understanding in secret talks with US representatives that Beijing would raise no objections if the United States opted to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons, said the report, citing unnamed US sources. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-05/news/30363846_1_nuclear-arsenal-atomic-weapons- nuclear-weapons (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Express Tribune – Pakistan Pakistani Nukes Are 'Very Hard Targets': Musharraf Former Army chief in interview to CNN says repeat of Abbottabad style raid on nukes is not possible. By Pakistan Press International (PPI) November 5, 2011 WASHINGTON: Former Pakistan President and Army Chief Pervez Musharraf has ruled out the possibility that Pakistan’s nuclear warheads were susceptible to attacks or theft from either the Americans or religious extremists. “I don’t think it is possible, from my military perspective, for anyone, including the United States to attack Pakistan’s nuclear weapons that easily,” he said. Musharraf, speaking on a recorded CNN talk show GPS, said that “they *nuclear weapons+ are very well dispersed and they are in very strong positions. And, also guarded.” The show is due to be aired on Sunday. When the host asked Musharraf about the process by which the warheads were moved, Musharraf said that while he was never given a “running commentary” about the movement, there were locations where the warheads were held and there were forces (the Strategic Plans Division) to look after them. Asked whether Musharraf, during his time in power as head of the armed forces and Pakistan, was he satisfied with the level of security and the possibility of attack, or theft? The General answered that in his professional opinion, he did not believe the United States or anyone could attack them, “as simple as Osama bin Laden action”. He described the warheads as “very hard targets” in “places which are not accessible”. The only scenario in which Musharraf saw the warheads falling into the hands of extremists was if religious extremists were to become the head of government, with the likelihood of that being remote. “I don’t think so. I don’t – at the moment, religious parties don’t even have four – they just have about three or four per cent of the total seats. And I don’t see that happening in the near future,” he said. http://tribune.com.pk/story/288165/pakistani-nukes-are-very-hard-targets-musharraf/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Express Tribune – Pakistan Pakistan Rejects Reports of Nuclear Insecurity Earlier report stated that Pakistan is "an obvious place" for militants to seek nuclear weapons. By Reuters

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

November 6, 2011 ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Sunday dismissed an article in a US magazine that called it an “ally from hell” for Washington and raised questions about the safety of its nuclear arsenal and commitment to fighting militancy. A statement from Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs termed the cover story of The Atlantic’s December 2011 issue “pure fiction, baseless and motivated.” “The surfacing of such campaigns is not something new. It is orchestrated by quarters that are inimical to Pakistan,” the statement said. Writers Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder wrote that Pakistan is “an obvious place” for militants to seek nuclear weapons or materials because of a weak government and infiltration of its security forces by jihadist sympathisers. But Pakistan, the article said, is more concerned about American designs on its nuclear arsenal and goes to great lengths to conceal its weapons. The United States has spent almost $100 million helping secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and appropriated almost $20 billion in civilian and military aid since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks in a bid to secure Pakistan’s allegiance in the US-led war in neighbouring Afghanistan . The article said US officials have grown increasingly disenchanted with Pakistan efforts to root out sympathisers on its territory, particularly after the May 2 raid by American special forces that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a town about two hours outside of Islamabad home to the country’s premier military academy. Since then, Pakistan fears that the Pentagon plans similar raids to forcibly “de-nuclearize” it. The authors, citing unnamed sources, said those fears are valid. The article details contingency plans involving hundreds of US commandos specially trained in securing weapons of mass destruction who would swoop in and disable or seize Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the event of the collapse of the state or a jihadist coup. That fear explains perhaps the most startling allegation: that Pakistani authorities transport assembled nuclear weapons in civilian vans without heavy security, moving in regular traffic to avoid being noticed. This, the authors said, makes Pakistan’s nuclear weapons “vulnerable to theft by jihadists,” compromising security in a country where numerous militant organizations of various stripes are believed to be headquartered. The Pakistani statement rejected these fears. “No one should underestimate Pakistan’s will and capability to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests.” It is not just Pakistan’s weak institutions that worry the US, the article said. Its powerful military and intelligence agency, the directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), actively aid militants. ” The Pakistani government has wilfully misled the US for more than 20 years about its support for terrorist organisations,” wrote Goldberg and Ambinder. The US has increased pressure in recent months on Pakistan to act against militant groups in its territory, especially the Haqqani militant network that has launched brazen attacks against US and other targets in Afghanistan. Washington says the Haqqani network is based in Pakistan’s North Waziristan along the border with Afghanistan. The former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, admiral Mike Mullen, said in September that the Haqqani group is a “veritable arm” of the ISI.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The tensions have complicated the outlook as the Obama administration pushes ahead with plans to draw down troops and hand security control to Afghan forces by the end of 2014. http://tribune.com.pk/story/288476/pakistan-rejects-reports-of-nuclear-insecurity/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Times of India – India Threat to Pak Nukes Exists: US Press Trust of India (PTI) November 8, 2011 ISLAMABAD: Amid reports that US may dismantle Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the American embassy here on Monday said there were "potential threats" to Islamabad's atomic weapons from terrorists and that the country could still improve its nuclear security programmes. The US embassy in Islamabad was reacting to a report in the American journal, the Atlantic, which said the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden had reinforced Islamabad's longstanding fears that Washington could try to dismantle the country's nuclear arsenal. "The US government's views have not changed regarding nuclear security in Pakistan. We have confidence that the government of Pakistan is well aware of the range of potential threats to its nuclear arsenal