USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 496, 7 April 2006

Articles & Other Documents:

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’S Pentagon Calls Iran Missile Claim An Exaggeration EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE NATION’S SEAPORTS Iran's Spies Watching Us, Says Israel Perry Says Disaster Plan Flawed The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Nuclear-plant security: Is it enough? Learned Nuclear Power Plants: Efforts Made to Upgrade Rice To Lay Out U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Before Some Security, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Skeptical Lawmakers Design Basis Threat Process Should Be Improved. (GAO Report) Tokyo Trip Could Aid Talks On N. Korea Iran Reports 3rd Successful Missile Test Germany Urges US To Hold Talks With Iran Rice Seeks Backing For Nuclear Deal For India U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan Needed: Lasers In The Sky We Do Not Have A Nuclear Weapons Program U.S., Allies Seek A Way Outside U.N. To Press Iran End Nuke Program Or Else, Bolton Warns UN Officials Find Evidence Of Secret Uranium Enrichment Plant Iran Has Missiles To Carry Nuclear Warheads N. Koreans Set For Talks In Tokyo Nuclear Warhead Update Developed Cities move to defend against railroad attacks White House Admits Lag in Bioterror Effort

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 nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. 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 www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953-7538 or DSN 493-7538. To subscribe, change e-mail address, or unsubscribe to this journal or to request inclusion on the mailing list for CPC publications, please contact Mrs. Eddy. 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

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’S EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE NATION’S SEAPORTS U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Audit Report 06-26 March 2006 THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE NATION'S SEAPORTS Executive Summary The nation's seaports and related maritime activities are widely recognized as being vulnerable to acts of terrorism. The consequences of a maritime-based terrorist attack are potentially devastating to both the economy and to public safety. The United States has more than 360 seaports, and 95 percent of overseas trade flows through these ports or inland waterways. Further, seaports are often located near major population centers and hazardous fuel or chemical storage facilities that may provide attractive terrorist targets. According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (9/11 Commission), the risk of maritime terrorism is equal t to or greater than the risk of terrorism involving civilian aviation. Although the United States has placed much attention on better securing civilian aviation since 2001, seaports remain largely at risk. The protection of U.S. seaports is a shared responsibility among the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The Coast Guard has primary responsibility for the physical protection of the nation's seaports, and it has law enforcement authority in the maritime domain. CBP enforces import and export laws and regulations and bears primary responsibility for cargo inspections at seaports. The FBI, as the lead federal agency for preventing and investigating terrorism, has an overarching role in helping to secure the nation's seaports. The FBI's responsibilities are part intelligence and part law enforcement, including assessing the threat of maritime-based terrorism; gathering, analyzing, and sharing information on maritime threats; and maintaining well-prepared tactical capabilities to prevent or respond to maritime- based terrorism. Unless incident command and other coordination issues are resolved in advance and response scenarios are exercised, the overlapping nature of the FBI's and the Coast Guard's responsibilities in the maritime domain may result in confusion and interagency conflict with the FBI in the event of a maritime incident. CBP's more discrete responsibilities do not present as much likelihood for conflict. . . . (For the complete report, please click link below.) http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0626/final.pdf

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times April 4, 2006 Pg. 3 Pentagon Calls Iran Missile Claim An Exaggeration By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times Iran tested an older Scud missile variant last week and often exaggerates its military developments, the Pentagon said yesterday in response to Tehran's reported testing of new advanced weaponry. "We know that the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons systems by both foreign and indigenous measures," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "It is possible they are increasing their capabilities and making strides in radar-absorbing material and targeting," he said. "However, the Iranians have been known to boast and exaggerate their statements about greater technical and tactical capabilities." Iran on Sunday reported that its military had test-fired a high-speed underwater missile and released video footage showing the missile-torpedo hitting a target vessel. A U.S. official cast doubt on the reported Iranian missile-torpedo but declined to comment on what U.S. intelligence agencies know about the Iranian arsenal. The missile tests add to growing tensions over Iran's nuclear program and increased diplomatic activity at the United Nations on how to respond. At the State Department, spokesman Adam Ereli said yesterday that the reported missile tests are a worry. "It is a further reminder of an aggressive program of development of weapons systems and development and deployment of weapons systems that many of us see as threatening, I think first and foremost, to those nations of the Gulf that are most immediately connected to or in most immediate proximity to Iran," he told reporters. Russia has a high-technology torpedo that uses rocket technology to propel it under water at high speeds. Moscow in the past has supplied Iran with missile technology and may have provided data on its Skval, as the rocket-powered torpedo is called, U.S. officials said. An Iranian general said the Iranian military test-fired a new missile Friday that had the capability to evade enemy sensors and carried multiple warheads. A defense official confirmed that the Iranians' test was a Shahab-2, Tehran's designation for the Scud-C missile, which has a range of up to 310 miles. It was not a new missile as Iranian press reported. Mr. Whitman said yesterday that Iran's military program is "centered on its ballistic-missile program, which Tehran views as its primary deterrent." "It has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East," he said. "Over the past year, Iran has continued testing its medium-range ballistic missile and has also tested anti-ship missiles. As Iran has been working on its ballistic-missile program, it is not surprising that they have tested this Scud-C." Iran has three types of unguided artillery rockets: the Zelzal, Fajir-3 and Fajir-4. Its ballistic missiles include two types of Scuds, Shahab-1 and -2, and its 620-mile-range Shahab-3. It also has an extended-range version of the Shahab-3. U.S. officials said Iran also has Chinese-made C-801 anti-ship missiles that Tehran could use to disrupt shipping in the Persian Gulf and limit supplies of oil to other parts of the world. Uzi Rubin, a private missile threat specialist, said Iran's claim to have a multiple-warhead missile are far-fetched. The warhead could be a "frangible" re-entry vehicle capable of releasing several bomblets above the altitude of most air defenses, a system China is said to be developing. "The Iranian's general description is similar to the Russian description of the Iskander E, save for the multiple targeting," Mr. Rubin said, noting that it is unlikely the Iranians had purchased the new Russian short-range missile. Mr. Rubin said it is likely the Iranian missile claim is a boast. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060403-103808-5027r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Daily Telegraph April 4, 2006 Iran's Spies Watching Us, Says Israel By Con Coughlin, Defence and Security Editor, on Israel's northern border Iran has set up a sophisticated intelligence gathering operation in southern Lebanon to identify targets in northern Israel in the event of a military confrontation over its controversial nuclear programme. Senior Israeli military commanders say Iran has spent tens of millions of pounds helping its close ally, Hizbollah, the Shia Muslim militant group that controls southern Lebanon, to set up a network of control towers and monitoring stations along the entire length of Israel's border with south Lebanon. Some of the new control towers, which are made of reinforced concrete and fitted with bullet-proof reflective glass, are less than 100 yards from Israeli army positions and are clearly visible for long stretches along Israel's border. "This is now Iran's front line with Israel," a senior Israeli military commander said. "The Iranians are using Hizbollah to spy on us so that they can collect information for future attacks. And there is very little we can do about it." The Israeli military has reported a significant increase in Hizbollah activity in southern Lebanon since Syria came under intense international pressure to withdraw its forces from the area last year following the assassination of the Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Israeli military officers report that teams of Iran's Revolutionary Guards travel regularly to southern Lebanon to help train local Hizbollah fighters in terrorist tactics. Tensions between Iran and Israel have intensified dramatically since the election last summer of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's new leader. Israel has repeatedly threatened to take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and the new Iranian government has responded by calling for Israel's destruction. Senior Israeli military officers believe Iran is deliberately exploiting the power vacuum caused by Syria's withdrawal to intensify pressure on Israel's northern border. Hizbollah is aware that Israel is keen to maintain friendly relations with the new government in Lebanon and believes it can act freely in southern Lebanon without provoking retaliatory strikes from Israel. Officers report a sharp increase in border incidents between Hizbollah fighters and Israeli units on the northern border, with the main flash points located at the disputed Druze village of Ghajar, which is divided by the border between Israel and Lebanon, and Mount Dov, which Hizbollah also claims should be part of Lebanon. The situation is now regarded as so serious that many senior Israeli officers openly admit to missing the restraining influence of Syria over Hizbollah. "When the Syrians were in Lebanon it was easy for us to control Hizbollah," said an officer with Israel's northern command. "If things got too tense we could put pressure on Damascus and the Syrians would act quickly to calm things down." Although the Lebanese government technically controls the border area, its military is not considered strong enough to control Hizbollah, which takes its orders directly from Teheran. "Iran is playing a very dangerous game of cat and mouse on our northern border and it could easily spiral out of control at any moment," said the officer. In recent weeks Hizbollah sent unmanned aircraft on reconnaissance missions over the border to photograph sensitive Israeli military installations. The spy planes returned to base before being detected by air defence systems. In addition to providing intelligence-gathering and communications equipment, Iran has also equipped Hizbollah with improved weapons and ammunition to launch attacks against Israel, including heavy mortars and rockets with a range of up to 30 miles. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/04/wiran04.xml

