US President George Bush labelled Iran and Iraq as part of an "axis of evil". Bush claimed that these two states are developing weapons of mass destruction and that they are supporters of terrorist organisations and a threat to world peace and stability -

In what could be argued as the only concrete piece of evidence that Iran is attempting to posses nuclear weapons is that in the early 1990’s, Iran, despite its statements that its nuclear programme is for civilian use, made a serious efforts to buy ‘specialised materials for nuclear weapons’ from a factory in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan offered to sell the highly enriched uranium to the US. When a US team of scientists arrived to inspect the uranium, the scientists found ‘piles of packaged materials marked for shipment to Iran’. Evidently the Kazakhstan Government decided against seeling the uranium to Iran. In the end the uranium was turned over to the US and spirited away in a clandestine operation.

Chemical Weapons

On the 3rd of November 1997, Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). However, the United States believes that Iran has continued to maintain a chemical weapons programme since 1984. There is very limited information available regarding Iran’s chemical weapons programme and absolutely no direct evidence to charge that Iran is in possession of CW. Under Secretary Holum of the US State department has stated that there is no unclassified information about Iran possessing chemical weapons. However, the US believes that Iran is attempting to develop a domestic ability to produce chemical and biological weapons. A CIA report to the US Congress states that Iran has manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons such as blister, blood, choking weapons. The report also stated that during the first half of 2001, Iran attempted to buy ‘production technology, training, expertise, equipment and chemicals from Russia and China  Shortly after the cease fire with Iraq in 1988, the speaker of the Iranian parliament and commander in chief of Iran’s armed forces and later Iran’s President, Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, declared  

“With regard to chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons training, it was made very clear during the war [with Iraq] that these weapons are very decisive. It was also made clear that the moral teachings of the world are not very effective when war reaches a serious stage and the world does not respect its own resolutions and closes its eyes to the violations and all the aggressions, which are committed in the battlefield. We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons. From now on you should make use of the opportunity and perform this task”

Iran denies acquiring or producing chemical weapons.

Links to Terrorism

There is no doubt that Iran has been and is involved in the sponsoring of terrorist organisations and there is evidence to collaborate this. The US State Department, on my count, lists Iran as having some connection to at least 6 terrorist organisations. Iran has been accused of supporting such groups as Hizzballah, Al-Quida, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. The CIA accuses Iran of being the ‘most active sponsor of state terrorism’.

Allegedly Iran has also supported anti-US elements in Afghanistan, despite their earlier pledges to aid the US’s assault on Afghanistan. Afghan officials and US have commented that Iran sent food; clothing, money, weapons and personnel to Western Afghanistan in order to exert influence and challenge the US backed government in Kabul. The Washington Post reported that Iran supplied arms and training to Ismai Khan, an Afghan warlord, opposed to the US backed government. Iran has also given support to Al-Quida members fleeing Afghanistan The New York Times has reported, and US Defense Secretary has confirmed, that some Al-Quida members, including a senior member of Al-Quida’s organisation, Abu Musaab Zarqawi, have slipped into Iran through the city of Heart and have been spotted in Tehran, under the protection of Iranian security forces. There was no information supplied in the article, nor by the US Defense Secretary, as to who spotted these men in Tehran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry denied the reports claiming that, “these people are not in Iran, and certain American circles have got used to issuing and repeating such charges”.

There is very strong conclusive evidence that Iran played a major part in the attack on the Khobar Towers building in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US airmen and injured 500 other people. On June 25, 1996, a truck laden with 500 pounds of plastic explosive was driven into the parking lot at the front of the Khobar Towers complex, which housed around 100 US Air Force personnel, and exploded. There were no direct indictments of any Iranian’s. However, the group that claimed responsibility for the bombing, the Saudi Hizballah, had met in Iran on many occasions after the Saudi Government outlawed the group. The two suspects arrested confirmed that Iranians had ordered, supported and financed the group. One suspect claimed that he had met directly with Ahad Sherifi, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Clinton Administration believed the claims to be ‘hearsay’ and no charges were laid against Iran. However, President Bush has indicated his desire to renew the investigation.