and has accordingly given very high priority to securing its nuclear weapons and materials effectively," said a statement issued by the US embassy. "Pakistan has a professional, highly motivated, and dedicated security force that fully understands the importance of nuclear security," the statement said, a day after Pakistan rubbished the US media report. The embassy statement noted that US president Barack Obama had declared at the Nuclear Security Summit in March last year that he felt "confident about Pakistan's security around its nuclear weapons programmes". The statement added that Obama had also said, "But that doesn't mean that there isn't improvement to make in all of our nuclear security programmes." Pakistan has dismissed the Atlantic's report as "pure fiction". Reacting to the report's contention that the US had plans to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, foreign office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua had said no one should "underestimate" Pakistan's capability to defend its national interests. The report was "part of a deliberate propaganda campaign meant to mislead opinion. The surfacing of such campaigns is orchestrated by quarters that are inimical to Pakistan," Janjua said. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Threat-to-Pak-nukes-exists-US/articleshow/10650032.cms (Return to Articles and Documents List)

ITAR-TASS News Agency – Russia November 7, 2011 US Invites Russia to Take Part in Antimissile Flight Test BUCHAREST, November 7 (Itar-Tass) —— The United States have invited Russia to take part in flight tests for antimissiles to be deployed in Eastern Europe. Missile Defence Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick J. O'Reilly, told Romanian Mediafax news agency on Monday, November 7, that Washington is interested to cooperate with Russia in the field of missile defence and is waiting for Moscow’s reply.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The Romanian government has approved a draft law allowing the deployment of U.S. missile defence elements in the country. The document has been sent to the parliament and will enter into force after ratification. Russia opposes these plans as a threat to its own strategic nuclear forces. Moscow insists on legally binding guarantees that the missile defence system being created by the United States and NATO in Europe won’t be aimed against it. This issue was raised at the previous meeting between Ryabkov and Tauscher in St. Petersburg in the middle of August. “The main attention was paid to the discussion of missile defence issues. The Russian side stressed the importance of ensuring legally binding guarantees that the missile defence system being created by the United States and NATO won’t be aimed against Russia’s strategic nuclear forces,” the ministry said. Ryabkov and Tauscher also discussed “some other issues on the current international agenda in the field of non- proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and arms control”, the ministry said. Tauscher said earlier that the United States was preparing for talks with Russia on further nuclear arms cuts, seeking to consolidate positive results achieved in this field She recalled that two years ago in Prague U.S. President Barack Obama had declared America’s commitment to “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said there was no need for a legally binding agreement with Russia that would guarantee that their missile defence systems were not directed against each other. Speaking after a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi in early July, Rasmussen said he was convinced that all 28 NATO member states would have signed a statement pledging not to use force against each other. Rasmussen said he personally did not think there was a need for a legally binding agreement to this effect. In his opinion, Russia and NATO need tactical cooperation instead. “Russia says it wants guarantees. We can give these by agreeing that our systems will not undermine the strategic balance. That they will strengthen each other’s security - and not weaken it,” Rasmussen said. Rasmussen expressed confidence that “the best guarantee for Russia is to be part of the process. And to be connected to the system. We should focus on actual cooperation, not abstract questions. This is the best way to enhance transparency and confidence. And it builds up the mutual trust that is necessary to take the key decisions we need to take”. NATO and Russian Defence Ministers met in late June to discuss the next steps in our missile defence cooperation. “We all understand that the foundation for our cooperation must be confidence and trust,” Rasmussen said. Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov confirmed after that meeting that there is trust between Russia and NATO on missile defence, but there are no results. “NATO has so far not listened to Russia’s proposals on missile defence. NATO insists on building two independent systems,” he said. According to Serdyukov, this may lead to a situation where “a missile defence system that may be created in Europe by 2020 will neutralise Russia’s strategic capabilities”. In this case, Russia will have to “look for ways to overcome this system, which will lead to a new arms race”. The minister believes that this is “the position of the U.S. in the first place”.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

At the same time, he stressed that the dialogue will continue. “We have no other choice. Otherwise a return to an arms race will be inevitable,” Serdyukov said. Rasmussen said there was no need for a legally binding agreement with Russia that would guarantee that their missile defence systems were not directed against each other. Speaking after a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi in early July, Rasmussen said he was convinced that all 28 NATO member states would have signed a statement pledging not to use force against each other. Rasmussen said he personally did not think there was a need for a legally binding agreement to this effect. He said NATO is not ready to accept Russia’s proposals on sectoral missile defence in which Russia will ensure missile security of a part of NATO’s territory. Rasmussen made it clear that NATO would not ensure is own security using external sources. At the same time, he said that the dialogue with Russia is evolving naturally, each side has its own interests, and they need time to find a mutually acceptable solution. Rasmussen said NATO posed no threat to Russia and was not considering it as a threat. http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/265841.