|
COPYRIGHT 2001 National Defense University
Preface
The strategic status of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the world and in the region and the Middle East, in particular, demands that we have a strong military capability. We will not ask for anyone's permission in order to strengthen our defense and military capabilities. Defending oneself and deterring others from committing aggression is the most important right of every country.
--Mohammad Khatami, August 1998
Iran, driven in part by stringent international export controls, is acquiring the ability to domestically produce raw materials and the equipment to support indigenous biological agent production ... [Iran] could quickly advance their nuclear aspirations through covert acquisition of fissile material or relevant technology.
--George J. Tenet, March 2000
Scholars and other specialists on Iran have argued about that country's political intentions and strategic ambitions since the overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979. In the 1980s Iran's efforts to export its revolution and support international terrorism raised the question of whether a moderate Islamic republic that was able to deal with the West could ever exist. The death of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 and the succession of Ali Hashimi-Rafsanjani as president raised new issues for the 1990s. As the European and American oil and investment communities considered the race to open Iran commercially, scholars and diplomats debated Iranian efforts to recover from nearly a decade of war and revolution. They compared the merits of the European approach of initiating critical dialogue with the U.S. policy of containing and isolating Iran. Neither approach seemed to have much impact, both conceded, and Iranians continued to sort out their domestic political agenda and to decide how best to protect their strategic and national interests. The U.S. Government, for example, tried to estimate how much time and money Iran would need to modernize its military and to acquire new weapons systems despite projected low oil prices and the country's need to rebuild its damaged and neglected civilian and industrial infrastructure. (1) The assumption underlying the U.S. projections was that Iran would be pursuing weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear technology and long-range missile systems.
This essay begins with the assumption that Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and the long-range missile systems needed for their delivery. The assumption is based on documented evidence of Iranian efforts to acquire the elements essential for development of a nuclear program and on Iranian leaders' expressed interest in regional power projection based on weapons of mass destruction. (2) This analysis does not attempt to determine whether Iran possesses nuclear weapons now or how long it might take to acquire them, both of which are important questions whose answers have significant consequences for the security of the United States.
Instead, we focus on the approaches that policymakers have taken or could still take to avert or to slow this development, and we examine the potential impact on national interests, particularly on U.S. nonproliferation strategy, when Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state. We believe the issue that merits careful consideration has become how to manage a nuclear-armed Iran. This essay is meant principally as a policy analysis rather than an academic treatise. That is, it intends to build intellectual capital about how to manage the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran and to suggest courses of action that would minimize the negative impact on national interests.
Not all specialists on Iran share our assumption. Some scholars argue that Iran has no intention of developing a nuclear weapons capability and no aspirations to use its acquisition of nuclear technology to dominate regional security debates or to bolster territorial ambitions. Even hinting at such a goal for Iran, they say, will set back efforts to improve or normalize ties to Iran and to open its society to the outside world. Others in this discourse argue that assuming Iran has only pacific intentions would be naive. They note the growing nationalist trend in Iranian foreign and defense policies and argue that Iranians, regardless of their political or ideological leanings, agree on the need to pursue the best technical means available to ensure national security. (3)
There are important disincentives for Iran to consider should it choose to become a nuclear-armed state. Direct breach of its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty would damage Iran's international standing and relations with Europe and the United States, the repair of which appears to be an important component of President Mohammad Khatami's foreign policy initiatives. However, Iran's longstanding enmity with Iraq, hostility toward Israel, desire to constrain U.S. military activities in the Persian Gulf, and ambitions to lead the Islamic world suggest stronger incentives for developing nuclear weapons. Widespread support across the Iranian political spectrum for national defense (including nuclear) programs, an indigenous professional scientific base, and a reliable supply network for technology and fissile material reduce the likelihood that the United States will be able to prevent or disarm Iran's military nuclear research and development programs.
The consequences of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems will raise the stakes considerably for U.S. engagement in the Middle East. National security strategy is predicated on the ability to separate regional policies and homeland defense. The development of a nuclear weapon capability coupled to long-range ballistic missiles will give Iran the ability to threaten its neighbors, the West, and the United States in a newer and more dangerous way than the asymmetric use of international terrorism. A nuclear-armed Iran also is likely to complicate U.S. relations with Russia and China and possibly with Europe as well.
