Washington Post
Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon "in a matter of months," but only if it manages to acquire fissile material from an outside source, according to a report issued today by an independent military and security research group here.
The report also said Iraq has an extensive biological weapons capability, a smaller chemical weapons stockpile and a small supply of missiles to deliver such weapons.
The report called Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction "the core objective of the regime," and said Baghdad had pursued this goal relentlessly for the past 11 years -- in defiance of commitments it made in agreeing to a cease-fire to end the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
But the report, issued by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, stopped short of endorsing military action against Iraq along the lines being proposed by the Bush administration and its allies here.
"Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used," John Chipman, director of the institute, said at a news conference. "Clearly, governments have a pressing duty to develop early a strategy to deal comprehensively with this unique international problem."
Analysts said the report's findings largely echo those of previous studies. But its timing and comprehensiveness, and the authority accorded the institute, which produces an annual study of the world's military forces, made it certain to feed the intensifying debate over what to do about Iraq and its leader.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has backed President Bush's Iraq policy despite opinion polls showing strong opposition here and elsewhere in Europe, said the report "paints a powerful picture of a highly unstable regime" that is pursuing dangerous weapons. "We're obviously not talking about washing powder here," the spokesman said. Blair has pledged to release the British government's report on Iraq's weapons capabilities in the next few weeks.
But critics said the findings released today were far too conditional to justify an invasion. Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, which has been skeptical about military action, said the report contained "nothing startling." While it confirmed that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, Campbell told reporters, "Where is the evidence of his intention to use these weapons?"
Chipman said that although U.N. inspections had produced a tremendous amount of technical information on Iraq's weapons programs, the Baghdad government engaged in systematic concealment and obstruction to preserve its programs and develop new ones. Ever since U.N. inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 -- just before allied airstrikes to punish Baghdad for its refusal to cooperate -- the task of monitoring Iraq's weapons capabilities has been even more
difficult.
Following a weekend meeting between Bush and Blair at Camp David, the United States and Britain appear prepared to push for a U.N. Security Council resolution requiring Iraq to readmit weapons inspectors immediately and unconditionally. But the report concludes that such a step by itself cannot assure Baghdad's compliance. Inspectors would need "an imaginative and carefully coordinated counter-concealment strategy" to cope with Iraq's determination to obstruct and outwit them. "It would take them considerable field experience to develop the necessary tradecraft to deal with Iraqi obfuscation," Chipman said.
The report said Iraq does not currently possess facilities to produce enough fissile material to make nuclear weapons, but might be able to obtain such material on the black market. If it did, the report said, it could produce nuclear weapons "on short order, perhaps in a matter of months."
The report's editor was more cautious in assessing Iraq's progress on nuclear weapons than many of the Bush administration aides who have spoken publicly in recent days.
Even if Iraq intends to build a factory for making enriched uranium -- and recent reports about Iraqi purchases of specialized metal parts suggest that it does -- it would take "several years" and extensive outside help, said Gary Samore, editor of the report and a National Security Council official on proliferation issues during the Clinton administration.
The possible "wild card" -- buying or stealing nuclear fuel abroad -- would also pose formidable challenges for Iraq, Samore said.
"We rate the chance of Iraq acquiring fissile material as low, even though you can't rule it out," Samore said. "It would be difficult for Iraq or any other group to obtain enough fissile material to build a weapon."
Concerns that Iraq may be intensifying its quest for a nuclear weapon have been spurred by reports of its recent efforts to acquire equipment used in making nuclear fuel. Over the past year, Western intelligence officials have reported several foiled attempts by Iraqi agents to purchase specialized steel and aluminum tubes used in gas centrifuges that enrich uranium for bombs.
But the significance of the reports is a matter of debate. Experts familiar with the history of Iraq's weapons program note that similar tubes are also used in making conventional artillery rockets.
"This is actually a weak indicator for suggesting centrifuges -- it just doesn't build a case," said David Albright, a
former U.N. weapons inspector and director of the Institute for Science and International Security. "I don't yet see evidence that says Iraq is close."
The report today said biological weapons remained the most threatening element in Iraq's likely current arsenal. It said Baghdad may have retained thousands of liters of lethal anthrax from before the Gulf War, and could resume producing biological and chemical weapons at existing civilian facilities within weeks. It could also have produced substantial supplies of anthrax, botulinum toxin, mustard gas and nerve agents since the inspectors left in 1998.
Iraq probably still possesses about a dozen Scud missiles with a range of up to 400 miles that could strike Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran or Kuwait with chemical or biological warheads, according to the study.
In some ways, said Samore, the argument for military action against Iraq is stronger now than before the Gulf War because Hussein has proven so resistant to military and political pressure. "We have tried a lot of means -- sanctions, inspections, airstrikes -- to force Iraq to cooperate, and that has not happened," he said.