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Russia Today (RT) – Russia Russia Rebukes US 'Look But Don't Touch' Offer on Missile Defense 08 November 2011 By Robert Bridge, RT Russia has poured scorn on a suggestion that it send its missile defense specialists to America to discuss the controversial European missile defense shield with staff at the US Missile Defense Agency headquarters. "We do not see any particular sense in this because they will simply show us a picture of missile defense,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told reporters. The Americans are not providing Russia access to the actual information it would need to develop this topic, the diplomat added, saying it would be better to just "watch a film" about the controversial system. “We could just as well watch a film on the subject,” he said. The US and NATO are deploying anti-missile systems close to Russia’s western borders on the pretext that they are needed to protect Europe from so-called rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. However, Russia sees the system as a threat to its national security and wants active participation in the project. Washington believes it could convince the Russian military that the system poses no security threat to the territory of Russia by inviting them to the Missile Defense Agency headquarters, situated in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Ryabkov called the invitation a “propagandistic step.” "It is simply a certain propagandistic step to say: here we [the US] are demonstrating an openness in this sphere." The invitation was received by Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov, who is in charge of missile defense, Ryabkov said. Antonov did not say whether Russian experts would accept the invitation.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"We agreed with our US counterparts that we will meet on November 15 in Brussels where I will arrive to discuss this matter," the Deputy Defense Minister said. It was reported earlier that Washington offered Russian military experts a visit to the Missile Defense Agency headquarters, together with a pledge that Russia would be able to actively participate in missile defense system tests in the spring of 2012. President Dmitry Medvedev has warned Washington and NATO that the construction of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe without Russia’s full participation in the project could spark another arms race. http://rt.com/politics/russia-us-missile-defense-835/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Mirror – U.K. Osama Bin Laden Was Betrayed by His Deputy By Chris Hughes, Daily Mirror 4 November 2011 A startling book about the special forces mission which killed the world’s most wanted man claims Ayman al- Zawahiri double-crossed his boss so he could become the new al-Qaeda leader. He repeatedly sent a courier known to the CIA to visit bin Laden in the hope his secret bolthole would be exposed. US Navy Seals subsequently stormed Osama’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and shot dead the man behind the 9/11 Twin Towers terror attack. Within weeks al-Zawahiri was named by al-Qaeda as bin Laden’s successor. The revelations are made in a book by ex-Seal commander Chuck Pfarrer, who interviewed men on the mission. He also claims the White House’s version of the terror leader’s killing was littered with lies told by spin doctors eager to credit America with a hugely successful intelligence mission. A source said: “Zawahiri virtually guided the CIA to bin Laden by sending a courier who was on CIA files.” Official reports claimed bin Laden was killed on May 2 during a difficult 40-minute firefight in which Seals lost the element of surprise when a helicopter had a mechanical fault. But Pfarrer’s book Seal Target Geronimo claims he was shot dead with military precision within seconds of the attack being launched. And he said troops stormed bin Laden’s home from the roof, not from the ground as previously claimed. The source added: “The man who wrote the book has had unprecedented access to Seal Team Six who were in the mission. His information is dynamite as it reveals how the official version bears little resemblance to the truth.” The book is out on November 24. Publisher Quercus Books added: “It sets the record straight.” Ayman al- Zawahiri Status: World’s most wanted man Born: 1951, Cairo, Egypt Occupation: Former doctor, terror boss Interests: Global jihad Skills: Sharp intellect. Good with an Ak47 Likes: Islamic extremism, sharia law Dislikes: The West and Israel

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Personal life: Wife and daughter killed by US bombs. Three daughters still alive What’s his problem? Believes sharia Law and an extreme form of Islam should govern the world. Always wanted to lead al-Qaeda and is thought to have feared bin Laden had taken his eye off the ball http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/11/04/osama-bin-laden-was-stitched-up-by-his-deputy-115875- 23535650/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Reuters India.com Ex-U.S. General Urges Frank Talk on Cyber Weapons By Andrea Shalal-Esa Sunday, November 6, 2011 WASHINGTON, (Reuters) - The United States should be more open about its development of offensive cyber weapons and spell out when it will use them as it grapples with an increasing barrage of attacks by foreign hackers, the former No. 2 uniformed officer in the U.S. military said. "We've got to step up the game; we've got to talk about our offensive capabilities and train to them; to make them credible so that people know there's a penalty to this," said James Cartwright, the four-star Marine Corps general who retired in August as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cartwright, who raised the profile of cyber security issues while still in uniform, told Reuters in an interview that the increasing intensity and frequency of network attacks by hackers underscored the need for an effective deterrent. "You can't have something that's a secret be a deterrent. Because if you don't know it's there, it doesn't scare you," Cartwright, now a fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in one of his first interviews after leaving office. Current and former U.S. officials are tight-lipped about any specific weapons. But it is widely acknowledged the United States has both offensive and defensive ways to respond to escalating and increasingly destructive attacks from overseas. Underscoring the threat, this week an arm of the U.S. intelligence community released a report identifying China and Russia as the most active and persistent nations that are using cyber espionage to steal U.S. trade and technology secrets. Cartwright said it was important to send a strong signal to potential adversaries that the United States viewed responding to cyber attacks as its "right to self-defense," even if hackers were using a server in a third country. "We've got to get that done, because otherwise everything is a free shot at us and there's no penalty for it," he said. His comments come as the Obama administration debates the rules of engagement for cyberspace, now seen as a fifth domain for military operations, joining air, land, sea and space. Earlier this year, the White House released a new cyber strategy that said that, when warranted, the United States would respond to hostile acts in cyberspace "as it would to any other threat to our country." Now the military must work out exactly how to implement that. Key questions include how forthright Washington will be about work on offensive computer network attack weapons; what would constitute an act of war; and operational plans for training, testing and using of its electronic arsenal. PENTAGON PRIORITY