Because of the acrimonious relationship that has existed between the governments of the United States and Iran since the revolution in 1979 and the mutual suspicions that persist between the two societies, policymakers in Washington know little about how Tehran's national security apparatus functions. Iranian policymakers almost certainly are equally ignorant of U.S. methods. This essay attempts to elucidate Iranian nuclear policies, programs, and decisionmaking procedures. It also identifies what is not known about Iran and assesses how it might behave in the international arena if armed with nuclear weapons. These judgments attempt to take into account trends in Iran's political behavior and the reactions of states that would perceive a threat from a nuclear-armed Iran.
For many Americans, viewing a nuclear-armed Iran with dispassionate judgment may be difficult. The relationship is freighted with grievances and mutual misunderstandings. Both parties feel a strong pull to assume the worst, and the United States is inclined to plan to defend its interests and those of its allies and friends in the region from what it assumes to be an implacably hostile and soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran. In the current Iranian context in which reformists and conservatives are competing for control of domestic policies and institutions--and are likely to do so for an extended period of time--such worst-case scenarios could precipitate a situation less conducive to U.S. national interests than would a more carefully calibrated approach.
We conclude that how the United States prepares for and responds to Iran's crossing of the nuclear threshold will be pivotal in determining the consequences of Iran's action. We believe that the primary national objective should be to minimize the political gain to Iran of acquiring nuclear weapons. The potential response may affect Iran's calculations on whether and how to cross the nuclear threshold. Moreover, it will influence how America's friends, allies, and adversaries react to Iran as a nuclear power.
Dealing effectively with the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will require changes in current U.S. policy before Iran becomes a nuclear power. We recommend further tightening preventative nonproliferation measures, ending policies designed to isolate Iran, reaffirming military commitments to and presence in the defense of the Persian Gulf region, and expanding efforts to build links between the two countries. These policies would provide the United States--and, with luck, Iran--with greater strategic and political transparency and better information on what is occurring in the region and in the other country. They could also expand incentives for Iran not to cross the nuclear threshold, reassure regional states friendly to the United States about its commitment to their security, and allow Washington to exploit possible openings to improve relations with Tehran.
The optimal outcome for U.S. interests would be for Iran not to become a nuclear power. Thus far, the United States has been able to delay but not prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear technology, project assistance, and material. The more realistic outcome for which the United States should prepare is a nuclear-armed Iran that reserves its new military capability for defensive purposes and for state survival, that does not challenge freedom of American operations or political relations in the Gulf region, and that does not spread its newly acquired capabilities to other governments or organizations. The United States would best position itself to manage the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran by pursuing a strategy of reducing the political and military value to Iran of acquiring nuclear weapons and by clearly communicating its willingness to defend its interests and those of its allies.
Chapter One
Iran's World View and NBC Weapons
Tehran's current security policies--including its abiding interest in nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons--antedate the Islamic revolution and are deeply rooted in Iranian nationalism and historical sense of regional leadership. The present views of the Islamic Republic toward regional affairs, security threats, and Persian nationalism mirror those of the former Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in defining security policies. In the Shah's time, Iraq was not always seen as an immediate security threat, but ancient animosities as well as current hostile revolutionary regimes and volatile ethnic groups on Iran's borders breed suspicions of potential threats posed by Russia or the United States to Central Asia as well as American domination in the Persian Gulf.
The Enemy Is Everywhere
Iran's defense strategy is based on safeguarding Iran's territorial integrity and interests, preventing the creation of a strategic vacuum in the region, and working for regional integration ... and deterring threats.... The main threat comes from Israel and [the United States] ... Iran's defense capabilities constitute part of the defense power of the Islamic countries and will only be used as a deterrent force in defense of the Islamic ummah.
--Ali Shamkhani, October 1998
Iran viewed the world with great trepidation at the end of its 8-year war with Iraq in 1988 and after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the next year. Uncertain of how the first internal political succession would work, Iran also faced hostile neighbors angry at Tehran's clumsy efforts to export its revolution across the Gulf, even though its military had been weakened by years of war and political purges. Moreover, Iranian leaders noted the growing involvement of the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf, and they almost certainly suspected that the United States was behind the escalating turmoil across Iran's borders in Central Asia and Afghanistan. In 1989, Iran began a major program to rebuild, expand, and modernize its ravaged armed forces.