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

(Editor’s Note: Hyperlink to referenced report follows article.) Houston Chronicle April 4, 2006 Perry Says Disaster Plan Flawed Governor insists military shouldn't intervene without local consent By Eric Berger, Houston Chronicle Texas Gov. Rick Perry attacked a proposed change to the White House's federal disaster response plan Monday, saying a modification allowing the military to intervene without local consent would endanger human life. Flanked by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels, Perry said the federal government should not have the power to assume primary control of response by firefighters, police officers and emergency personnel during catastrophes such as hurricanes. The recommendation was among more than 100 made in the report "The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned," released at the end of February. Although Perry welcomed some of the recommendations — such as improving communications between federal and local officials during disasters — he said other recommendations took the wrong approach. "I'm greatly concerned that others would place too much authority in the hands of the federal bureaucrats and force state and local officials to stand idly by while the lives of their citizens hang in the balance," he said. "Let me be clear: If the federal government assumes control of first response to catastrophes, I believe it will add needless layers of bureaucracy, create indecisiveness, lead to rampant miscommunications and ultimately cost lives." McCain in agreement McCain, who said he attended the news conference to support Perry's position, added that the governor's views echo those expressed by other Gulf states struck by Katrina and Rita last year. "Local officials cannot just sit by and wait until the federal government decides to act," McCain said. "If there's one message from Katrina and Rita, it's that the local governments have to play a lead role rather than a following role." McCain is expected to run for president in 2008, and the Texas primary, with its large number of electoral votes, could play an important role in the selection of a GOP candidate. At issue is a recommendation in the report that would allow military commanders, such as the National Guard, to respond "under appropriate circumstances" to natural disasters and terrorist strikes without a request from local authorities. Current federal rules allow an intervention only after state and local officials ask for help. The authors of the "Katrina: Lessons Learned" report, led by Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said normally the request process works, but not during dire emergencies. "While this overly bureaucratic approach has been adequate for most disasters, in a catastrophic event like Hurricane Katrina the delays inherent in this 'pull' system of responding to requests resulted in critical needs not being met," the report states. The federal government was much maligned for delayed rescue and recovery after Katrina struck. According to the report, Melvin "Kip" Holden, mayor-president of Baton Rouge, La., said requirements for paperwork hindered immediate action and deployment of people and material to assist relief efforts. When asked about the need to balance aggressive use of federal troops with state sovereignty during a news briefing following the report's release, Townsend said good communication is key. "What we want to be sure is, as we move both National Guardsmen and active duty forces in, that they have interoperable communications, that they're able to deploy efficiently and effectively," she said, according to a transcript of the briefing. "And we will need to work both with the Department of Defense, (Department of Homeland Security), and our governors to do that in a way that respects state sovereignty, but gets the American people the help they need when they need it." Reimbursements lag Perry also said Monday that the federal government needs to make good on aid promises to the state in the immediate aftermath of Katrina and Rita. Texas has requested about $2 billion in aid — for everything from uncompensated health care for evacuees to support for shrimp producers — but received only about $700 million so far. Local officials also expressed concern about unmet costs. Eckels, citing crime in the county since the hurricanes, said the county has accumulated $18 million in extra law enforcement "process" costs, such as jail and court fees, that have not been reimbursed. "The federal government has not lived up to their responsibility," Perry said of promises to reimburse state and local expenses, "and quite frankly they haven't lived up to their word." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3768835.html

The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned http://www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned.pdf

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

(Editor’s Note: Hyperlink for referenced GAO Report follows article.) The Christian Science Monitor April 4, 1006 Edition Nuclear-plant security: Is it enough? By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor NEW YORK - If the terror attacks of 9/11 taught one lesson, it was that America must make itself less vulnerable to attack by air - perhaps nowhere more urgently than at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants, given their potential for inflicting massive casualties and destruction if hit by a plane loaded with fuel. Yet 4-1/2 years later, those plants are little safer from air attack, say critics. And squabbling has set in over what the security standards should be. Some antiterror experts are concerned the current criteria do not require nuclear plants to be protected against a threat equal to the one posed by the 9/11 hijackers, particularly if they attack again by air. A report to be released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office is also critical of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), finding that it has not increased standards enough to ensure plants are genuinely secure, but only as much as industry officials believed was necessary. Those officials counter that nuclear power plants are already the nation's best-protected critical infrastructure. They say the government's current security requirements for nuclear power plants, which are designed to protect from ground assaults, are already too burdensome. As for an assault by air, the industry is relying on the Transportation Security Administration - the government agency designed to prevent terrorists from hijacking another commercial jet. After tightening requirements for plant security in February 2002, the NRC is now reviewing those standards before making them permanent. Known as the Design Basis Threat (DBT), they're considered "sensitive" information and not made public. But enough is known about them that they're prompting fresh scrutiny, particularly because the nuclear industry is poised for its first major expansion in a generation. "If the industry wants nuclear to have a viable future and substantially expand its footprint in the US, it has to invest some serious money in security," says Charles Ferguson, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and coauthor of "The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism." "If there's any kind of attack on one of these facilities, it could torpedo any plans for future expansion." Underlying this security debate are two diametrically opposed views of nuclear power plants' likelihood of becoming a terrorist target and the amount of destruction that would result if one were attacked. Critics say that terrorists consider nuclear power plants to be top targets because they could cause mass casualties, particularly if they're close to a large population center like New York City. They note the 9/11 commission report found that Mohammed Atta, who piloted one of the planes into the World Trade Center, had "considered targeting a nuclear facility," as did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The nuclear power industry says that nuclear facilities are so well fortified and have so many redundant backup systems that there's little probability of mass casualties. After 9/11, the industry spent more than $1.25 billion upgrading its security operations and increased its armed guard force from 5,000 to more than 8,000. Stephen Floyd, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in Washington, acknowledges that nuclear power plants are potential targets. But he argues they're less likely to be hit than other, less-fortified critical infrastructure, like a chemical plant. According to knowledgeable sources within the industry and the NRC, the upgraded DBT requires that plants be able to repel an attack from five or six well-armed terrorists, possibly working in conjunction with an insider or two. That's twice as many as they had to handle before 9/11. But the plants are not required to be protected against an attack by a rocket- propelled grenade or a large truck bomb, or to provide antiaircraft artillery or advance radar- based protection against an air attack. Critics say plants should be protected against a threat at least equivalent to the one on 9/11, when 19 well-trained terrorists attacked from the air. "Because of the lame DBT, the threat that they have to guard against is totally unrealistic. The security is nowhere near as robust as it should be," says Peter Stockton, a senior investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based watchdog group. "If they don't have to be to the level of 9/11, they should at least be able to repel a squad size force [of about 12 or 13]." While the industry won't comment on the specifics of the DBT, it says it already meets the 9/11 threshold. Mr. Floyd of the NEI, the lobbying arm of the nation's private nuclear power plants, notes that the 19 hijackers did not attack en masse; rather, three to four terrorists commandeered each plane for four separate attacks. He also says the current requirements, such as the thickness of the containment walls around the reactors and spent fuel-rod pools, already provide enough protection against RPGs. And he says those walls are thick enough to sustain a head-on attack from a jet, although that's contested by critics. "Through the FAA and the North American Defense [Aerospace] Defense Command, they do have procedures and protocols in place now for interdicting flights much better than they did prior to 9/11," says Floyd. "There's a fair amount of increased protection there." But critics say this denies the risks the country faces. For instance, the Indian Point nuclear power plant is 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan. A 2004 report by the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists found that if it were attacked, in a worst-case scenario as many as 44,000 people could be killed by a massive release of radiation. "Nuclear plants are devices that are filled with absolutely immense amounts of radioactivity, and it stays inside the reactor only so long as the coolant operates," says Daniel Hirsh, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a California-based nuclear watchdog group. "That gives the terrorists the ability to use very primitive technologies to turn our nuclear plants against us, very similar to the use of box cutters on jumbo jets." The industry says such thinking is alarmist. "There's nobody who's stronger than we are," Floyd says. "If they're being critical that the nuclear industry cannot totally withstand a terrorist attack, I shudder to think of what that means for the rest of the critical infrastructure that hasn't done a tenth of what we have done." The NRC is expected to finalize the upgraded security requirements by the end of the year. "The NRC is very serious about security," says Holly Harrington, spokeswoman for the commission. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0404/p03s03-uspo.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Nuclear Power Plants: Efforts Made to Upgrade Security, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Design Basis Threat Process Should Be Improved. GAO-06-388, March 14. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-388 Highlights - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d06388high.pdf