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Recent attacks on U.S. corporations such as Google Inc, the Nasdaq stock exchange, Lockheed Martin Corp, and RSA, the security division of EMC Corp, have given government officials and lawmakers a renewed sense of urgency about addressing threats to U.S. computer networks. Cartwright's concerns are widely shared by U.S. military and law enforcement officials, who are alarmed by the lack of adequate network security they see in corporate America. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers at a classified briefing on Tuesday that improving cyber security was an increasingly important priority. "He prominently mentioned cyber security as a growing threat ... something that needs to be much higher up on our national security priority lists than it has been in the past," Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters after the briefing. U.S. Army General Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, last month said U.S. military officials would finalize new rules of engagement and operational planes for cyber space in coming months. QUESTIONS ABOUT DETERRENCE Experts say any deterrent posture must be carefully crafted, but that is particularly true in cyberspace. David Smith, a fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and former U.S. diplomat engaged in talks with the former Soviet Union, said a deterrence policy had to be crafted very carefully to establish a credible threat of possible action without being too specific. "You deter by keeping a level of uncertainty," Smith told Reuters. "To craft a good deterrent posture, you sort of tell people the kinds of things you have, and roughly, what the response would be if the interest of the United States were threatened, basically, that nothing is off the table." Unlike the nuclear arena, where it was fairly easy to determine who had launched a ballistic missile attack, attribution remains an enormous challenge in cyberspace, where hackers can mask their identities. Eric Sterner, a former Pentagon official and fellow at the conservative Marshall Institute think tank, said being too clear about what would provoke a response would invite hackers to test the limits up to that point. "As soon as you declare a red line, you're essentially telling people that everything up to that line is OK," Sterner said. Cartwright said it would probably take hackers two to five years before they could disable a large percentage of the banking industry or the U.S. electrical grid. But even a smaller attack could undermine confidence in financial markets, he said. Establishing a deterrent posture now would help stem the endless tide of attacks coming from overseas, he said. Editing by Eric Walsh http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/06/idINIndia-60354120111106 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Times – China OPINION Rethink China's Nuke Weapons Strategy Global Times, November 05, 2011 By Global Times

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Having no idea that China does have nuclear weapons, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain suffered his latest mark on his foreign policy credentials this week. The GOP hopeful defended himself by dwarfing greatly China's nuclear capacity when compared to that of the US. The US media might be surprised by Cain's ignorant remarks, but it is the Chinese people who will feel more astonished. Though Cain has successfully worked as the CEO of a big company, a radio host and columnist in the past, his ignorance of China's nuclear capacity is not alone among the US elites in respect of China. In an era when more US politicians will join in the chorus of drafting policies related to China, their voices will become louder than ever. But Cain has taught us a good lesson: US politicians advocating to punish China have wantonly distorted the image of China in their mind. They have no idea what real China looks like. Another facet surprises China: We have taken for granted China has enough nuclear stockpiles to play a strategic deterrent role. The attitude among US society as well as its politicians will influence US authorities in the drafting China-related policies. Cain did not realize what a gaffe he has made, indicating China's nuclear capacity hardly leaves any impression among US society. That's very dangerous. The blurry image of China among the US public may mislead their decision-makers once bilateral conflicts escalated. Aside from that, necessary action should be taken by the Chinese side in upgrading and expanding its nuclear stockpiles within the framework of international conventions and without breaking its promises to develop nuclear weapons. The strategic role played by nuclear weapons cannot be replaced by other armaments. Nuclear capacity serves the cornerstone of China's national security. It turned out to be a shallow concept that China's nuclear deterrents have nothing to do with the quality and quantity of warheads. Two US researchers wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2006, claiming the US is capable of destroying China's stockpiles or Russia's once and for all. Such an opinion, though questionable, has made worse instead of improved the neglect of China's nuclear capacity. As a result, the capacity of China's nuclear stockpile should be strong enough to dismiss the ignorance of Cain as well to stop the US people from resorting to military solutions when facing competition from China. China's enhancement of its nuclear weapons does not mean it will alter its strategy from defense to offense. For China, there isn't necessity to do that. But we have to keep a detersive power for peaceful purposes, which demands rational and compulsory self-adjustment. http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/682602/Rethink-Chinas-nuke-weapons-strategy.aspx (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Korea Times – South Korea OPINION November 6, 2011 No Optimism on NK Nukes By Andrei Lankov Is the North Korean nuclear problem solvable? If by a solution we mean the oft-repeated demand for North Korea’s ‘verifiable and irreversible denuclearization,’ then the answer appears to be no. The North has no intention of surrendering its nukes, and this stubbornness is based on quite realistic assumptions about North Korea’s domestic and foreign policy situation. North Korea needs nukes as a deterrent against a foreign attack and as a tool for blackmail diplomacy. Both tasks are vital for the regime’s survival, and North Korean nukes are decisively not for sale.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Denuclearization might be achieved only when and if the Kim family regime is removed from power. Sooner or later, it is going to happen, since in the long run the regime is unsustainable. However, in this case, the long run itself might be very long indeed. One cannot rule out that the regime will collapse in 2012, but it’s also possible that it will last well into the 2020s or even the 2030s. If this is the case, what can and should be done in the meantime? Now, it seems that decision makers in both Washington and Seoul have finally realized that neither engagement nor sanctions are likely to deliver denuclearization. So their favoured policy is one of ``benign neglect” (also known as ``strategic patience”). In a nutshell, this policy implies that the international community should behave as if the North Korean nuclear program doesn’t exist, ignoring this troublesome country. Unfortunately, strategic patience is not a long-term option. North Korea is not going to remain quiet whilst being ``benignly neglected” and North Korean politicians have demonstrated this recently when they presented their newly acquired uranium enrichment capabilities to a group of visiting American scientists. While ``neglected,” the North will work hard to produce more highly enriched uranium, to perfect their (still