Several factors shaped Iran's postwar strategic thinking:
* Independence and self-sufficiency in strategic and tactical terms. Considered a pariah by the West and its Arab neighbors for its aggressive efforts to export the revolution and for its sponsorship of international terrorism, Tehran fought the war with Iraq in near-total isolation. In contrast, Iraq received nearly $80 billion in loans from Gulf Arab governments and got U.S. assistance in fighting Iran. At the same time, the United States imposed an arms embargo on Iran, complicating Iran's efforts to recoup its losses and sustain its war effort. Moreover, the world paid little attention to Baghdad's use of chemical weapons against its own people or in the war. From this frame of reference, most Iranian leaders probably assume that Iran will one day face a hostile Iraq and will have to fight alone. Toward this end, Iran is determined to build its own defense industries, reconstitute a modern force, and rely only nominally on foreign suppliers. This policy includes acquiring nuclear weapons to compensate for its weakness and relative strategic isolation. (4)
* Reassertion of Iran's traditional role of regional hegemon in the Gulf and beyond. As the largest and most populous country bordering the Persian Gulf, Iran under the Shah acted as its protector--a role that the United States and Britain encouraged. Iran's clerical leaders also believe that it is their country's natural right and destiny to dominate the region as well as to lead the world's Muslims. They are particularly determined to defend national interests and security.
* Enhanced capability to defend Iran against any threat of military aggression. Iranian leaders perceive threats from across all their borders --from U.S. forces in the region and from possible U.S. intervention in the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and potentially Iraq; from a rearmed Iraq; and from a hostile Pakistan or Afghanistan. Iran has benefited from the efforts of United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors to find and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Tehran understands that effective inspections are virtually over--even if Baghdad accepts a new inspection regime--and that Baghdad has retained the knowledge, if not some of the capability, needed to resume weapon production quickly. (5) Once all United Nations-imposed sanctions are removed, Baghdad will continue developing chemical and biological weapons and the missile systems to deliver them. Iraq also will resume efforts to acquire components for nuclear weapons programs. Tehran almost certainly views nuclear weapons systems as the only way to reach strategic parity with Israel or the United States, a balance that it could not achieve by relying on a conventional buildup. (6)
How Iranian Leaders View Nuclear Weapons
Chemical and biological weapons are poor man's atomic bombs and can easily be produced. We should at least consider them for our defense. Although the use of such weapons is inhuman, the war taught us that international laws are only scraps of paper. With regard to chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons training, it was made very clear during the [Iran-Iraq] war 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 on 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.
--Ali Rafsanjani, October 1988 (7)
Who Decides?
The division of power in Iran is important in determining who will make decisions about acquisition, deployment, and doctrine of use for nuclear weapons. Although Iran's leaders hold different political views and belong to competing power blocs, they probably have reached consensus on NBC acquisition to protect national interests. However, opinions may diverge on how many weapons would be enough and on when, where, and against whom Iran would deploy them.
The question of who determines deployment and usage is a critical one. The answer depends in part on who controls the instruments of security policymaking. In the Islamic Republic, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the conservative faction traditionally have set security and defense policy. The Defense, Intelligence, and Security Ministries, as well as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and paramilitary factions, report to Khamenei. In addition, the conservatives control much of the state apparatus, including the Leader's Office, the Council of Guardians, the judiciary, the radio and television media, and, most importantly, the military and security services. In contrast, President Khatami controls the Foreign Ministry and has a reformist-dominated Parliament. Thus far, however, he has been unable to put his imprint on much other than improved relations in the Gulf and with some European governments.