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post April 5, 2006 Pg. 17 Rice To Lay Out U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Before Some Skeptical Lawmakers By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post Staff Writer When President Bush announced a new phase in U.S.-India relations last month in New Delhi, he was not the only foreign visitor to attract attention. A day after his arrival, two Iranian naval ships, carrying several hundred sailors, docked at the Indian port of Kochi to begin five days of joint exercises, part of an extensive agreement Tehran and New Delhi signed in 2003. The port call -- and the broader issue of India's military, scientific and economic ties with Iran -- have raised apprehension on Capitol Hill, where members are weighing an effort by the Bush administration to form its own strategic partnership with New Delhi. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will address those concerns and others when she testifies today before the House and Senate foreign relations panels on details of the unfinished agreement, in which the United States would provide India with civilian nuclear technology. She faces pressure from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, some of whom are pushing for changes to the deal out of concern about nuclear proliferation. In a letter yesterday, a bipartisan group of nuclear experts urged lawmakers not to authorize technology transfers until India stops producing nuclear weapons material, as the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China are believed to have done. In response, some administration officials said Rice could announce a new push for an international treaty to end production of all fissile material. Negotiations have been at a standstill since the administration announced two years ago that it could not support the kind of accord that had been on the table. Last July, Bush agreed to give India access, for the first time, to civilian nuclear assistance, breaking with decades of U.S. policy that kept sensitive nuclear technologies from countries that have not signed the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. For the Bush administration, the break was seen as a worthy tradeoff in pursuit of a strategy to accelerate India's rise as a regional counterweight to China. But the agreement would also give India the ability to increase its nuclear arsenal. The terms took Congress by surprise, and lawmakers asked India to separate its civilian and military programs to guarantee that no U.S. technology would be used for weapons. Last month, Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on a separation plan, but Congress has not yet seen it. Administration officials say the deal addresses nonproliferation concerns because India has agreed to open some facilities to U.N. nuclear inspections. Perhaps more important, they say, is that the world's largest democracy does not pose a nonproliferation threat. "India has an excellent nonproliferation record," Rice said last month in promoting the deal. India is not tainted by the kind of nuclear black-market scandal that Pakistan suffered when a senior government official was caught selling nuclear components to Iran, Libya and North Korea. But the Bush administration's actions suggest it does not see India's record as blemish-free. The administration has imposed sanctions on two Indian companies accused of supplying Iran's nuclear program. Both companies have protested the sanctions but remain on a list in the Federal Registry. In September, two Indian nuclear scientists were also accused of providing Tehran with technology that could contribute to "the development of weapons of mass destruction." The order against one was later rescinded, but the second remains banned from travel to the United States. India's support for Iran in diplomatic forums has also caused concern. Last September, after the U.S.-India deal was announced, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) -- a strong supporter of India -- criticized Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns during a hearing when Burns said it was unclear whether India would support U.S. efforts to pressure Iran. Lantos urged India to do so to win broader support in Congress. "We listened carefully to Lantos and his colleagues on the Hill and told the Indians that they had to be supportive of our efforts to isolate Iran, and they did so two weeks later," Burns said in an interview. Lantos said yesterday: "I have every intention of voting for this deal. But my support is very much contingent upon the Iran-India relationship, and I have served notice that, given the nature of the current regime in Tehran, a proper policy vis-a-vis Iran is the sine qua non of my support." Lantos said he did not see how India could have equal ties to Iran and the United States, and said he registered his displeasure over the naval visit last week with India. State Department spokesman J. Adam Ereli said Washington regretted the timing of the Iranian port call, but added: "Indian-Iranian relations are not of the scope and breadth and depth to call into question the principles that underline our agreement." It is unclear when Congress will consider the changes to the law needed to complete the India deal. The administration wants Congress to act before summer, but some in Congress say the complex matter will probably not be taken up until after the November elections. Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401865.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post April 5, 2006 Pg. 18 Tokyo Trip Could Aid Talks On N. Korea By Anthony Faiola, Washington Post Foreign Service TOKYO, April 5 -- Top officials from the six countries engaged in North Korean nuclear disarmament talks will converge in Tokyo next week at a private-sector conference, fueling hopes of unofficial meetings that could help restart the long-stalled negotiations. Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Christopher Hill, Washington's chief envoy to the talks, is scheduled to arrive in Tokyo on Monday to meet with his counterparts from Japan and South Korea, U.S. officials said. During his three-day visit, Hill will attend a Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue conference at which top negotiators from the other countries in the six-party talks -- China, Russia and North Korea -- will also be present. It will be the first time that leading delegates from all six will be at the same forum since November, when the last round of talks ended in Beijing. North Korea has since resisted diplomatic efforts to return to the negotiating table, citing a global campaign by the U.S. Treasury Department to stem its alleged counterfeiting and money laundering operations. Asian and U.S. diplomats said it was too early to tell whether any talks with the North Koreans would take place at the Tokyo conference. Michael Boyle, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, said no meeting between Hill and a visiting North Korean official had been arranged. "They will be at the same conference," Boyle said. "That's all we can say." Some analysts have suggested that the North Koreans may try to stall for months or even years before allowing the six-party talks to resume. Others say that a U.S. initiative launched last year to root out the communist government's illicit activities has been effective in putting new pressure on it. The Treasury Department has forced U.S. banks to sever ties with a bank in Macau that is allegedly tied to illicit North Korean funds, a move that has led banks around the world to curtail dealings with North Korea to avoid similar action. On Wednesday, the Kyodo news agency reported that Japan's Foreign Ministry is considering issuing entry permits for North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan, the country's main envoy on the nuclear issue, and other officials. Sponsored by the University of California's Institute of Global Conflict and Cooperation Sources, the Tokyo conference will gather top officials and academics from across the region. It comes as Japan is taking more assertive steps on its own to pressure North Korea. Japanese politicians have made progress on both a bill threatening sanctions if it does not negotiate in good faith on the nuclear issue and a dispute over Japanese citizens abducted by the North Koreans during the 1970s and '80s to help train potential spies. On Tuesday, Japan added 20 North Korean firms and institutions to an export restriction list aimed at keeping them from obtaining materials and technology that could have military use. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040400538.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times April 6, 2006 Iran Reports 3rd Successful Missile Test By Associated Press TEHRAN — Iran said Wednesday that it had successfully test-fired a "top secret" missile, the third in a week, state- run television reported. The report called the missile an "ultra-horizon" weapon and said it could be fired from all military helicopters and jet fighters. It gave no other details. Iran said this week that it tested a surface-to-sea radar-evading missile with remote control and searching systems, state TV reported. It said the Kowsar's guidance system could not be scrambled, and it had been designed to sink ships. Last week, Iran said it tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said could evade radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Iran also has announced tests of what it called two new torpedoes. Some military analysts in Moscow said the high- speed torpedoes probably were Russian-built and might have been acquired from China or Kyrgyzstan. Washington said Monday that Iran might have made some military strides, but it probably was exaggerating its capabilities. The tests came during Iranian war games in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea at a time of increased tension with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran6apr06,1,217644.story