crude) nuclear devices and maybe even create a reliable missile delivery system. It is also possible that Pyongyang would be willing to sell nuclear and missile technology and materials to countries and groups willing to pay handsomely. Is there a solution to this problem? It seems that such a solution exists, but currently it is almost a taboo in Washington and Seoul. This solution is a nuclear arms restriction agreement with the North. Such an agreement was recently described by Dr. Hecker, the former director of the Los Alamos laboratories as ``three no’s approach.” The ``three no’s” stands for ``no more nukes, no better nukes, no proliferation”. Such an agreement would imply that North Korea would first agree to freeze and/or dismantle its existing nuclear facilities, so that it would be unable to produce more fissile materials or improve its existing stock of nuclear weapons. The deal might also include conditions related to proliferation control, even though counter- proliferation measures might be difficult to enforce effectively. However, the deal would also mean that North Korea would be allowed to keep its existent nuclear devices and a certain amount of weapons-grade plutonium. In other words, it is tantamount to recognizing North Korea as a de facto nuclear power. Such an agreement would not be free ― nothing is free when it comes to dealing with North Korea. Pyongyang will see its willingness to freeze nuclear program as a major concession and will demand hefty payment. It should also be remembered that all agreements are kept by the North so long as the money keeps flowing into their bank account. Right now, there is little chance that the U.S.-ROK side would accept such an option. Indeed, such an agreement can be seen as a reward for a blackmailer. It will mean that the North Korean government will be rewarded for its decision to walk away from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). This creates a seriously dangerous precedent, so reluctance to discuss such a course of action is understandable. That said, one cannot be sure whether such intransigence will survive a chain of crises which is likely to be produced by further developments in the North Korean nuclear program. As said above, the North’s government is not going to remain idle, it will push ahead with its nuclear program and if history is an indicator, it will make its nuclear ambitions as troublesome for the outside world as possible. So it is likely that in five to 10 years (assuming that the Kim family regime survives that long), nuclear arms restrictions negotiations will come to be seen as an acceptable lesser evil, if compared with damage to be inflicted by the continuation of North Korea’s nuclear program. This seems to indeed be the case. Yet we should not be excessively optimistic about such a deal, if it is ever going to be struck. It will just freeze the North Korean nuclear program and will help to win a few years of relative quietness ― even though it will not solve the problem for good. Professor Andrei Lankov was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, and now teaches at Kookmin University in Seoul.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/11/137_98216.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Pakistan Observer – Pakistan OPINION Sunday, November 06, 2011 Nuclear Terrorism Threat By Mahvish Malik With the passage of time, the advancement in technology has urged the states to perceive new threats to their sovereignty. In order to protect their primary national interest, they always make an effort to keep a pace with the world states’ self help system. In context to the nuclear technology access to the states has provided prestige and status. The civil nuclear energy projects in various modes are effectively working in Nuclear Renaissance period. On the other hand, it has led the debate on their safety and security measures from avoiding any sort of security collapse. This security collapse is a worthwhile concept as it may culminate into nuclear terrorism in various terms and conditions. Defining the facets of nuclear terrorism debate in international political system, it has been stated that the security breach can be done in different layers. All these concerns are directly linked with the “Axis of Evil” states (North Korea, Iran and Iraq). While certain doubts are also being raised regarding Pakistani nukes. According to the report of Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) at 18th September, 2001, followings assumptions can be made which would be resulted in the security collapse of the Pakistani nukes and the nuclear terrorism scenario can be build. In this regard, the instability in Pakistan can appear as the vulnerable tool utilized by the militants for the theft of the nukes. Secondly, the sympathetic behavior of the security forces towards the Islamic Fundamentalists and leakage of the sensitive information may proceed for nuclear sabotage on reactors or the acquisition of components. Lastly, in case of civil war situation in Pakistan, it may happen that the control on storage facilities may be jeopardized. In answer to above mentioned threats, it has been observed that every nuclear weapon state has a very advanced command and control system to make the security of nuclear weapons possible. Same is the case with National Command and Control Authority (NCA) of Pakistan. And if terrorist being able to acquire the nuclear weapon, then this acquisition of nuclear weapon can not lead to nuclear terrorism. Because, only its acquisition could not cause the nuclear explosion. It requires the proper delivery system to get operational. And, also it requires certain code to detonate it which definitely is not already being written on that. Pakistan has also assessed the Permissive Action Links (PALs) or codes in 2006 publically confirmed that reside to two men rule or sometimes the three men rule that technology. Despite all this, if they would able to get both the nuclear weapons and code, then where will they go for launching mechanism? As the terrorists are the non-state actors. They have no boundaries. For launching a nuclear weapon, it requires a proper place. So, no state in the world would allow to do it and would not afford to give its territory to be used for this purpose. While, the other concept of state sponsored terrorism would also not cover this. Simply, because everybody knows its disastrous consequences. Another view is that to get the whole nuclear weapon is a big deal for the terrorists. Because, the nuclear weapon is always lies in scattered form. So, if this assumption can be made that may be they acquired the one part or any nuclear facility, but this doesn’t mean that they would able to fabricate the nuclear weapon. If we would see the history of those states which have made nuclear weapons then it can be estimated very well that the making of nuclear weapon broadly needs technical support, nuclear material facility, nuclear power plants , human resources and economic means etc. So, to get all this in one package is impossible. These states if taken the decades to make the weapon, then the non state actors if got one tool or other, doesn’t lead to make nuclear weapon. Hence, it is simply concluded that above faces of the nuclear terrorism have certain loopholes in their assumptions. It is just based on the propaganda in international community that actually has led states to feel threatened.