Whether Khatami and Khamenei agree on a common enemy or a usage doctrine cannot be determined from their public statements. For example, Khatami may see Iraq as the primary threat to Iranian security. If so, his defensive doctrine could include acquiring nuclear weapons and building closer relations with Gulf States and the United States. On the other hand, Khamenei's speeches and public statements make clear that he regards the United States as Iran's major threat. Therefore, he may be more aggressive in his doctrine to counter expansion of U.S. influence into territory that the Supreme Leader regards as coming under Iran's traditional religious, cultural, and territorial influence--such as the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, and Central Asia. Whatever the perception of the threat, no Iranian leader would be willing to trade future weapon development for security guarantees, even after a minimal deterrent capability is achieved.
The issue here becomes who decides how much nuclear weapon and missile development is enough. Although some may hold that 20 to 30 missiles with nuclear warheads--or whatever number is deemed sufficient to hit targets in Israel and Iraq accurately and effectively--are adequate, others may see the need for a much higher number. Such thinking did not apply in the United States or the Soviet Union when both sides, through the years of the Cold War, determined that they needed tens of thousands of warheads to respond to a threat. (8)
The U.S. knowledge base about Iranian decisionmaking has serious gaps. Rival centers of authority and decisionmaking exist--including the Iranian National Security Council, the IRGC, the Speaker of the Parliament, and former president and current head of the Expediency Council Hashemi-Rafsanjani--although all ultimately report to Khamenei. Whether these individuals constitute a national command authority, whether an individual senior military officer or cleric could order a military operation involving nuclear weapons, or if the paramilitary forces (basij) would have nuclear weapons are not known. Would the nuclear trigger be given to the military or be retained by the civilian and clerical leadership? At what point does the commander in the field receive decisionmaking authority for use? No clear chain of command may exist for the decision on usage; it probably is a highly centralized system with control in Tehran, but circumstances could turn control over to commanders in the field who are out of touch with the capital and the national command authority. (9)
What might determine the answers to these questions? Several factors could affect Iranian thinking about the use of nuclear weapons.
* Further economic deterioration. Another period of declining oil prices and tightened sanctions could force Iranian leaders to limit the acquisition, development, and deployment of NBC weapons. Worsened economic conditions could also increase the possibility of violent domestic unrest. The result could be a Tienanmen-style crackdown on antiregime protesters, a consolidation of support behind conservative elements by those fearing renewed social tumult, or a surge in demands for reform. Less money would be available for nuclear weapons development, unless a clear and present external threat emerges. On the other hand, increased oil revenues or windfall profits from a period of shortages and high prices could enable Iran to intensify its nuclear acquisition programs.
* Electoral backlash returns hard-liners to power. A conservative or hard-line majority in Parliament and in control of the presidency could bring in Iranian leaders who are willing to resume more aggressive foreign and defense policies. This shift would mean more money for weapons systems, broader deployment, and increased belligerency in threatening to use the systems in defense of Iran, the Islamic revolution, or embattled Muslims abroad.
* Significant changes in the threat environment. Certain circumstances could convince Iranian leaders to step up nuclear weapons development and deployment rather than to consider arms control measures. Possible catalysts include an Iraq without sanctions--or with ineffective sanctions and inspections--and with large oil revenues to pursue reconstruction of its nuclear weapons programs; an Israeli launch of preemptive military strikes against suspected Iranian weapon sites or Israeli acquisition of a new generation of weapons systems; or a heightened Iranian perception of a more aggressive U.S. military posture in the Persian Gulf. Conversely, an easing of the threat environment would not eliminate interest in possessing nuclear weapons. Better relations with the United States, a successful Arab-Israeli peace process, or the creation of a regional security organization in which Iran plays a role would ease regional tensions but would not eliminate the perceived need for nuclear deterrence.
Iranian leaders probably see several benefits in having advanced NBC weapons systems. These include:
* Bolstering regime standing in the eyes of Iranians and throughout the Arab and Muslim world;
* Intimidating the Gulf Arab States to follow Iranian guidance on issues such as oil pricing and production levels and undermining their confidence in U.S. security guarantees, thereby limiting if not ending U.S. military presence in the Gulf;
* Deterring Iraqi use of nuclear weapons in attacking Iran;
* Gaining leverage over Israel, the United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia in a potential military confrontation or diplomatic crisis;
* Protecting oil shipments from threatened disruptions; and
* Undermining potential anti-Iranian actions in Central Asia or Afghanistan.
