the situation in Iraq and the ME was reaching a crisis point!

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.

<!--MPU STOPPED BY MEDIA -->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.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=207 align=right border=0 hspace="0"><TBODY><TR><TD width=8 rowSpan=2> </TD><TD width=199><CENTER> </CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD class=caption><CENTER> </CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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 (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=MJS5VXJ2WMUEDQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQY JVC?xml=/news/2004/01/07/wsyria07.xml).

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. (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=MJS5VXJ2WMUEDQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQY JVC?xml=/news/2004/09/25/wiran25.xml)

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 (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=MJS5VXJ2WMUEDQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQY JVC?xml=/news/2004/09/17/wiran17.xml), 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.

The article was talking about Iran Steam...not Iraq. What are we doing in Iraq if Iran is the one holding the nasty WMD? Does the US really think it can keep the nuclear genie in the bottle forever?

You do know how to read, so your post doesn't make much snese. The scientists are Iraqis. The WMD they brought with them, were from Iraq. So do you believe we should let Iran, Iraq and others to have nukes?

You do know how to read, so your post doesn't make much snese. The scientists are Iraqis. The WMD they brought with them, were from Iraq. So do you believe we should let Iran, Iraq and others to have nukes?
We already let a number of countries have nukes. I'm not convinced we will always be able to stop it. What is our backup plan?

where does it say they brought WMD's with them?

this story is less than nothing, since our ally pakistan was sending nuke technology to anyone who wanted it. and what have we done about it? not a thing.

Where shall I start. The first issue is that the sitting president is the least credible politician to convince the country that we should pursue any military intervention for the purpose of disarming and nation building. The second issue, which has been stated well, is that the genie is out of the bottle. Our future success at eliminating the nuclear threat will be determined by diplomacy more than through non-proliferation efforts.

As a matter of clarification on that last statement, I don't think we should put plutonium on the market and distribute it willy nilly either. I just think that the US doesn't have the moral high ground to go invading nations on the pretense that they might drop the bomb on someone.

Why is he the "least credible person" to make a case for disarming Iran? So you would trust a totalitarian theocracy, who believes that everyone else are the infidels, with a nuke? You, I know are for gun control. But nukes are different? In the wrong hands, guns present a danger to the average American, yet you don't believe that WMD in the wrong hands present a danger to us as well. I really can't accept that. Just because we are talking about another country's leadership, doesn't mean we are not talking about criminal minds as well. If we (our elected officials) see a dangerous threat to our security, such as the Soviet Union presented, I damn well want them to do what ever it takes to disarm that threat.

Why do the Iranians want a nuclear bomb? Are they bent on regional domination? Or protecting themselves from US aggression, now fully expected after the US's pre-emptive strike in Iraq and continued occupation?

Our nuclear bomb invention just might come back and bite us on the a$$, but what is the world to make of it? A military response, the football game approach, would only notch up the hostility and encourage armament and nuclear proliferation in a paranoid world community. What would notch down the paranoia would be for the US leaders to start talking and listening. Bush and his boys are doing neither right now. They're acting like a bunch of gangsters with a hidden agenda, like all who came before.

Why is he the "least credible person" to make a case for disarming Iran? So you would trust a totalitarian theocracy, who believes that everyone else are the infidels, with a nuke?

If Bush told the congress or the UN that he wanted to disarm Iran or Syria, do you expect them to believe the intelligence behind the decision? Disregard the already heated political animosity from democrats and you still have a suspicious public and legislature. At this point, it wouldn't matter if Iran was parading nukes in the streets. The level of trust for the President in these matters is too low to do anything constructive about it. What's worse, is that our enemies know it. North Korea, Syria and Iran are having a heyday.

You, I know are for gun control. But nukes are different? In the wrong hands, guns present a danger to the average American, yet you don't believe that WMD in the wrong hands present a danger to us as well. I really can't accept that. Just because we are talking about another country's leadership, doesn't mean we are not talking about criminal minds as well.

I would like a world with less nukes, but I don't see the US as the police of the world, but rather our own nation. If we can get more nations on board to pressure and contain the ornery nations, I think that is fine. I don't care for this go it alone approach though.

you libbys are a joke. we find out that iraqi scientists are in syria with wmd technology on cd and other research data on nuclear weapons and you still stick your heads in the sand. one even going so far as to immediately ask for a "back up plan". what a hoot.

no report is ever going to convince you that iraq hid and transported wmd technology and resources out of the country pre invasion. it would take obl standing on the tip of a nuclear missle for some of you to admit the obvious because it would justify our policy (like it needed it from you).

a heyday in nk, syria and iran? i dont think so. all are worried and justifiably so. why is syria trying to get rid of the iraqi scientists, nk trying to broker a deal for food and financial aid and iran having to hide and concdeal its intentions if theyre having a heyday?