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Financial Times April 5, 2006 Germany Urges US To Hold Talks With Iran By Guy Dinmore, Demetri Sevastopulo and Hubert Wetzel, Washington Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany's foreign minister, has urged the Bush administration to hold direct talks with Iran over its nuclear programme. Mr Steinmeier said yesterday he had made the proposal, which he said had UK support, to Stephen Hadley, US national security adviser, in Washington on Monday. The Bush administration quickly shot down a similar suggestion floated by a UK official last month. Mr Steinmeier admitted he saw no signs that the US would enter into such talks, although Washington has agreed to meet Iranian officials to discuss the security situation in Iraq. Germany's backing for the UK suggestion was evidence, analysts said, that the European powers were not hopeful that the nuclear crisis would be resolved through the action being taken in the UN Security Council. Diplomats are sceptical that the US and its European allies will persuade Russia and China to support a legally binding "chapter seven" resolution if Iran does not comply over the next month. The faltering diplomatic process has led to speculation of military action by the US. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, has said repeatedly that "Iran is not Iraq" and that the military option was "not on the agenda now", which suggests it might be later. A US official told the FT that the use of force was "not under active consideration" and that Washington regarded diplomacy as "an effective means to an end". This ambiguity has been enough to cause some alarm in Iran but not so much that it would splinter the delicate transatlantic partnership with France and Germany. Among analysts there is virtual unanimity that an Iraq-style ground invasion is out of the question. General Anthony Zinni, former commander of US Central Command, who says the US used far too few troops in Iraq, said an invasion to capture Tehran would require 1m troops. Using special forces, possibly with the help of exiled Iranian militants, also gets the thumbs down. "It would be like throwing eggs against a brick wall," said Patrick Lang, former Middle East specialist in the Defence Intelligence Agency. Iran's facilities are numerous, scattered, well defended and in some cases deep underground. In the absence of support from the UK, that leaves the option of US air strikes. Mr Lang, speaking at the Nixon Center think-tank, said Israel did not have the military capacity because of the distance, despite a warning last year by Dick Cheney, US vice-president, that Israel might take matters into its own hands. Mr Lang and Larry Johnson, a former CIA official, estimated the US would need 1,000 sorties by aircraft and cruise missiles to mount a "worthwhile air campaign". Charles Lutes, an air force colonel and weapons expert at the National Defence University, said pre-emptive strikes could set back Iran's nuclear programme two years or so. But it would strengthen the regime's resolve to acquire such weapons while increasing its popular support. While denying it has a weapons programme, Iran is talking up its conventional defensive capabilities and hinting at its ability to do broader damage to the US and oil markets. US sources are also issuing warnings of Iran's potential to wage asymmetrical warfare through militants in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond. If statements by US officials are to be taken at face value, it would appear the Bush administration has decided not to go for the military option before Iran reaches the "point of no return" - the moment when it has the technical ability to start producing enriched uranium for a bomb. Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said last month that the US intelligence community assessed Iran was about "five to 10 years away from a nuclear weapons capability" but might only be months away from the "point of no return". Analysts mostly assume President George W. Bush will give the diplomatic process at least another year or two. This could lead to an "ad hoc coalition" supporting some sanctions. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0860e1b6-c440-11da-bc52-0000779e2340.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times April 6, 2006 Rice Seeks Backing For Nuclear Deal For India By Steven R. Weisman WASHINGTON, April 5 — Facing tough questions about the Bush administration's proposed deal to aid India's civilian nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Congress on Wednesday that she would press New Delhi to back up its stated commitment to stop the spread of nuclear arms. Ms. Rice said that she would push India, for example, to conclude an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on safeguarding its civilian nuclear plants as a way of reassuring lawmakers, but that she could not guarantee that India would do so before Congress could vote on the deal. "What I can guarantee you is that we will make every effort to push that process forward," Ms. Rice told Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, at a hearing on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In a sign that the proposal may have more support in Congress than some of its opponents had suggested, Mr. Kerry said he would probably support the deal, especially if the administration could provide the assurances he sought. A similar tentative endorsement came from another influential lawmaker, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the committee. The qualified support from Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry elated administration officials, who said they now believed they could build on the momentum from the hearings to try for a vote as early as May or June. Committee officials said a vote might be delayed until July, however. Ms. Rice also testified before the House International Relations Committee, where the proposal got even more bipartisan support. That was considered significant because of the earlier vociferous criticism of some Democrats and misgivings expressed by the chairman, Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois. An aide said Mr. Hyde had not endorsed the plan but had not ruled out doing so. Ms. Rice said the United States was also pressing India to join a treaty to block exports of fissile material for use in making a nuclear weapon, and international conventions governing the transport of chemical weapons and nuclear technology. The nuclear deal, in which the administration has in effect proposed letting India bypass the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it has not signed, would permit authorities there to receive vital help for their civilian nuclear program, including uranium for fuel, while being allowed to retain or increase the nation's arsenal of nuclear weapons. Many experts on proliferation have been critical of the arrangement, saying it rewards India for defying the basic underlying philosophy of the treaty, which is that only countries that forswear nuclear arms can get help with their nuclear energy needs. But there are also independent experts who favor the deal because it puts most of India's reactors under civilian auspices and therefore under international inspection. About a third would stay under military control and therefore beyond inspection by the international atomic agency. Several Democratic senators, including Barbara Boxer of California and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, said at the hearing that India did not deserve the deal, despite their desire to improve relations. Other lawmakers noted great support for India as an emerging power that could serve as a counterweight to China. Ms. Rice sought to play up the importance of improving ties with India but she also warned bluntly that if the treaty negotiated by President Bush failed, bilateral relations would suffer markedly and broader American interests in Asia would suffer as well. Lawmakers expressed concern that the proposed deal curbed the power of Congress by leaving India exempt from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, rather than getting India to join and then allowing a waiver, which could be reviewed annually and approved by Congress if India lived up to its commitments. A senior State Department official, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the record about the administration's tactics, said afterward that the White House would be amenable to having Congress attach legislative requirements to the deal, as long as that did not require a renegotiation. For example, he said, Congress could require that the agreement not take effect until India reaches its safeguard accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency. An Indian official said India could accept such an arrangement as long as it required India to do things that it had already agreed to do. "We're moving ahead on all the things we've committed ourselves on," said the official, Raminder Jassal, deputy chief of mission at the Indian Embassy. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/washington/06nuke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times April 6, 2006 U.S. Rolls Out Nuclear Plan The administration's proposal would modernize the nation's complex of laboratories and factories as well as produce new bombs. By Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer The Bush administration Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the nation's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity. The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War. Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe. Under the plan, all of the nation's plutonium would be consolidated into a single facility that could be more effectively and cheaply defended against possible terrorist attacks. The plan would remove the plutonium kept at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by 2014, though transfers of the material could start sooner. In recent years, concern has grown that Livermore, surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the Bay Area, could not repel a terrorist attack. But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium stores and from those who say restarting bomb production would encourage aspiring nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons. The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino, head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department. Though the weapons proposal would restore the capacity to make new bombs, D'Agostino said it was part of a larger effort to accelerate the dismantling of aging bombs left from the Cold War. D'Agostino acknowledged in an interview that the administration was walking a fine line by modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons program while assuring other nations that it was not seeking a new arms race. The credibility of the contention rests on the U.S. intent to sharply reduce its inventory of weapons. The administration is also quickly moving ahead with a new nuclear bomb program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and make them more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes the potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in a design competition. The U.S. built its last nuclear weapon in 1989 and last tested a weapon underground in 1992. Since the Cold War, the nation has had massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons to deter potential attacks. By contrast, it would increasingly rely on the capability to build future bombs for deterrence, D'Agostino said. The blueprint calls for a modern complex to design a new nuclear bomb and have it ready in less than four years, allowing the nation to respond to changing military requirements. Similar proposals in the past, such as for a nuclear bomb to attack underground bunkers, provoked concern that they undermined U.S. policy to stop nuclear proliferation. The impetus for the plan is a growing belief that efforts to maintain older nuclear bombs and keep up a large nuclear weapons industrial complex are technically and financially unsustainable. Last year, a task force led by San Diego physicist David Overskei recommended that the Energy Department consolidate the system of eight existing weapons complexes into one site. Overskei said Wednesday that the cost of security alone for the current infrastructure of plants over the next two decades was roughly $25 billion. Security costs have grown, because the Sept. 11 attacks have led the Energy Department to believe terrorists could mount a larger and better armed strike force. Peter Stockton, a former Energy Department security consultant who is now an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, criticized the plutonium consolidation plan in House testimony, saying it would delay the difficult work too far into the future. Stockton added in an interview that the plutonium transfer at Livermore could be accomplished in a few months. Until now, Livermore lab officials have sharply disagreed with the idea of removing plutonium from their site, saying it was essential to their work. On Wednesday, a lab spokesman said the issue was "far less controversial" and the "decision rests in Washington." The Bush plan, described at a hearing of the strategic subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, would consolidate much of the weapons capacity, but not as completely or quickly as outside critics would like. The overall plan would not be fully implemented until 2030. A crucial part of restarting U.S. nuclear bomb production involves so-called plutonium pits, hollow spheres surrounded by high explosives. The pits start nuclear fission and trigger the nuclear fusion in a bomb. The plutonium pits were built at the Energy Department's former Rocky Flats site near Denver until the weapons plant was shut down in 1989 after it was found to have violated environmental regulations. In recent years, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has tried to start limited production of plutonium pits and hopes to build a certified pit that will enter the so-called war reserve next year. Los Alamos would be producing about 30 to 50 pits per year by 2012, but the Energy Department said that was not enough to sustain the U.S. nuclear deterrent. In his testimony, D'Agostino estimated plutonium pits would last 45 to 60 years, after which they would be unreliable and might result in an explosion smaller than intended. Critics outside the government sharply dispute that conclusion, saying there is no evidence that pits degrade over time and that the nation can keep an adequate nuclear deterrent by maintaining its existing weapons. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-nuke6apr06,1,3095478.story?coll=la-news-a_section