Current Leadership Thinking
Since the election of President Mohammad Khatami in 1997, analysts inside and outside of Iran have talked about the shift in regime policies under a new, more liberal and enlightened leadership. The debate applies to Khatami's social and domestic policies, but its relevance for foreign and defense policies is much less clear. Iran's more conservative leaders--such as Supreme Leader Khamenei, Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani, and IRGC Commander Major General Yayha Rahim Safavi--define Iran's role in world affairs as the standard bearer of the Islamic revolution and the defender of oppressed Muslims globally. It is Iran's responsibility, they argue, to support radical Islamist movements in the Middle East and elsewhere, to undermine those powers seeking to weaken Islam--meaning Israel and the United States--and to burnish Iran's revolutionary Islamic credentials at home and abroad. They deplore improving Iranian ties to Europe and criticized Khatami's visits to Italy and France in 1999 and to Germany in summer 2000. They warn of U.S threats to Iran from the Gulf. Safavi, for example, is deeply suspicious of the reasons for the U.S. military presence in the Gulf. In an interview on Iranian television in January 2000, he accused the United States of trying to loot the oil resources of the Persian Gulf region and to gain a springboard for access to Caspian Sea energy resources as well. (10)
Other Iranian officials talk in terms reminiscent of the Shah's time and of Persian nationalism. These officials and members of the new reformist factions welcome expanding Iranian contacts with Saudi Arabia and Europe. They see security policy under a Persian Empire or Islamic Republic as the same--defense of the homeland and national interests regardless of the source of threat. However, like the conservatives, they would not consider making territorial concessions in the Gulf--for example, conceding the disputed islands of the Tunbs and Abu Musa to Abu Dhabi--or disavowing Lebanon's Hizballah.
Khatami, a cleric and a product of the Khomeini revolution, has a more liberal view of domestic issues, including personal, press, and cultural freedoms, but he probably differs little from his more politically and socially conservative rivals on security policy. Since his election, a virtual stalemate in domestic, foreign, and security policies has prevailed as the reformists loosely aligned around Khatami vie for power with the beleaguered conservatives. The conservatives have closed newspapers, imprisoned outspoken clerical critics and officials, intimidated, imprisoned, and murdered scholarly opponents of clerical authoritarianism, and sentenced students to long prison terms for antiregime disturbances. They have successfully blocked Khatami's initiatives to improve relations with the United States and delayed his overtures to Europe. Nevertheless, Khatami's liberal supporters have been unable to break the conservative hold on the political and judicial processes. Initiatives in domestic political issues are likely to remain stalled beyond the 2001 presidential elections.
Differences over domestic policies are unlikely to spill over into considerations of defense and security policies. Factional stalemates and bitter bipartisan battles in Iran--as in the United States and other Western democracies--tend to make debates over security policy hawkish for both sides. No faction probably would be able to argue for limiting NBC weapons development, especially if proposals to do so coincided with or were linked to U.S. initiatives. Weapons development and relations with the United States would be secondary issues in a debate fought along the more critical issue of which leaders of which political ideology control Iran.
More important, Iran's so-called reformists and conservatives probably have few differences concerning security policy in defending Iranian national interests. Both factions are highly nationalistic and are convinced that Iran needs to maintain a strong defense against threats posed by Iraq, Israel, the United States, and other regional actors. Moreover, the various leaders appear to share almost universal consensus that a strong defense must be maintained and that, under prevailing circumstances, nuclear weapons-based deterrence is the most feasible way to establish defensive capabilities. No public debate has been perceptible in Iran about halting, delaying, or negotiating away NBC weapons development. A change in regime philosophy or of rulers--from conservative to moderate or from Khamenei/Khatami to a more liberal configuration--would not halt or delay nuclear weapons development, at least not until the country's capabilities were deemed sufficient to deter the threats posed by its many adversaries.
Gauging how the factional balance of power will work itself out over the longer term is difficult. The 2000 Iranian parliamentary elections--which resulted in large numbers of pro-Khatami reformers elected only to be challenged by conservatives intent on unseating many of the new deputies--gave the reformists a clear majority and boosted prospects for Khatami's reelection bid in 2001. On the other hand, Khatami could be ousted in the presidential election if he has not moved on long-anticipated domestic reforms. The real question will be whether Khatami is the capstone of Iranian reform or part of a broader and irreversible trend toward a more open political system and a more reasonable (in Western terms) defense policy.
