Syria brokers secret deal

[Hook Dem]

news.telegraph.co.uk/news...iran26.xml (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/26/wiran26.xml)


Syria brokers secret deal to send atomic weapons scientists to Iran

By Con Coughlin

(Filed: 26/09/2004)

Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism.



The issue of moving the Iraqi scientists to Iran was raised when President Asad made a visit to Teheran in July. Intelligence officials understand that the Iranians have still to respond to the Syrian leader's request.

A group of about 12 middle-ranking Iraqi nuclear technicians and their families were transported to Syria before the collapse of Saddam's regime. The transfer was arranged under a combined operation by Saddam's now defunct Special Security Organisation and Syrian Military Security, which is headed by Arif Shawqat, the Syrian president's brother-in-law.

The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam's nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts.

Growing political concern in Washington about Syria's undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis.

American intelligence officials are concerned that Syria is secretly working on a number of WMD programmes.

They have also uncovered evidence that Damascus has acquired a number of gas centrifuges - probably from North Korea - that can be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Relations between Washington and Damascus have been strained since last year's war in Iraq, with American commanders accusing the Syrians of allowing foreign fighters to cross the border into Iraq, where they carry out terrorist attacks against coalition forces.

"The Syrians are playing a very dangerous game," a senior Western intelligence official told The Sunday Telegraph.

"The Americans already have them in their sights because they are doing next to nothing to stop foreign fighters entering Iraq. If Washington finds concrete evidence that Syria is engaged in an illegal WMD programme then it will quickly find itself targeted as part of the war on terror."

Under the terms of the deal President Asad offered the Iranians, the Iraqi scientists and their families would be transferred to Teheran together with a small amount of essential materials. The Iraqi team would then assist Iranian scientists to develop a nuclear weapon.

Apart from paying the relocation expenses, President Asad also wants the Iranians to agree to share the results of their atomic weapons research with Damascus.

The Syrian offer comes at a time when Iran is under close scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is investigating claims that Iran is maintaining a secret nuclear bomb programme.

The Iranians, who possess one of the world's largest oil reserves, insist that their nuclear programme is aimed solely at developing nuclear energy. Last week relations between Teheran and the IAEA deteriorated further after the Iranians reneged on a commitment to suspend their nuclear programme.

In a move that will raise suspicions in Washington that Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, Teheran announced that it was to press ahead with plans to enrich 37 tons of uranium into the gas needed to turn the radioactive element into nuclear fuel. Nuclear experts estimate that when the process is complete the Iranians will have enough enriched uranium for five nuclear bombs.

The IAEA responded by passing a resolution setting a November 25 deadline for Iran to clear up suspicions over its nuclear activities or risk having the issue referred to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. The resolution also demanded that Iran halt all activities related to uranium enrichment, a part of the nuclear fuel cycle that can be used for both energy and weapons purposes.

In a further gesture of defiance, Ali Shamkhani, the Iranian defence minister, announced that the Iranian army has taken delivery of a new "strategic missile".

The missile, unnamed for security reasons, was successfully tested last week, Shamkhani was quoted as saying by state television. It was unclear if the weapon in question was the Shahab-3 medium-range missile, acquired by the Revolutionary Guards in July last year. An improved version was successfully tested in August.

The Shahab-3 is based on a North Korean design and is thought to be capable of carrying a one-ton warhead at least 800 miles, which puts Israel well within its range.

The Iranians yesterday also accused America of "lawless militarism" in Iraq and called Israel the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. "The attack against Iraq was illegal," Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister told the UN General Assembly. He thanked Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, for stating the same in a television interview last week.

[Yonivore]

Nuke 'em both.

[exstatic]

Look Out! It's the Black Helicopters!
http://members.tripod.com/~conspiracy2/BHimage1.jpg

[Yonivore]

Stealing images ex?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

But but but we shouldn't be targeting Iraq, Syria, or Iran - they are all nations of peace. We are the instigators of the world [/nba dunce, John Kerry]

[exstatic]

Stealing images ex?
:lol :lol

No, if I put it on my webspace and didn't attribute it, THAT would be stealing. The source is in the image location.

[spurster]

I don't doubt that all of these rogue nations are trying to build atomic bombs. The question is what to do about it. Plan A was invading Iraq and causing an epidemic of US-friendly democracies, and simultaneously refusing to negotiate with North Korea, hoping it would go away, I guess. North Korea is a failure, and Iraq is very doubtful. Bombing their facilities is probably the best course, but we should realize that there are major drawbacks, like creating lots of terrorists mad at us.

[Tommy Duncan]

You take out Saddam to set an example and eliminate him as a threat in the face of an inmploding sanctions system. His was not a theocratic regime so it was the least likely to be interpreted as an attack on Muslims as far as the ME goes.