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times April 6, 2006 Pg. 19 Needed: Lasers In The Sky By James T. Hackett Problem: How to protect the United States, Israel, Japan, Taiwan, NATO other friends and allies, and U.S. military bases all around the world, from ballistic missiles of different ranges, warheads and capabilities, including the multiple warhead type now claimed by Iran? Solution: The Airborne Laser (ABL). It is the promise of a mobile worldwide defense against a variety of threats that makes development of the ABL important. The Missile Defense Agency has been working on this system for nine years and in 2008 will reach the culmination of that effort with an attempt to shoot down a ballistic missile from an airborne platform. That platform is a Boeing 747 loaded with lasers that will find a ballistic missile, focus on it, track it through the clouds, and then zap it with a high-powered beam to heat and destroy it in the boost phase, before it can release any warheads and decoys. The whole sequence of events takes just seconds, then the lasers turn to the next target. The advantages are many. A pair of 747s can fly in a few hours to any trouble spot on Earth, giving this defense mobility and flexibility. The lasers operate with the speed of light, enabling the ABL to destroy multiple missiles with multiple warheads as fast as they can be launched. The ABL will be a quantum leap in military technology, making science fiction-like beam weapons a reality. The ABL also could use its lasers against enemy aircraft, disabling or destroying them while defending itself. A number of other missions are possible, and some will be tested if the 2008 shoot-down succeeds. But the primary mission is to add a new boost-phase capability to a worldwide missile defense. The success of the ABL to date has led the Defense Department to start a new effort known as the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL). This summer, flight tests will begin with a smaller C-130H cargo plane, which can fly lower and slower than a 747. It will carry a different set of lasers, including a chemical laser to attack targets on the ground. The ATL could be useful in Iraq and Afghanistan, so its development is moving fast, with demonstrations planned next year against a moving vehicle on the ground and a communications tower. The ATL's chemical laser is powerful enough to damage targets on the ground from a low-flying plane, but not nearly as powerful as the ABL's big chemical oxygen iodine laser. It is designed to reach out over 200 miles, maintain beam focus and stability, and still have enough power to heat a ballistic missile to destruction. Getting that laser beam on a distant target that is moving at increasing speed and keeping it there long enough to cause the missile to rupture is a major challenge. Still, the program has achieved its milestones over the past two years. In 2004, the high-energy laser had its first light. Last year, it succeeded in generating lethal power, and the beam and fire control systems were tested. Low- power lasers are being used this year for airborne tests against the image of a ballistic missile painted on the side of an Air Force cargo plane flying over White Sands, N.M. Next year, the illuminator lasers will be tested in flight, and then the high-energy laser will be installed in the plane and prepared for the shoot-down. If the program continues to achieve its goals, the Air Force plans to buy a fleet of seven ABL aircraft, which could be dispatched wherever they are needed. With two ABLs on station, one could be airborne 24 hours a day, neutralizing threats from North Korea, Iran, elsewhere in the Middle East or along the China coast. The recent announcement by an Iranian general that Tehran has tested a new missile with multiple warheads probably is pure propaganda, but no one can be sure. Iran would be hard-pressed to develop such technology itself, but it exists in Russia and China and could be transferred. Also, former Soviet scientists reportedly have been working in Iran. This makes the ABL, the administration's primary boost-phase program to defeat multiple warheads and decoys, more urgent than ever. High-powered lasers are the next big leap in modern warfare. The administration and Congress should provide enough funds to assure that both airborne lasers, the ABL and ATL, are on a fast track for early deployment. James T. Hackett is a contributing writer to The Washington Times and is based in Carlsbad, Calif. http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060405-091813-2703r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times April 6, 2006 We Do Not Have A Nuclear Weapons Program By Javad Zarif The controversy over Iran's peaceful nuclear program has obscured one point in particular: There need not be a crisis. A solution to the situation is possible and eminently within reach. Lost amid the rhetoric is this: Iran has a strong interest in enhancing the integrity and authority of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It has been in the forefront of efforts to ensure the treaty's universality. Iran's reliance on the nonproliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Let me be very clear. Iran defines its national security in the framework of regional and international cooperation and considers regional stability indispensable for its development. We are party to all international agreements on the control of weapons of mass destruction. We want regional stability. We have never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used on us, we have never used them in retaliation — as United Nations reports have made clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years. Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection regimen by the United Nations. We have allowed more than 1,700 person-days of inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting failures. Most of the outstanding issues in connection with uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy water research reactor program have been resolved. Even the presence of highly enriched uranium contamination — an issue that some say proves the existence of an illicit weapons program — has been explained satisfactorily. Don't take it from me. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, its findings tend "to support Iran's statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed H.E.U. contamination." It's worth noting, too, that Iran has gone beyond its international obligations and allowed the atomic agency to repeatedly visit military sites — and to allow inspectors to take environmental samples. The agency did not observe any unusual activities; the samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations. Most important, the agency has concluded time and again that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. In November 2003, for example, the agency confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities ... were related to a nuclear weapons program." A year later, and last September, it concluded again that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities." Another point that has been obscured: Iran is ready for negotiations. Since October 2003, Iran has done its utmost to sustain and even resuscitate negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, the three European countries responsible for negotiating with us. Since August 2004, Iran has made eight far-reaching proposals. What's more, Iran throughout this period adopted extensive and costly confidence-building measures, including a voluntary suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of negotiations. Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package: • Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Iranian Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put its provisions in place pending ratification; • Permit the continuous on-site presence of atomic agency inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities; • Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons; • Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material; • Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium; • Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry; • Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment; • Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light water reactors; • Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program — like research and development — in order to assure the world of our intentions; • Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program. Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards. Other governments, most notably the Russian Federation, have offered thoughtful possibilities for a deal. Iran has declared its eagerness to find a negotiated solution — one that would protect its rights while ensuring that its nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful. Pressure and threats do not resolve problems. Finding solutions requires political will and a readiness to engage in serious negotiations. Iran is ready. We hope the rest of the world will join us. Javad Zarif is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/opinion/06zarif.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Los Angeles Times April 7, 2006 Pg. 1 U.S., Allies Seek A Way Outside U.N. To Press Iran Worried the world body won't act forcefully against Tehran's nuclear program, a group of nations discusses levying sanctions on its own. By Paul Richter and Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers WASHINGTON — With hopes dimming for tough U.N. action against Iran's nuclear program, U.S. officials and allies are talking about forming a smaller "coalition of the willing" to bring pressure on Tehran. The coalition, which could include Britain and France, would exert economic and diplomatic — although not military — leverage against Iran's rulers to comply with international demands to halt uranium enrichment activities and cooperate with international inspectors. The Bush administration and its allies in Europe and elsewhere remain publicly committed to working through international channels, including the United Nations' Security Council and the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency. But some of the officials acknowledge that they also have been quietly exploring a nonmilitary alternative to U.N. sanctions if current Security Council efforts break down. American officials consider a military solution impractical, although President Bush has not ruled it out. U.S. and European diplomats say they are still a long way from collaborating outside the U.N. framework, and some questioned the proposal's chances for success. "None of the options on Iran are good," said one senior U.S. official, who, like others who spoke on the issue, requested anonymity because the matter was still under discussion. "You play the cards you have." John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., tacitly acknowledged Thursday that an alternative approach was under consideration. "It would be, I think, simply prudent to be looking at other options," he told reporters in Washington. Economic sanctions against Iran would pose little inconvenience to the United States, which has cut off most dealings with Tehran, but they would be costly to many other countries that depend on Iran for oil. Moreover, joining with the United States is likely to raise negative associations with the unpopular war in Iraq. The U.S.-led coalition there has dwindled from 38 countries to 26, with Italy and possibly several other members considering a pullout this year. Yet allies also worry that Iran, despite its avowal that its nuclear program is for energy generation, is close to gaining crucial bomb-making know-how. They view a coalition approach as a way to forestall military action by the United States or Israel against the conservative Muslim clerics in power in Tehran. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported its concerns about Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council this year, and U.S. officials hoped for swift and stringent action, including the threat of international sanctions. But three weeks of difficult council negotiations last month produced only a mild "presidential statement" calling on Iranians to follow U.N. rules on nuclear activities. Russian and Chinese officials made it clear that they opposed further steps toward sanctions. Bolton, speaking to reporters Thursday morning, said the "obvious difficulty" of reaching accord in the Security Council "says something about the difficulty of the road ahead." Applying similar economic pressure outside the U.N. structure would require multiple informal agreements among a group of countries, each of which would impose a set of sanctions. The officials said that if they decided to work as a coalition, they would use the same general approach they have considered for possible U.N. sanctions. Sanctions would focus on the Iranian leadership, to avoid punishing ordinary Iranians, but could be broadened. Initial measures could include bans on travel to the participating countries, a freeze on personal assets held abroad and restrictions on international lending. Advocates say Western countries have enormous leverage because Iran imports so many manufactured and processed products, including gasoline. Some advocates note that the talk of international sanctions on Iran already has caused foreign companies to reduce investments and has diminished the country's standing with international lenders. A second senior U.S. official, who noted that more than 50% of Iran's manufactured goods come from Europe, said Washington had been pressing China, Russia, India and Japan to use their exports to Iran as leverage. He said that sanctions could generate huge social pressure, since two-thirds of Iranians are younger than 30 and many lack jobs and adequate housing. "Potentially, in a couple of years there could be revolutionary conditions on the Iranian street," the second official said. "It will take a real threat of sanctions, or actual sanctions, to get the regime to have a change of heart. But hopefully that will work." The Bush administration and its allies have been working together to put in place what the U.S. calls "defensive measures" on Tehran. For instance, they are working to expand the Proliferation Security Initiative, a U.S. program involving dozens of countries that use various methods to block illegal trade in nuclear and related technologies, Bolton noted Thursday. With U.S. sanctions already in place, any new economic pressures would have to be exerted by European countries, primarily Britain, France and Germany, which would face painful choices. The three European countries have been negotiating with Iran, and of them, France is considered most likely to favor the coalition approach, advocates said. The British would be less enthusiastic, and the Germans may opt to sit out the effort. Russia, they said, appears unlikely to imperil its commercial ties with Iran. U.S. officials also have noted that countries such as India, Brazil, Sri Lanka and Egypt have voted against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency meetings, but Washington has no assurance that any of them would join a combined effort. One German official noted that Germany enjoys billions of dollars in exports to Iran. "Will we give them up?" he wondered. The French, meanwhile, are poised to seal important gas deals with the Iranians that ensure supplies, the German official pointed out. European nations have been trying to find a way to spread the burden of sanctions equitably, U.S. officials said. U.S. officials have acknowledged their frustration that Iran has been able to use its leverage as an energy supplier to prevent other countries from taking steps against it. "Nothing has taken me more aback as secretary of State than the way energy is — I will use the word — warping international diplomacy," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a Senate committee Wednesday. Some observers are skeptical that sanctions, either informal or through the U.N., would have any effect. Meir Javedanfar, director of the Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Co., said Iranians were likely to resist sanctions, so the only effect would be to increase support for the government. He recalled that in 1953, when the British blockaded the Persian Gulf, Iranians resisted strongly, and rioted when a government minister suggested giving in. "Sanctions would not force Iranians to give up [their] nuclear program; it's not in the Iranian character," Javedanfar said. Richter reported from Washington and Rubin from Geneva. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiran7apr07,0,7570376.story?coll=la-home-world