Ballistic Missile Programme

Iran seeks to acquire ballistic missiles. The US views Iran’s efforts to further develop its missile capability, including the flight testing of missiles, to be a threat to the region and to US interests. Iran has turned to Libya, North Korea and China for help in developing its missile program. So far Iran possesses two types of missiles which are nuclear capable. Iran also continues to develop the Shahab 3 missile and announced plans to develop the Shahab 4 and 5. The Shahab 3 missile, produced with Russian cooperation, has a range of 1,300km, which could reach Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Recent remarks by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, that Israel is a “cancerous tumour” and should be wiped off the face of the earth places Israel in a very dangerous situation. Such weapons would be able to deliver both nuclear or chemical weapon payloads. Iran has publicly commented that it plans to develop longer-range missiles, reinforces how dangerous such weapons, if they are in fact proven to exist, and delivery systems will be in the hands of the Iranians.

Conclusion

Iran is a danger to the Middle East region, the US and its allies. Although there is no strong evidence that Iran is attempting to build CW, there are very strong indications that Iran is intent on producing nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver such weapons and that clearly Iran is a supporter of terrorism and will use terrorist methods to achieve certain goals. However, as reported by the CIA, Iran has not developed nuclear weapons as of yet. There have been no new cases recently of Iran attempting to smuggle nuclear material from Russia. In May 1997, the election of President Khatami has increased the chance of reform in Iran and that maybe Iran will scale back on its attempt to manufacture nuclear weapons and cease its support of terrorist activity. South Africa’s Foreign Minister commented that Iran was not part of an “axis of evil”. She claimed that, “They have actually been against the activities of the Taliban and al-Quida” and that “Iran has long before September 11 been fighting in the forefront against the Taliban. They have lost a lot of civilians in their fight against drug trafficking from the side of the Taliban”

 However, as of today, there are strong suggestions that Iran still continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons and continues to support terrorist groups. The absence of any strong democratic system in Iran and the centralisation of power in the hands of the Iranian Supreme Council, who are proven hard line Islamic fundamentalists, give good reason why America and its allies continue to feel threatened.

Iraq

Iraq now claims that they have no WMD. Iraq has admittedly pursed WMD for a long period of time. Iraq has admitted using WMD, in particular chemical weapons, against Iran in their ten-year war and against Iraqi Kurdish populations in Northern Iraq. During the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire, Iraq agreed it would unconditionally give up its pursuit of WMD. The United Nations created the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM). Specific Security Council Resolutions required that Iraq accept unconditionally the “destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all WMD by UNSCOM. In 1998 (UNSCOM) left Iraq after complaining that Iraq was hindering their ability to conduct full un-hindered inspections of potential weapon sites. Iraq claimed that the UNSCOM team was reporting to the CIA. US and British air strikes were then ordered against Iraqi weapon sites. Since 1998, Iraq has refused, until very recently, to allow UN weapon inspectors back in Iraq. The British Government believes that Saddam Hussein continues to “attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power”. Now the big question is if Iraq has continued to comply with the UN Resolutions prohibiting Iraq from developing WMD. Without weapon inspectors on the ground in Iraq, it is impossible to tell on way or the other. There also seems to be no hard evidence that Iraq has continued to proliferate WMD. However, countless numbers of newspaper and magazine articles, reports, intelligence briefs and un-collaborated eyewitness accounts, strongly suggest that Iraq has indeed continued to pursue WMD.

Nuclear Weapons

Iraq’s nuclear programme started around the 1950’s. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, with Soviet help, built two research reactors. The reactors were used for the enriching of Iraq’s abundant supply of imported uranium. One of these reactors was destroyed by an Israeli air attack and the other was never completed. During Iraq’s war with Iran and with the deteriorating of Iraq’s position in that war, Iraq decided to step up its nuclear programme. The British Government has assessed that in 1991, Iraq decided to start a ‘crash programme’ to develop a nuclear weapon within a year, a clear breech its obligations as a signatory of the NPT. By the time of the Gulf War, minimal progress had been made.