There were already plenty of terrorists "mad at us" prior to the Iraq invasion with many more being created due to whatever grievance bin Laden and the Mullahs were dreaming up about the US and the West. Perhaps successful attacks such as 9/11, '93 WTC attack, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Somalia, '83 Lebanon Marine barracks attack and the '98 African Embassy bombings were much more useful terrorist recruiting tools. After all, how much support can you sustain for a losing cause?

To say that we should not deal with threats to national security in the ME due to the possibility of "creating more terrorists" is akin to saying that criminals should not be sought out, arrested, and prosecuted for fear of creating more criminals.

The US for too long had responded weakly to attacks on its interests in the ME. While to the West the image of Hussein was that of a 'man in a box' in the ME his image was quite different. As long as he remained in power he was standing up to the West. He was not bending to their wishes.

[spurster]

1. I disagree that Saddam was that much of a threat. Bush would have never got his Iraq war by claiming Saddam would be a threat at some indefinite point in the future. He got it by claiming Saddam was a threat now and nearly had nuclear weapons. The rejustification of the Iraq war by "Saddam was a future threat" is classic bait-and-switch.

2. I did not say we shouldn't take action because it would make terrorists (or anybody else) mad at us. I'm really tired of the "It will be easy. We can just bomb them or invade them" answer as if that is all there is to it. Then when anyone notes that there are serious consequences to consider, then it's a unpatriotic or cowardly comment. When we take action, we better take into account both the good and bad effects. For example, it is pretty clear right now that getting rid of Saddam is not "all good", over a 1000 reasons why not and climbing.

3. I add up the pluses and minuses of this war, and I come up with a big minus. It would have been far better just to bomb the suspected stockpiles of WMDs and the suspected locations of nuclear development (or here's an idea, send in inspectors as Iraq was very willing to allow once we put on the pressure).

4. In any case, other nations have gotten the message that unless they have nuclear weapons (ala North Korea or Pakistan), the US will be able to make them submit to our will. Thus, you have Iran doing all it can to produce a nuclear weapon, and ditto for every other nation who perceives the US as a threat. In the long term, you can get rid of Saddam, but you are not going to get rid of national pride.

[Tommy Duncan]

1. I disagree that Saddam was that much of a threat. Bush would have never got his Iraq war by claiming Saddam would be a threat at some indefinite point in the future. He got it by claiming Saddam was a threat now and nearly had nuclear weapons. The rejustification of the Iraq war by "Saddam was a future threat" is classic bait-and-switch.


Bush was not the only one who regarded Hussein as in possession of WMDs, with no compunction against using them, and certainly with a desire to procure/develop nuclear weapons. That was a view shared by the rest of the major intelligence agencies on this planet as well as the Clinton administration.

Again, why was the state of Hussein's weapons programs not known with 100% accuracy? Because he had avoided compliance with the UN weapons inspections.

And again you are assuming that it was a choice between an invasion and doing nothing.

The "future threat" discussion in this forum has been in regards specifically to the Hussein regime's contacts with Islamic terrorism, in particular al Qaeda.




2. I did not say we shouldn't take action because it would make terrorists (or anybody else) mad at us. I'm really tired of the "It will be easy. We can just bomb them or invade them" answer as if that is all there is to it. Then when anyone notes that there are serious consequences to consider, then it's a unpatriotic or cowardly comment. When we take action, we better take into account both the good and bad effects. For example, it is pretty clear right now that getting rid of Saddam is not "all good", over a 1000 reasons why not and climbing.

Sure, there are serious consequences that result from military action, just as there are serious consequences which can result from inaction. This nation's enemies had no problem gaining recruits when this nation was largely turning a blind eye to attacks on it. The problem is that successful attacks themselves are an effective recruiting tool.

I don't question anyone's patriotism. But I have no problem challenging their judgement.




3. I add up the pluses and minuses of this war, and I come up with a big minus. It would have been far better just to bomb the suspected stockpiles of WMDs and the suspected locations of nuclear development (or here's an idea, send in inspectors as Iraq was very willing to allow once we put on the pressure).

Hussein's offer for weapons inspections was cynical at that time. He had well over a decade to comply.




4. In any case, other nations have gotten the message that unless they have nuclear weapons (ala North Korea or Pakistan), the US will be able to make them submit to our will. Thus, you have Iran doing all it can to produce a nuclear weapon, and ditto for every other nation who perceives the US as a threat. In the long term, you can get rid of Saddam, but you are not going to get rid of national pride.

The only problem with that argument is that those nations' weapons programs predate the Iraq invasion. Hence the notion that we should seek to end them. Hussein was the easiest one to take out.

It was not a choice between leaving him in place or removing. The sanctions apparatus was breaking down and some of our "allies" had been dealing with him for some time. In light of the fact that we did not know what he had and a host of individuals across the political spectrum in this country thought that he indeed was in possession of WMDs this was not a risk the current administration was willing to take.

For too long this nation's government has managed to rationalize itself out of responding to threats to its security from the ME and we have reaped the whirlwind for those judgements. Will we learn our lesson or will we continue to make the same mistakes?