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times April 7, 2006 Pg. 13 End Nuke Program Or Else, Bolton Warns U.S. backs U.N. pressure but eyes sanction 'options' By Sharon Behn, The Washington Times Iran has until the end of April to abandon its nuclear-weapons program and comply with international atomic energy agreements or face increased international sanctions, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday. The U.N. Security Council's ability to come together and bring pressure on Tehran would reflect whether the international forum would play a major role in protecting the United States and its allies, Ambassador John R. Bolton told reporters at a State Department Correspondents Association breakfast meeting yesterday. "Iran is a good test case," he said. If Iran refused to conform to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations, Mr. Bolton said, the likely next step would be a U.N. resolution that would be legally binding on Iran, followed by a resolution that would consider sanctions. Mr. Bolton described the U.S. approach as "calibrated, gradual and reversible," but warned that if the U.N. council failed to deal effectively with Iran, Washington would have to look at alternatives. "We are pursuing a variety of options outside the Security Council right now," he said, echoing statements he made to The Washington Times in November. "It is simply prudent planning to be looking at other options," he said yesterday. Mr. Bolton said the United States could tighten sanctions against Iran that were eased under the Clinton administration, allowing for the import of Persian rugs and pistachio nuts. Additional steps could include sanctions such as those Washington has taken against North Korea, and "looking at the illicit financial transactions by the Iranian government," he said. The United States would work with other countries on sanctions on the Iranian leadership's "financial transactions, their travel opportunities and the economic relations these countries themselves have with Iran," he said. A U.N. Security Council presidential statement issued March 29 urged Iran to suspend all activities related to nuclear enrichment and reprocessing, to be verified by the IAEA in a report due in 30 days -- or by April 28. Follow-up resolutions could require Tehran to comply. Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful and not weapons-based. The United States and the European Union dispute that. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday that several issues in Iran remained outstanding. "The picture is not very clear; the picture is hazy," he told reporters in Madrid after a meeting of U.N. agency chiefs, the Reuters news agency reported. The IAEA has led inspections of Iran's nuclear program for three years. "We have seen issues that we need to understand before we can say we are satisfied that all activities in Iran are exclusively for peaceful purposes," said Mr. ElBaradei. He added that there was still time to negotiate and resolve the issue through diplomatic means, Reuters reported. The council and its five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, China, Russia and France -- face considerable wrangling over how to proceed with Iran. Although not legally binding, the presidential statement alone took three weeks and three drafts before an agreement was reached. China has said it would veto a move to impose sanctions on Iran. Russia, which helped build Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant and is keen on winning other profitable contracts, stands to lose a lot of hard currency earnings if sanctions are imposed. Mr. Bolton said Moscow was concerned that if it withdrew from Iran, its business there could be replaced by a Western European country. "There have been any number of conversations between Bush and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are further conversations," he said. China's ambassador to the United Nations on Tuesday told reporters that diplomacy would work better forcing Iran to comply. The threat of sanctions, said Wang Guangya, "would prove to be more counterproductive than productive." The Middle East "has so many problems already we won't need to escalate the situation for the worse," Mr. Wang said. "I think that they have to realize the political situations in the world and also to consider that noncooperation will lead to undesirable results." Betsy Pisik in New York contributed to this article. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060406-111308-6447r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Daily Telegraph April 7, 2006 UN Officials Find Evidence Of Secret Uranium Enrichment Plant By Con Coughlin United Nations officials investigating Iran's nuclear programme say they have found convincing evidence that the Iranians are working on a secret uranium enrichment project that has not been officially declared. Suspicions were raised after officials from the UN-sponsored International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) travelled to Pakistan at the end of last year to interview A Q Khan, the atomic scientist who masterminded the successful development of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal. Khan is known to have sold Teheran the technical expertise to develop an atomic bomb, together with key components, such as sophisticated equipment for enriching uranium. During the interview with IAEA inspectors, Khan is said to have provided a full disclosure of the nuclear dossier he gave the Iranians. The inspectors compared Khan's material against the documentation the Iranians have so far provided. "There are a number of glaring inconsistencies between what the Iranians are telling us and the information the IAEA got from Khan," said a diplomat closely involved in the IAEA's negotiations with Teheran. "Consequently the IAEA inspectors are now convinced that the Iranians have another, small-scale uranium processing and enrichment project that is being kept secret from the outside world." IAEA officials are trying to establish whether Iran has what they call "parallel" nuclear enrichment facilities, which they suspect are being developing at closed military bases around the country. The current diplomatic crisis over Iran's uranium enrichment activity is centred on the uranium processing plant at Isfahan and the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. The existence of the latter facility, which will soon have the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade, was unknown until Iranian exiles disclosed its location in 2003. Both these facilities, constructed to carry out industrial-scale nuclear enrichment, have been documented by IAEA inspectors, and would be easy targets for military action if the crisis between Teheran and the UN Security Council were to worsen. UN officials believe that the Iranians have set up a parallel enrichment project that would enable them to continue with their uranium enrichment activity in the event of their other facilities being incapacitated by military action. Suspicions have been raised by the discovery of a facility, at an unknown location, capable of producing "green salt". Iranian officials inadvertently submitted a document about its production in their declarations to IAEA inspectors on other aspects of their nuclear programme. Green salt is similar to uranium that has been partially processed to weapons grade and no satisfactory explanation for its production has been given by Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation. The other discovery that caused consternation for the IAEA was a set of drawings that show the Iranians are attempting to build what has been described as an enriched uranium hemisphere, a construction that is only used in the construction of atomic weapons. Iran refused to hand over the drawings. "It all fits into a pattern of behaviour that suggests the Iranians have something to hide," said a senior diplomat attached to the IAEA headquarters in Vienna. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/07/wiran107.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/07/ixne wstop.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Daily Telegraph April 7, 2006 Iran Has Missiles To Carry Nuclear Warheads By Con Coughlin Iran has successfully developed ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear warheads. Detailed analysis of recent test firings of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile by military experts has concluded that Iran has been able to modify the nose cone to carry a basic nuclear bomb. The discovery will intensify international pressure on Teheran to provide a comprehensive breakdown of its nuclear research programme. Last week, the United Nations Security Council gave Iran 30 days to freeze its uranium enrichment programme that many experts believe is part of a clandestine attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Iran denies it is trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. But ballistic missile experts advising the United States say it has succeeded in reconfiguring the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons. The Shahab-3 is a modified version of North Korea's Nodong missile which itself is based on the old Soviet-made Scud. The Nodong, which Iran secretly acquired from North Korea in the mid-1990s, is designed to carry a conventional warhead. But Iranian engineers have been working for several years to adapt the Shahab-3 to carry nuclear weapons. "This is a major breakthrough for the Iranians," said a senior US official. "They have been trying to do this for years and now they have succeeded. It is a very disturbing development." The Shahab 3 has a range of 800 miles, enabling it to hit a wide range of targets throughout the Middle East - including Israel. Apart from modifying the nose cone, Iranian technicians are also trying to make a number of technical adjustments that will enable the missile to travel a greater distance. Western intelligence officials believe that Iran is receiving assistance from teams of Russian and Chinese experts with experience of developing nuclear weapons. Experts who have studied the latest version of the Shahab have identified modifications to the nose cone. Instead of the single cone normally attached to this type of missile, the new Shahab has three cones, or a triconic, warhead. A triconic warhead allows the missile to accommodate a nuclear device and this type of warhead is normally found only in nuclear weapons. According to the new research, the Iranian warhead is designed to carry a spherical nuclear weapon that would be detonated 2,000 feet above the ground, similar to the Hiroshima bomb. Although US defence officials believe that Iran is several years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, they point out that the warhead could hold a version of the nuclear bomb Pakistan is known to have developed. Iran has acquired a detailed breakdown of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The development of the Shahab-3 is just one element of a wide-ranging missile development programme. In 2003 the Iranians concluded another secret deal with North Korea to buy the Taepo Dong 2 missile, which has a range of 2,200 miles and would enable Iran to hit targets in mainland Europe. Earlier this week the Iranians announced that they had successfully test-fired a new missile, the Fajr-3, which has the capability to evade radar systems and carry multiple warheads. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/07/wiran07.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/07/ixne wstop.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