To Iraq’s credit, the IAEA claimed that they were able to destroy most of Iraq’s nuclear programme before they left in 1998. In a letter to the UN Security Council President, The UN Secretary General reported that the Iraq “has provided the necessary level of cooperation to enable the above-enumerated activities to be completed efficiently and effectively”. However, Dr Khidhir Hamza, former head of Iraq’s nuclear programme and the only source of information to emerge that had direct access to Iraq’s nuclear programme, disputes IAEA’s claims. At a US Congressional inquiry into Iraq’s nuclear programme, Hamza claims that, even if they [UNSCOM] did destroy Iraq’s entire nuclear programme, “There was nothing they [IAEA] could do to prevent the Iraqi teams from rebuilding what was destroyed”. Hamza also claims that even if new weapons inspectors are allowed back into Iraq, detecting new weapon sites would be difficult because “back ups” sites have been built and if one site is detected “or is in danger of discovery all activity is immediately transferred to the back-up facility”.  Hamza also claims that Iraq distributes its nuclear infrastructure amongst Iraqi corporations to disguise its real intent. Hamza’s evidence to Congress suggests that not only has Iraq continued and rebuilt its nuclear programme, but that Iraq may have also developed multiple production sites.

Iraq has also retained many of its experienced nuclear scientists and technicians and has retained much of its past nuclear documentation and data. The recent assessment by the British Government on Iraq’s nuclear programme stated that indeed Iraq was still attempting to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. German Intelligence suggest, and collaborated by Hamza, that Iraq has in its possession “more than 10 tons of uranium and more than one ton of slightly enriched uranium”, which means that Iraq has enough to generate the needed bomb grade uranium for three nuclear weapons by 2005”. Other indications of Iraq’s continued involvement in producing nuclear weapons is the fact that Iraq has no civilian nuclear programme and therefore would have no use for uranium. What Iraq does not have is the equipment to turn this uranium into weapons grade material. However, there are reports that Iraq has been attempting to buy equipment that is used in the enriching of uranium. Such activity is certainly indicative of a country attempting to build a nuclear weapon.

How close Iraq is to building a nuclear weapon is the subject of conjecture. The US Department of Defense estimates that if Iraq had foreign aid it could produce a weapon in 5 years. Other reports have suggested anywhere from 2-5 years. Dr Khidhir Hamza’s evidence to congress is the only information from a source that had direct involvement with Iraq’s nuclear programme. Other reports are based upon conjecture. However, upon examination of the available evidence and other information, it is certainly highly likely that Iraq is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon.

Chemical Weapons

Iraq claims that they have no chemical weapons. As there are no weapon inspectors in Iraq, there is no hard evidence that Iraq has possession or is manufacturing chemical weapons. However, numerous reports by western governments and other sources suggest they are.

CIA assess that Iraq could have had the ability to ‘reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months’ Following the US/ British bombing of Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in 1998, Iraq started to rebuild its chemical production infrastructure, including former facilities that were used to manufacture chemical weapons. Iraq claims that these buildings are for the production of chemicals to be used for commercial use. Without weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq it is impossible to verify this.

UNSCOM reported to the UN Security Council in December 1998, that Iraq continued to withhold certain information related to its CW programme. On one such occurrence, UNSCOM reported that Iraqi officials seized an Iraqi Air Force document from UNSCOM inspectors. The report indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during its war with Iran as had been declared by Baghdad. Such information led UNSCOM to believe that Iraq has in its position an additional 6,000 CW munitions that are unaccounted for. 

Iraq has also retained all of its CW scientists. Iraq claims that it ‘unilaterally’ has destroyed all the data relating to CW manufacturing. However, what seems strange is that if Iraq, as it claims, destroyed all of its data relating to CW, there would be no point in retaining CW scientists. However, Saddam Hussein highly values his team of scientists. After the Gulf War Iraqi scientists and engineers were able to reconstruct most of the CW infrastructure destroyed by the bombing. Dr Khidhir Hamza claims that during the UN inspections, the Iraqi CW scientists and engineers were contracted by the government into the civilian sector in order to hide their true activities from UNSCOM. This provided the scientists “with actual work to prove it but at the same time their WMD work continued. 

Links to Terrorism

Allegations of Iraqi involvement with terrorists and that Iraq uses terrorism to achieve certain goals is immense. For the purposes of this essay, I will concentrate upon certain evidence that has been widely reported in the media. Saddam Hussein has a long history of involvement in international terrorism. The Security Council Resolution 687 forced Iraq to end all support for international terrorism. Of recent concern to the international community is the Iraqi Government paying money to Palestinian families who have had family members act as suicide bombers inside Israel. It must be noted that Iraq views any group who favours the violent overthrow  Israel as not terrorists, but rather freedom fighters who are trying to reclaim there land.