ive said it before, iraq is part of an overall strategy in the middle east that when further down the road, will produce stability. if you could look past the end of todays news cycle or didnt believe that "history" was what happened last year, youd be alot better off in understanding whats going on.

you libbys are a joke. we find out that iraqi scientists are in syria with wmd technology on cd and other research data on nuclear weapons and you still stick your heads in the sand. one even going so far as to immediately ask for a "back up plan". what a hoot.

no report is ever going to convince you that iraq hid and transported wmd technology and resources out of the country pre invasion. it would take obl standing on the tip of a nuclear missle for some of you to admit the obvious because it would justify our policy (like it needed it from you).

a heyday in nk, syria and iran? i dont think so. all are worried and justifiably so. why is syria trying to get rid of the iraqi scientists, nk trying to broker a deal for food and financial aid and iran having to hide and concdeal its intentions if theyre having a heyday?

ive said it before, iraq is part of an overall strategy in the middle east that when further down the road, will produce stability. if you could look past the end of todays news cycle or didnt believe that "history" was what happened last year, youd be alot better off in understanding whats going on.


That is some of your best unsubstantiated ad homonym attacks yet.
Sparkling in the complete disregard for even administration admissions.
Complete in the way you are able to see building nuclear weapons in other countries a symptom of worry!!! They really seem to be ESCARED of us!
You are a phenom... and on one of your first posts of the day.
Take the rest of the day off you have peaked!!!

That is some of your best unsubstantiated ad homonym attacks yet.
Sparkling in the complete disregard for even administration admissions.
Complete in the way you are able to see building nuclear weapons in other countries a symptom of worry!!! They really seem to be ESCARED of us!
You are a phenom... and on one of your first posts of the day.
Take the rest of the day off you have peaked!!!

so i'm a phenom and youre a what? care to enlighten us with your poetic rebuttal or are you just typing what you can while on your tippy toes?

We didn't "go it alone" unless GB, Italy, Australia and the rest are not worthy of your respect as partners on the World stage. There is no such thing as pressure and containment when the countries you admire make illicite deals with the sanctioned country. This seems to be a well forgoten fact in all of this.

so i'm a phenom and youre a what? care to enlighten us with your poetic rebuttal or are you just typing what you can while on your tippy toes?

I am nothing when compared with your amazing feats of illucidation.
I am but a amoeba when compard to your remarkable gray matter.
You are the intellectual giant that those of us short in stature must stand on your shoulders in a vain attempt to see just an infinitessimal portion of what your nearly psychic mind sees without effort.
Please continue to enlighten us. I know we are not worthy of your grace. But if you could find some time for us plebes we are always grateful.

so now it's "WMD technology" and not "WMD's" as you guys were all in a lather about at the start of the war. Pakistan has been selling nuclear technology to every rogue state and terrorist group that asks, and Bush has done nothing about it. not even a token slap on the wrist. and you now want him to expand his little war over this?

We didn't "go it alone" unless GB, Italy, Australia and the rest are not worthy of your respect as partners on the World stage. There is no such thing as pressure and containment when the countries you admire make illicite deals with the sanctioned country. This seems to be a well forgoten fact in all of this.

Kind of like when Halliburton was working in Iran and Libya under illicit subsidiaries?

We did go it alone. The amount of support we are getting with boots and money would fit in the back of one of G. Bush's unfortified Bradley fighting vehicles. If I put in a case of beer I would be a greater help to the Army than half of the coalition "of the willing."

so now it's "WMD technology" and not "WMD's" as you guys were all in a lather about at the start of the war. Pakistan has been selling nuclear technology to every rogue state and terrorist group that asks, and Bush has done nothing about it. not even a token slap on the wrist. and you now want him to expand his little war over this?

how do you know whats been discussed between pakistan and the u.s.? do you work for the white house or the state department? and by the way, do you deal with all nuclear challenges the same way? for instance do you take the same stance with an unstable muslim country that has nuclear arms and a stable country that has the same? is a boiler plate cookie cutter approach your solution to the problem?

the answer to all the above is basically; you dont know jack. you arent privy to any data that could sway your opinion. you dont deal with nuclear threats the same way everywhere in the world. your reasoning is simplistic and juvenile.

and one last question, which administration discovered and addressed the problem of pakistans wmd proliferation?

how do you know whats been discussed between pakistan and the u.s.? do you work for the white house or the state department? and by the way, do you deal with all nuclear challenges the same way? for instance do you take the same stance with an unstable muslim country that has nuclear arms and a stable country that has the same? is a boiler plate cookie cutter approach your solution to the problem?

and one last question, which administration discovered and addressed the problem of pakistans wmd proliferation?

spoken like a true bush spin master. pakistan, stable? they're run by a military coup! and the issue of their nuclear treachery came to light under the bush administration, but tell me what actions they took that were responsiuble for its discovery, and exactly how they've addressed it.