The answer probably lies with the gradual displacement of the aging, politicized clerics who support a hard line against reform and for exporting the revolution by the younger generation of Iranians, who voted in overwhelming numbers for Khatami and reform. This transition will occur over the next decade or more, at the same time that Iran is perfecting its nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. If a younger, more politically moderate generation sees Iran with nuclear weapons as capable of deterring perceived threats, then its leaders may perceive less need to expand capabilities beyond what has been developed. A moderate, pragmatic foreign policy that successfully defended Iranian national interests and avoided conflict with neighbors would strengthen this trend. In this more secure environment, Iran's political leaders might see little need to continue developing and deploying extensive (and expensive) nuclear weapon systems. Moreover, these leaders might be more willing to use future nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the United States. (11)
Alternatively, frustration with the inability of Khatami and the moderates to introduce real reform or improve the standard of living of many Iranians could encourage a backlash against the reformists and a turn to more aggressive foreign and defense policies. Resurgent conservatives could try to rally Iranians around perceptions of an external threat and could call for higher rates of defense spending with greater investment in nuclear weapon systems. We believe that this is a less likely prospect, but the risk that such a change would carry for U.S. forces and interests in the region cannot be discounted.
Iranian Capabilities: The Evidence
Specialists on Iran and nonconventional weapons acquisition and proliferation have enough information to sketch only an incomplete picture of Iran's research programs and its intentions to develop or otherwise acquire WMD. Iran began its efforts to acquire nuclear technology and expertise under the Shah in the 1970s. Despite chronic shortages of investment capital, an exhausting and expensive war with Iraq, and restricted access to foreign technology, Iran has been able to obtain long-range missiles and produce chemical and biological weapons and has tried to acquire the technology, expertise, and material necessary to develop a nuclear capability. The following summarizes Iran's efforts to acquire WMD. (12)
Delivery Systems
Soviet-designed Scud-B guided missiles form the core of Iran's ballistic missile forces. Tehran first acquired these missiles from Libya and North Korea during the Iran-Iraq war and used them against Iraq in 1988 in the "War of the Cities." According to Anthony Cordesman, Iran can manufacture almost all of the Scud-B, with the possible exception of the most sophisticated components of its guidance system and rocket motors. He estimates that by 1998, Iran had more than 60 of the longer-range (310 miles or 500 kilometers) North Korean missiles and 5 to 10 Scud-C launchers with missiles. These missiles have a warhead with a high explosive capability of 700 kilograms, and they are relatively accurate and reliable. The most recent Iranian advance in missile technology is the Shahab-3, a liquid-fueled missile with a range of 1,300 kilometers (800 miles) acquired from North Korea. In July 2000, Iran announced that it had successfully test-fired an upgraded version of the Shahab-3. (13)
Chemical Weapons
Iran began purchasing large amounts of chemical defense gear in the mid-1980s. It probably captured its first poisonous chemical weapon agents from Iraq during the war. Cordesman estimates that by 1986 or 1987, Iran had developed the capability to produce enough lethal agents--including hydrogen cyanide, phosgene gas, and perhaps chlorine gas--to load its weapons. Iran also could weaponize blister (sulfur mustard) and blood (cyanide) agents and phosgene and/or chlorine gas, which it used against Iraq in 1987 and 1988. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran has been producing mustard and nerve gas and may have weaponized chemical warheads for its Scud missiles. (14) Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in June 1997 but has yet to provide any data on its chemical weapon program.
Biological Weapons
Reports that Iran was importing and working on the production of mycotoxins as part of a biological warfare program first surfaced in 1982. Since the Iran-Iraq war, Iran has conducted research on lethal active agents, including anthrax, hoof-and-mouth disease, botulinum, and biotoxins. (15) A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) report in 1996 alleged that Iran "holds some stocks of biological agents and weapons" and that "Iran has the technical infrastructure to support a significant biological weapons program...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