Iraqi links with terrorist organisations are the main concern for those who favour invading Iraq. They claim that if Saddam Hussein does posses WMD, he could very well supply terrorist groups with such weapons.

On November 8, 2001, PBS Frontline, an American Television Network, aired an interview with Sabah Khodada, an ex-captain in the Iraqi military. He claims to have worked in a “special camp” that was set up by the Iraqi Government to train Iraqis and non-Iraqis in terrorist tactics. He claims that Saddam’s suicide squad of soldiers, the Iraqi Fedeayeen, and non-Iraqis were trained in “assassination, kidnapping, hijacking airplanes, hijacking buses, hijacking trains and other kinds of operations related to terrorism”. Khodada claims that Saddam himself and his son were “directly connected” with the training. It does, however, need to be noted that Khodada, who now lives in the United States, works for the Iraqi National Congress, an organisation established and funded by the US Government to bring about regime change in Iraq. Although there is no evidence to dispute Khodada’s claims, there is however, no evidence to corroborate it. However, members of UNSCOM reported seeing the camp while in Iraq. They were informed that the camp was to train riot police.

Iraq has reported to have had strong links with Abu Nidal, head of the Abu Nidal Organisation, blamed for the slaughter of 19 people in twin attacks on the El Al check in desks at Rome and Vienna airports in 1986 and wanted all over the world for terrorist activity. Report ably, Iraq financed Nidal’s group who operated ‘against Iraq’s enemies using the name ‘Black June’’ Although once expelled from Iraq when Iraq was trying to win US support for its war against Iran, he was recently found dead in a Baghdad hotel. Although again there is no direct proof, it is highly likely Iraq permitted Nidal to reside in Iraq until his death – which is also rumoured, to have been ordered by Saddam Hussein.

Other allegations of Iraqi involvement with terrorism include a 1993 assassination plot to kill ex US President Bush. FBI investigators and Kuwaiti officials discovered the bomb before it was detonated. The bomb was analysed by the CIA and the FBI and was found to be an ‘Iraqi government bomb’. The US retaliated by launching 24 cruise missiles against Iraq. Iraq has also been implicated in the attempted bombing of the New York World Trade Centre in 1993 Iraq has also been accused of involvement in the recent attacks on September 11th.  It has been suggested that some Al-Quida elements escaped Afghanistan and now live in Northern Iraq. However, no direct evidence has been found and it is unlikely that Iraq has aided such people, as Iraq has no control over northern areas in Iraq. 

Ballistic Missile Programme

The Security Council required Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities under Security Council Resolution 687 (1991). However, the British Government assess that despite the UN Security Council Resolutions Iraq has continued to attempt to manufacture missiles that could reach further than the 150 Km limit set by the Security Council. The report also indicates that Iraq has retained up to 20 Al Hussein missiles. These missiles are capable of carrying conventional, chemical or biological weapons and are able to reach countries such as Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. Overhead satellite imagery evidence shows that Iraq has started to build a launch stand for medium range missiles with a reach of over 1000km. Such a facility would not be needed for systems that fall within the UN permitted range of 150km.

Conclusion

There are countless numbers of reports; assessments and opinions about the level of threat Iraq posses to the world. Iraqi views reflect the fact that they are still at war with the United States and the United Kingdom. Iraq believes it is only a matter of time before Iraq defeats America and Britain. As the Vice-President of Iraq said,

                        “[Saddam Hussein] believes that the Arab Nation will emerge victorious no matter how much the enemies gang up on it and no matter how far the aggression goes. We will fight to the last citizen and will be immortalized by history. They [The United States] will be placed in the garbage dump of history.”

Despite such hostile intentions and statements, there is no conclusive evidence that Iraq has WMD in its possession. Recent US rhetoric over war against Iraq has reached fever pitch. However, the US and Britain are still to secure international support. Many states just don’t believe Iraq is as much a immediate threat as the US and Britain claims it to be. These states are not alone. A very recent US congressional brief stated that although the US is “unable to maintain an international consensus for strict enforcement off all applicable UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, it has largely succeeded in preventing Iraq from re-emerging as an immediate threat to the region”.

Scott Ritter, who was one of the leaders of the UNSCOM team, said in the year 2000, that after UNSCOM left Iraq “Iraq had been disarmed”. He went on to say that,

                                       “Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring. The same was true of Iraq's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.” 