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Regarding the Dr.A.Q Khan Proliferation issue, the international community is collectively of view that state sponsored nuclear terrorism may occur from Pakistan. Again, with the providence of some parts of nuclear weapon making, would not be meant that the whole nuclear weapon is being transferred .Concerning Pakistan image in international community, that due to political instability, terrorism and extremism it may happens that any rebel group, the non state actors can over thrown the government and get over control to Pakistan’s nuclear program. It is significantly seen that if a state has a capability to make nuclear weapons, then it surely has a capacity to secure them. And, under the highly advanced command and control system Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are safe and secure. While, the international community must recognize the Pakistan’s contribution regarding non proliferation efforts. Therefore, the combine efforts of international community to prevent nuclear proliferation in form of UNSC-1540 and many others can not be stopped. Until or unless, the major nuclear weapon states would not set the precedent for comprehensive disarmament, the proliferation in either its vertical or horizontal form cannot make static; as it is considered important for national security of the state. Nonetheless, the contemporary security situation in Pakistan and the militants attack at General Head Quarters (GHQ) and Mehran Naval Base in Karachi has initiated another debate that what would be the consequences at state and international level for security breach at nukes. If this assumption is taken that despite of the nuclear safety measurements, militants attack at reactors or successfully acquire the components or material then consequences can be met at two levels. First, at the state level, it would revitalize the security measures depending upon what sort of incident has been taken. Hence, the concept of the nuclear terrorism appears to be myth in regard to Pakistan because its terms and conditions have to meet the complex security system to reach the any form of nuclear terrorism. With the establishment of NCA, no such incident has been recorded for nuclear security lapse. Nuclear terrorism is a global threat so it may happen from any nuclear weapon state. http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=123751 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times OPINION/Letter to the Editor November 6, 2011 James A. Baker, on Reducing Nuclear Arms To the Editor: I support the aspiration for a nuclear-weapons-free world that President Reagan envisioned. I disagree, however, with your Oct. 30 editorial “The Bloated Nuclear Weapons Budget,” which endorses an American reduction to 1,000 nuclear weapons, even if other countries do not reduce at all. As I outlined in a recent speech to Global Zero, an international movement to rid the world of all nuclear weapons, any effort to reach that goal must require reciprocal and proportional cuts so that all countries reduce their arsenals in concert. If you want to have any chance to achieve the goal, this condition cannot be negotiable. Without it, you will fail. Three other conditions are equally important. First, all countries must be parties to the effort, with no exceptions. Second, frequent, rigorous and intrusive inspections must be required. President Reagan was right: “Trust, but verify.”

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Third, the American president must personally take the lead and commit the required time, attention, assets and political will. It will demand presidential leadership just as winning the cold war required the concerted effort of nine consecutive presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike. Even if these conditions are met, a nuclear-free world will take years to reach, if ever. But if accomplished, it would benefit every citizen of the world. JAMES A. BAKER III Houston, Nov. 3, 2011 The writer was secretary of state from 1989 to 1992 and is a senior partner in the law firm Baker Botts. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/james-a-baker-on-reducing-nuclear-arms.html?_r=1 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Forbes OPINION/Op Ed November 7, 2011 More Documentation Of Iran's Relentless Pursuit Of Nukes By Professor Jamsheed K. Choksy The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) November report to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program reads like a horror story. It is the most unvarnished documentation to date about the military dimension of Tehran’s nuclear program by the international organization charged with monitoring compliance to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). “Due to the strategic location of the Strait of Hormuz,” blocking maritime traffic off Iran’s southern coastline is “always on our agenda,” Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari has warned. The IRGC adds it would not restrict itself to only cutting off 20 percent of the world’s crude oil flow, but would seek broader civilian and economic targets if the government in Tehran felt seriously threatened. Atomic weapons would greatly facilitate implementing those threats. The IAEA ‘s recent data indicates that Iran, in addition to continually obfuscating its nuclear program’s dimensions, continues to breach the NPT and disregard the world’s will as expressed through the UNSC by:  Enriching uranium to levels above that necessary for civilian activities;  Developing advanced warheads which could contain nuclear explosives;  Researching advanced detonation systems;  Producing missiles to reach targets around the world;  Running computer simulations of nuclear explosions;  Sharing technology with other nations. Rather than respond constructively, Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi dismissed the report as a “fabrication.” Modern Iran’s nuclear program dates to 1957 when the last Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi signed a cooperation agreement with the U.S. The Tehran research reactor started up in 1967, with American assistance to enhance Iran’s civilian scientific and energy needs. With those goals in mind, Iran signed on to the NPT in July 1968 when that multinational agreement was first introduced. American cooperation with Iran ended after the revolution of 1979 established the Islamic Republic. Iran revived its nuclear program in the mid-1980s, with clandestine assistance from the Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, subsequently from the Chinese government, and eventually from the North Koreans. Since then, as is well known, Tehran’s relationships with the IAEA and with several permanent members of the UNSC – especially with the U.S., Britain, and France – have declined precipitously as Iranian leaders have pursued