International Herald Tribune April 7, 2006 N. Koreans Set For Talks In Tokyo TOKYO--The Japanese government Thursday issued an entry permit for North Korea's chief nuclear negotiator and four other North Korean officials to attend a security conference in Tokyo next week, a news report said. The U.S. Embassy announced Tuesday that officials from the six countries participating in stalled North Korean nuclear disarmament talks - the United States, China, Japan, Russia and two Koreas - would meet at a privately sponsored conference in Tokyo on Monday and Tuesday. Preliminary talks will begin Sunday. The meeting comes amid efforts to salvage the nuclear talks, which have been stalled since November by a dispute over restrictions the United States imposed on a Macao-based bank, Banco Delta Asia, and North Korean companies for alleged illegal financial activities. Wu Dawei, China's top nuclear envoy, will meet delegates to the six-nation talks on the sidelines of the conference but will not attend it, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Thursday. Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Alexeyev of Russia may attend the conference, according to a Russian Embassy spokesman, Sergei Yasenev. Alexeyev has been in Japan since Wednesday for previously scheduled talks with Japanese officials, Yasenev said. On Thursday, Japan issued the entry permit for Kim Kye Gwan, North Korean vice foreign minister, and the four others, the Kyodo news agency reported from Beijing, citing unidentified Japanese officials. Kim arrived in Beijing on Thursday morning en route to Tokyo. The report said North Korea's deputy chief of mission to the United Nations, Han Song Ryol, was traveling with him. The conference is sponsored by the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/06/news/korea.php

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times April 7, 2006 Pg. 6 Nuclear Warhead Update Developed By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times The Bush administration is designing a new nuclear warhead that will replace aging stockpiles of weapons and counter emerging threats, according to Energy Department officials. The Reliable Replacement Warhead is being drawn up at two Energy Department nuclear weapons laboratories and, if produced, would be the first new strategic warhead in more than a decade. The warhead is part of a nuclear modernization program revealed Wednesday before the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces by Thomas P. D'Agostino, deputy administrator for defense programs in the department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). "It will improve the performance of individual warheads, and it will let us transform the infrastructure to be much more responsive, and because it does these things, it will allow us to keep far fewer warheads ...," NNSA Director Linton Brooks said in an interview yesterday. Mr. Brooks said the warhead has very good support in Congress, which must fund the program. If the design is approved in November, it could be developed and produced by 2012, he said. Mr. Brooks said the warhead is in many ways a "component replacement" program but that so many replacements and upgrades will be made that it could be considered new. It will be easier to build, use less dangerous materials and will involve new designs for greater safety, security and greater performance margins, he said. The warhead has been described by U.S. officials as having a "modular" design that will allow it to be adapted to various delivery systems, including missiles, bombers or submarines. "These replacement warheads have the same military characteristics, are carried on the same types of delivery systems and hold at risk the same targets as the warheads they replaced, but they have been redesigned for reliability, security and ease of maintenance," Mr. D'Agostino said. Modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons complex is needed to counter "unanticipated events or emerging threats," he said. It also will boost "the ability to anticipate innovations by an adversary and to counter them before our deterrent is degraded," he said. The U.S. nuclear modernization effort comes as both China and Russia are building up their strategic nuclear forces. Both nations were described in a recent Pentagon study as states at "strategic crossroads." China is deploying three new types of long-range nuclear missiles, and Russia has developed new strategic missiles designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses. Marine Corps Gen. James E. Cartwright, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that he supports the new warhead. The replacement warhead is "the key to transforming our aging Cold War nuclear weapons stockpile," Gen. Cartwright said. The U.S. nuclear warhead arsenal is being cut from about 10,000 warheads to about 6,000 over the next six years. Another key goal of the new warhead program is to restore the infrastructure for producing nuclear weapons that has decreased sharply in both people and facilities since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060406-112126-3779r.htm