This, however, is an interesting statement from a man who claimed in 1998 that “Iraq has paid no real price for telling one lie after another and continuing its obstruction of the weapons inspection teams.” 

Arab Media Watch, an organisation created to “to tackle a proliferation of traditional bias, ignorance and misunderstanding in the British media regarding Arab issues” claimed that majority of UNSCOMS inspections were completed. They refer to a United Nations report that stated,

                              “To be fair it is necessary to record that, during this period, and placed in the overall context of the Commission's work, the majority of these inspections were conducted in Iraq without let or hindrance. Progress has also been recorded in the substantive areas of the Commission's mandate, in particular with respect to accounting for Iraq's proscribed long-range missiles and the destruction of chemical weapons-related equipment and materials”

However, what Arab Media Watch failed to mention was the other parts of the report that stated that UNSCOM was not completely satisfied that it had inspected all of Iraq’s possible weapons sites and besides, Iraqi hindrance was the reason why UNSCOM decided to leave.

The information provided in this research project provides a strong indication that Iraq is attempting to build a nuclear weapon, that Iraq does posses chemical weapons and the delivery systems to deploy these WMD and that Iraq does support terrorist groups and the use of terrorism to achieve certain goals in violation of UN Security Council resolution 687. Although there is no evidence to collaborate his claims, Dr Khidhir Hamza, the former head of Iraq’s nuclear programme has provided direct evidence that does suggest Iraq possesses WMD and is continuing to manufacture such weapons.

The only sure way to assess the kind of threat Iraq poses, is to get UN inspectors back into Iraq. Nonetheless, Iraq’s past aggressiveness and brutality, and the unlikely hood of internal “regime change” inside Iraq to a more pacifistic government, combined with the very likely hood of Iraq possessing WMD and recent statements by Saddam Hussein, confirms that Iraq is a very serious threat to the middle east region, the US and overall world peace.

Evidence

There has recently been substantial opposition from countries opposed to any attack on Iraq. Many don’t support an attack because of the lack of hard evidence implicating Iraq. Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, says, “Canada will not support a US lead strike against Iraq unless I am sure an attack is justified”. The French Foreign Minister, Ludger Volmer, said that, “We Europeans are warning against a strike on Iraq; we have no evidence whatsoever of Iraq's alleged support of terrorism.”

There has been little direct evidence of either Iran or Iraq possessing any WMD or being involved with terrorist groups or using terrorist methods to achieve certain goals that has been released to the public.

I have encountered one major problem writing this research project: whether to accept if the information that is presented by government agencies, such as the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and certain other groups and individuals, is reliable information. One of the problems with reading reports filed by government agencies is that they cite the need to protect the sources of their information. The British Government’s Assessment of Iraq’s WMD states that “majority of the publicly available information on Iraqi capabilities and intentions is dated” and that the British Government has “a range of secret intelligence about these programmes [Iraq’s] and Saddam Hussein’s intentions”. The general public is unable to view this information, and thus either has to believe in the credibility of the British Government and numerous other un-collaborated reports and conclude that what they report is true or reject what is reported as un-collaborated information and give the benefit of doubt.

Another concern about accepting intelligence services reports is if the information they gather is in fact correct itself. There have been certain failures relating to Iraq, such as the 1998 Desert Fox bombing campaign by the United States and Britain that “barely impacted the regime” due to bad intelligence and that the US, in the first Gulf War, overestimated the strength of the Iraqi forces and then overestimated the damage inflicted against the Iraqi military.

Conclusion

Iraq and Iran are dangers to world peace and don’t warrant the benefit of doubt. Both Iran and Iraq have already and continue to seek WMD. Although there has been no direct evidence to prove this, there are plenty of reports, articles, intelligence reviews, satellite images and direct statements in the public domain that conclude that these states are proliferating WMD. Iraq has proved that it is willing to use chemical weapons in the past and statements made by Iraqi officials suggest that they are willing to do so again.

Iran and Iraq are supporters of terrorist organisations and use terrorist tactics to achieve certain goals. There is no guarantee that either Iran or Iraq won’t give WMD to terrorist organisations in the future. Iran and Iraq have, armed, protected and financed terrorist groups in the past, so there is every reason to suspect that this will continue and the next level of support maybe in the form of a WMD.

.

---