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 nuclear technology ever more aggressively. Its clerics, politicians, and intellectuals even seem to be reconciling once prohibited weapons of mass destruction with Islamic tenets. Islamic Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claims publicly that nuclear weapons, like other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), are prohibited in his interpretation of Muslim tenets. The official line emphasizes nuclear power for civilian energy purposes. Iran’s leaders are being factual when they speak of focusing on nuclear energy for economic goals. Yet the IAEA’s report shreds any lingering doubts that Iran also is actively pursuing nuclear weapons development in gross violation of its NPT obligations. A negotiated settlement to the stand-off with the West, which triggered economic sanctions against Iran, would benefit Iran’s economy, people, and even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s own political standing at home. Yet a nuclear treaty is unlikely because senior mullahs like former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and ranking politicians like former IRGC Commander Mohsen Rezai have recommended for decades that Iran arm itself with WMDs. Even Ahmadinejad and Khamenei will gain popularity boosts among the Iranian masses from the national pride that would come with testing an atom bomb. Iranian leaders could rationalize their change of position from nuclear weapons being haram, or prohibited to halal, or permissible on the basis that those WMDs have, in their opinion, become necessary to protect Iran and Islam. Ongoing economic sanctions may ultimately work in Iran’s favor too. Other nations like Saudi Arabia have been steadily exporting their crude oil reserves while Iran retains most of the world’s fourth largest proven oil reserves. Likewise Russia is tapping its natural gas reserves rapidly even as the sanctions compel Iran to hold onto much of the world’s second largest proven gas reserves. So, over the long run, Iran may have the resources that an energy- hungry world needs and could thereby regain economic leverage. At the heart of Iran’s defiance regarding nuclear power is the reality that with atom bombs in hand it would join a select group of nations which have little to fear militarily. Islamic Iran’s politicians see the caution exercised by the world toward nuclear newcomers Pakistan and North Korea despite both those nations being hotbeds from which strife radiates to other nations. They also witnessed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya fall to the West because those leaders had halted nuclear weapons quests and so could not threaten their opponents with immense retaliation. Alas, nuclear weapons have gained unique, powerful, and dual status as the ultimate forms of offense and defense – threats of which cause financial markets and national leaders to panic. Permanent membership in the UNSC enshrines this prestige, a rank which recently nuclear-empowered countries like India and Pakistan desire to hold. So it is unlikely that even American, Western coalition or Israeli destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities will terminate Tehran’s quest. Iran’s leaders know their scientists have the knowledge to rebuild from scratch if necessary. Nonetheless, the IAEA and UNSC should do all that is necessary to slow down, if not halt, the mullahs’ quest. It is not Iran per say that should not wield atom bombs but the Islamic Republic specifically. The mullahs through their state sponsorship of terrorism and constant threats to destroy the economies and populations of the U.S., E.U., Israel, and even Muslim neighbor Saudi Arabia have demonstrated they are unlikely to be judicious stewards of nuclear power. Jamsheed K. Choksy is professor of Iranian studies, senior fellow of the Center on American and Global Security, and former director of the Middle Eastern studies program at Indiana University, Bloomington. He also is a member of the National Council on the Humanities at the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities. The views expressed are his own. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/11/07/more-documentation-of-irans-relentless-pursuit-of-nukes/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

OPINION The Growing Threat of Iran’s Nuclear Program By Stephen Rademaker and Blaise Misztal November 7, 2011 When the computers that control Iran’s centrifuges were attacked by the Stuxnet worm beginning in 2009, the assault was widely ascribed to intelligence services intent on setting back Iran’s nuclear program. More significant than the damage to Iran, however, has been the damage to Western resolve, as the United States and other countries have become more complacent about the Iranian threat. Combined with attacks targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and reports of shortages of key materials needed for centrifuges, Stuxnet has given rise to an increasingly accepted narrative that we have more time to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions than was previously thought. There’s just one problem with this narrative: It is divorced from reality. This week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Is expected to report new details on Iran’s efforts to design a nuclear device. This is worrying enough, but the true measure of Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons capability is the rate at which it is producing enriched uranium. By this measure, Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon and its nuclear enrichment program has not been slowed but, rather, continues to accelerate. The last IAEA inspection report, issued in September, found almost 6,000 centrifuges spinning at Iran’s enrichment facility at Natanz — more than ever before — and these centrifuges were enriching faster than ever. IAEA data indicate that in the first half of 2011, Iran was able to produce an average of almost 105 kilograms of low-enriched uranium per month. While this monthly rate fell slightly in August, even that was nearly twice Iran’s pre-Stuxnet production rate in 2009 — 56 kilograms per month — and 20 percent higher than its 2010 production rate of 86 kilograms per month. The trend line is clear. Iran has produced more than 3,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium and is accumulating more every day. Of course, Tehran would have to enrich this material further to have the highly enriched uranium necessary for a bomb. The fastest route for producing this material will require about 1,850 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to yield the roughly 20 kilograms of uranium enriched to 90 percent that is required for a bomb. Iran’s stockpile of 1 low-enriched uranium is already about 1 / 2 times that amount. More troubling still has been Iran’s foray into progressively highly levels of uranium enrichment. Last year Iran began converting uranium it had previously enriched to 3.5 percent to almost 20 percent, ostensibly to fuel a reactor that produces medical isotopes. That reactor annually uses just 7 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent, and IAEA reports indicate that Iran has accumulated almost 50 kilograms of this. In other words, over the past year and a half Iran has produced enough of this material to run its medical reactor for seven years. Nevertheless, Iran declared in June that it intends to triple the rate at which it is producing this material and began transferring this work to a previously secret underground facility at Qom that is carved into the side of a mountain. In a series of reports, the Bipartisan Policy Center has been tracking the progress of Iran’s nuclear program. We calculate that, if it chooses, Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear device in just 62 days using its existing stockpiles and current enrichment capability. And international inspectors examine Iranian facilities only about once every two months. This means that Tehran is approaching the ability to produce a bomb’s worth of highly enriched uranium before the international community realizes it has happened. This timeline will contract substantially if Iran continues on its current course. Because enrichment from 3.5 percent to 20 percent requires about four-fifths of the effort to enrich from 3.5 percent to 90 percent, Tehran’s continued production of uranium enriched to 20 percent will dramatically decrease the time it would need to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium. Once Iran acquires more than 150 kilograms of uranium