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Christian Science Monitor April 7, 2006 Cities move to defend against railroad attacks At least five may ban tanker cars with hazardous chemicals. Industry and federal officials disapprove. By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor JERSEY CITY, N.J. - Boston officials envision keeping rail cars carrying hazardous chemicals at least 10 miles away unless the city is their destination. A plan in Chicago would prohibit such tanker cars in its downtown Loop. In Cleveland, city officials are considering banning them near Lake Erie, water treatment plants, and crowded neighborhoods. Transport of these chemicals presents one of the knottiest public policy problems in the effort to protect the nation's cities from terrorist attack. Federal law requires railroads to carry such chemicals, which are used in manufacturing, water-purification systems, and wastewater-treatment plants. But with no federal regulations for securing the transport of these chemicals, The District of Columbia has enacted rules of its own and at least five other cities are considering them. These moves have drawn a sharp rebuke from industry and federal officials, who say such piecemeal efforts are misguided. Since 9/11, they point out, railroads have fortified rail yards and worked with the chemical industry to conceal where and when these tanker cars pass near or through cities. The threat looms large. Government studies suggest that the explosion of one tanker car carrying, say, chlorine would cause up to 100,000 deaths in a densely populated area. So Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Chicago have proposed ordinances requiring that such deadly chemicals be rerouted around them unless they're destined for the cities themselves. The fact that the rail industry, with federal support, has sued the District of Columbia over its law has not deterred them. "The federal government says, 'We preempt the field,' but their preemption is abdication because they're not doing anything. They're letting the railroads determine the routes," says Stuart Greenberg of the Cuyahoga County Emergency Planning Committee in Cleveland. "Either we need to allow local jurisdictions to exercise their obligation to protect the public, or we need a comprehensive federal routing system designed by a neutral party." Critics' main concern is that it's too easy to gain access to the tanker cars. A few miles from midtown Manhattan, for example, a chain-link fence topped with razor-sharp wire surrounds a rail yard in Jersey City, N.J. "No Trespassing" signs abound. But it's easy to step through some weeds and onto the tracks that lead directly into the fenced-in rail yard. No one stopped a reporter when she approached those tracks - or tracks in two other areas where tanker cars sometimes travel. Rail officials contend that's not a fair representation of how easy it would be to target dangerous cars. First, they represent a small percentage of the nation's rail cargo, they say. Of 1.7 million carloads of hazardous materials transported each year, only about 100,000 contain the most dangerous toxic inhalants like chlorine and anhydrous ammonia. Second, the industry has increased the safeguards on information about where and when such shipments travel. Third, and most important, rerouting toxic chemicals would cause them to travel longer routes on less well maintained rural tracks, increasing the risk of accidents. "You're compromising safety in the name of security, which is not a good idea or public policy," says Peggy Wilhide, of the Association of American Railroads in Washington, D.C. Critics counter that an accident or an attack in a less populated area would create far less damage, mitigating the trade-off. They also say the federal government is intentionally downplaying the risks. "In their mind, it's better for the public to be at very high risk and in blissful ignorance than to do something about it," says Fred Millar, a consultant to the Washington, D.C., city council. In response, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation last Friday issued "recommended security action items" for the rail transport of "toxic inhalation hazard materials." It calls for putting one person in charge of these shipments; restricting access to information about them; and ensuring regular communications with federal, state, and local emergency responders. But the memo's second sentence reads: "All measures are voluntary." That prompted an angry reaction from some on Capitol Hill. These "are the latest sign of how this administration would sooner jeopardize homeland security than ruffle the feathers of a big corporation," says Rep. Edward Markey (D) of Massachusetts. Federal transportation and homeland security officials defend the guidelines as just a first step that can be implemented right away. They also say the guidelines don't preclude future regulations. "Our goal is to balance safety and security, rerouting doesn't mitigate the risk, it simply moves it to another location," says Darrin Kayser, spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration. Rail officials contend this is one of the most difficult and expensive security problem it faces. Indeed, Ms. Wilhide says the railroads would rather not carry such dangerous cargo at all. Recently, the AAR came out in favor of industry switching to less dangerous chemicals where possible, a move that puts it at odds with its customer, the chemical industry. "If we had our choice we wouldn't move it becuase it constitutes less than 1/10th of our profit and 99 percent of our risk," says Wilhide. "We'd at least like a clear set of guidelines." http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0407/p02s02-uspo.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post White House Admits Lag in Bioterror Effort House Hearing Decries Lack of a Strategic Plan By Justin Gillis Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, April 7, 2006; A11 The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it still lacks a strategic plan for countering bioterror threats two years after Congress created a special program and appropriated billions of dollars for the purpose, and it pledged fresh efforts to speed up and streamline the troubled Project BioShield. Under sharp questioning on Capitol Hill from members of both parties, the administration conceded many of the criticisms that have been leveled against Project BioShield by the drug and biotechnology industries in recent months. That $5.6 billion program is meant to build an elaborate national stockpile of drugs and other measures to counter biological and radioactive weapons, but corporate executives have complained of delays, bureaucratic inertia, and other problems in the way the program is being run. "I think what's lacking in all this is a real sense of urgency," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, a California Democrat representing much of Silicon Valley. "I can't help but think we are not prepared if, God forbid, any of these catastrophes were to be visited upon the United States." While declaring that BioShield is indeed a high priority of the government, Alex M. Azar II, a deputy secretary at the Health and Human Services Department, conceded that the lack of a strategic plan has left industry guessing about the government's priorities. Corporate executives warned that they do not know what kind of research to launch, and cannot raise private money to help finance the work, without a clearer set of marching orders. "We recognize that more can and must be done to aggressively and efficiently implement Project BioShield," Azar told the health subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. "We will make this process more transparent and work to educate the public and industry about our priorities and opportunities." A draft plan will be made public later this year, with comments invited, and a final version should be ready soon after that, he said. Beyond the plan, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has promised to reorganize the responsible office, whose chief, Stewart Simonson, resigned recently. Simonson had drawn criticism on the Hill as lacking the scientific and emergency-management expertise necessary for the job. But some experts declared at yesterday's hearing that shuffling people and paper within HHS won't be enough to solve the BioShield problems. Congress needs to rewrite laws to give the government more authority to subsidize expensive, risky research that small companies are having trouble financing on Wall Street, some experts said. And Tara O'Toole, head of a University of Pittsburgh unit in Baltimore that studies biodefense issues, said that HHS simply lacks the personnel to manage the $5.6 billion program efficiently, estimating that another 100 employees are needed. About 40 people are devoted to the task now, an HHS spokesman said. "They have lots of good people working their hearts out over there trying to administer BioShield, but they fall far short of what is needed," O'Toole declared. She and other speakers noted that the $5.6 billion, though it sounds like a lot, is spread out over 10 years and is not much in the context of the vast expenditures on pharmaceuticals in this country. O'Toole said sharp increases will be necessary if the government is serious about building national defenses against biological, chemical and radiological weapons. Azar, of HHS, said the government has so far committed nearly $1.1 billion in BioShield contracts, with more in the works. The initial contracts are focused on the most critical threats, including smallpox and anthrax, but experts say there has been little evident progress on a wide array of threats in the 4 1/2 years since the terrorist attacks of 2001. Most of the money committed so far is going toward a single program to buy 75 million doses of anthrax vaccine from VaxGen Inc. of Brisbane, Calif., a plan that has run into delays and scientific hurdles. VaxGen has conceded it is at least a year behind schedule in making the vaccine and will default on its contracts in November unless the government grants a time extension. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601992.html

(Return to Articles and Documents List)