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 enriched to 20 percent — which could happen by early 2013 if Iran’s announced plans are realized — it would need only 12 days to produce enough fissile material for a bomb. Now, none of this denies that the Stuxnet worm might have kept Iran’s program from accelerating even more quickly. It appears, for example, that Stuxnet may have caused about 1,000 Iranian centrifuges to fail. According to IAEA data, in May 2009, right before the first known Stuxnet infection, Iran was operating 4,920 centrifuges at Natanz. By January 2010, only 3,772 centrifuges were spinning there. It is also plausible that sanctions have impeded Iran’s ability to purchase materials for new centrifuges. But these developments are of little comfort if, as IAEA reports demonstrate, Iran’s production of enriched uranium continues to accelerate. Accordingly, there is no basis for concluding that the threat posed by Iran’s program has been diminished. To the contrary, it continues to grow at an alarming rate. Stephen Rademaker is a principal at the Podesta Group and adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center. Blaise Misztal is associate director of foreign policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-growing-threat-of-irans-nuclear- program/2011/11/04/gIQAiguIxM_story.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Wall Street Journal OPINION/Global View November 8, 2011 Now For a Real Iran Debate There's no more doubt about Tehran's nuclear-weapons program. How the West will respond remains open to question. By Bret Stephens The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to unveil a report Wednesday on what it knows about Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and the early word is that it contains a few bombshells. But let's not overstate its significance. There's no scarcity of reliable information about Iran's nuclear programs, licit and illicit. The only question is whether the report will do much to end the current scarcity of Western will to do something meaningful to check them. Start with what we already know about Iran's nuclear programs. In September, the IAEA came out with its umpteenth report on Iran. It noted that Iran had enriched 4.5 tons of low-enriched uranium—sufficient, with further enrichment, for three or four bombs—and that a third of the uranium had been enriched in the last year alone. So much for the miracle of digital deliverance that was supposed to be the Stuxnet computer virus. It noted that Iran had begun to deploy more advanced centrifuges, capable of enriching uranium at a significantly faster rate than the ones that it had acquired from Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. So much for the success of sanctions in shutting down Iran's underground network of nuclear-parts suppliers. It noted that Iran had enriched 70.8 kilos of uranium to a 20% level, a significant step toward bomb-grade material, and that it was planning to triple production at its heavily fortified facility near the city of Qom. So much for the idea that Iran faces a critical shortage of 20% enriched uranium, or that a diplomatic overture by the West to supply it could check Tehran's nuclear efforts. Finally, the report made reference to the agency's previous disclosures about the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, including "producing uranium metal . . . into components relevant to a nuclear device" and "missile re-entry vehicle redesign activities for a new payload assessed as being nuclear in nature." So much for

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 the enabling fiction that was the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged "with high confidence" that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program" in the fall of 2003. The 2007 NIE now joins a September 1962 NIE—which claimed, just a month before the Cuban Missile Crisis, that the Soviets were unlikely to station missiles on the island—in the intelligence community's long hall of infamy. But Wednesday's IAEA report should at least put to rest the intel debate about Iran's drive to build a bomb. What remains is the policy debate. Such a debate needs to be clear about four things. First, it needs to abandon the conceit that there is a third way between allowing Iran's nuclear drive to proceed effectively unhindered or to use military force to stop it. The Obama administration came to office seeking a diplomatic grand bargain with Tehran, only to be rebuffed by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. It then tried sanctions, which came up short in the way most sanctions efforts do. As for covert action, see above. A (bad) argument can be made that a nuclear Iran could be contained. But another round of diplomacy or sanctions guarantees failure, signals weakness, and emboldens the hardest of Iranian hardliners. Second, the debate must recognize that time is no longer on the West's side: Further temporizing in the face of our choice of evils inevitably means that Iran will get to make the choice for us. Israel may soon have to forsake its own (conventional) military option as Iran moves its nuclear assets to hardened installations. The U.S. doesn't suffer from Israel's military limitations, but further delay only increases the complexity and uncertainties of any strike. Third, a debate needs to weigh the inevitable unforeseen consequences of a military strike against the all-too- foreseeable consequences of a nuclear Iran. Among the former: more Iranian meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan (particularly as U.S. troops withdraw), efforts to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, and perhaps an opportunistic war with Israel. Among the latter: all of the above, except this time with the added security of a nuclear umbrella, as well as a nuclear proliferation death spiral involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey and soon-to-be Islamist Egypt. If you thought the Cold War was scary, imagine four or five nuclear adversaries in the world's must unstable region, each of them at daggers drawn with one another. Finally, any debate must take into account what the West can do to hasten the regime's demise. Opponents of military strikes argue that they would help the regime consolidate power. Perhaps. But the regime seems to have succeeded in re-establishing its domestic grip without the alibi of foreign intervention. And it bears wondering what a nuclear Iran might do with its weapons if faced with a slow-motion revolt on the Syrian model. Gently into that good night is not this regime's way. Those are the contours of a real debate. A final thought: What would a strike on Iran do for President Obama's re- election chances? Improve them, I should think. At least it would be one inarguable accomplishment on which to run. http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 955, 8 November 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530