one, we're not talking about nuclear weapons, but passing the technology to create them onto other rogue states. second, why invade iraq, where it seemed pretty obvious their nuclear capacity was non-existant, and let north korea develop a nuclear capacity? and now iran following suit?

i don't think that a single solution fits all. i'd just like this administration to at least be doing something. they fiddled while n. korea armed itself, cause they had to teach saddam a lesson(don't f**k with my dad!!!!) and they're infighting on how to deal with iran while iran, seeing the new double standard(invade states without nuclear weapons, *****foot around with those that do) arm themselves.

why did bush, when asked if he was concerned now that n. korea had the resources for 6-8 nuclear missiles, simply turn up his hands and shrug? i thought they were part of the axis of evil? i thoiught he was concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states, and would do everything in his power to prevent that from happening? why did we support a non-proliferation agreement, and then de-fang it by opposing any inspection protocol? why haven't we locked down all the missiles of the former soviet states?

spoken like a true bush spin master. pakistan, stable? they're run by a military coup! and the issue of their nuclear treachery came to light under the bush administration, but tell me what actions they took that were responsiuble for its discovery, and exactly how they've addressed it.

one, we're not talking about nuclear weapons, but passing the technology to create them onto other rogue states. second, why invade iraq, where it seemed pretty obvious their nuclear capacity was non-existant, and let north korea develop a nuclear capacity? and now iran following suit?

i don't think that a single solution fits all. i'd just like this administration to at least be doing something. they fiddled while n. korea armed itself, cause they had to teach saddam a lesson(don't f**k with my dad!!!!) and they're infighting on how to deal with iran while iran, seeing the new double standard(invade states without nuclear weapons, *****foot around with those that do) arm themselves.

why did bush, when asked if he was concerned now that n. korea had the resources for 6-8 nuclear missiles, simply turn up his hands and shrug? i thought they were part of the axis of evil? i thoiught he was concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states, and would do everything in his power to prevent that from happening? why did we support a non-proliferation agreement, and then de-fang it by opposing any inspection protocol? why haven't we locked down all the missiles of the former soviet states?

first, you need to read closer. i didnt refer to pakistan as a stable country. i referred to them as an unstable muslim country. the stable country could be one of several including israel or england.

youre right, the issue of their treachery came to light under bush. it was begun under clinton EXACTLY as north koreas situation was.


why not invade iraq? try and look beyond the nbc nightly news tonight for a better understanding of whats going to happen in the region eventually. is it happening fast enough? no, not for anyone. but it will happen. again, you bring up north korea and iran. both either began development of nuclear weapons under clintons nose or at least began building their nuclear infrastructure. what would you suggest? nuke them both? One at a time? what? do you have a solution or are you just complaining?

again, and i cant stress this enough, different countries with nuclear capabilities and intentions have to be dealt with in different ways. if you have a silver bullet i wish to God you would share it with us .

the answer to all the above is basically; you dont know jack. you arent privy to any data that could sway your opinion. you dont deal with nuclear threats the same way everywhere in the world. your reasoning is simplistic and juvenile.


Sorry bill...we all don't have time to read Newsmax and get the "real" news like you do.

Sorry bill...we all don't have time to read Newsmax and get the "real" news like you do.

thats what i thought. no real response or insight. youre right on track!

eventually? 50 years? 100? will it be worth the untold lives lost and the untold dollars spent?

do you really think it's possible, or wise, to set about changing thousands of years of culture, and remake that in your own image by military force? isn't this the "domino theory" in reverse? how'd that work out?

i'm glad you feel it's america's role to reshape the world. build democracy. too bad bush talks the game, but doesn't carry out that desire in any other aspect of his foreign policy except the iraq war. russia's turning its back on democracy, with little comment or concern from the bush administration, we support brutal dictators in the former soviet states.

the only thing the bush administration did in iraq was to set up its economic structure as a supply-sider's dream. low taxes, no barriers to trade, tort laws favoring business etc. instead of doing the dirty work of setting up a political and security system that would allow democracy to get a foothold and then flourish, it set iraq up to be plundered by corporations. basically, it's auctioned iraq's future off to the highest bidder. and if that's the long term plan for the rest of the region, god help us.

and that's how the average arab citizen sees it. as osama kept telling them, the west wouldn't be happy until it invaded and then exploited the region. it's no wonder that this action would spur the growth of the resistance and the ranks of al-qaeda. oh, somethings gonna change in the region years into the future, but it's not gonna be what you seem to think it will.

you disagree, so why don't you offer up the evidence that forms your opinion. what makes you think this action will change the region into peaceful democracies? instead of a snarky one liner, or a cut and paste from newsmax, what causes you to hold this view? it really would be a refreshing change if you could explain your opinions, rather than simply dismiss or put down everyone else's.

eventually? 50 years? 100? will it be worth the untold lives lost and the untold dollars spent?

do you really think it's possible, or wise, to set about changing thousands of years of culture, and remake that in your own image by military force? isn't this the "domino theory" in reverse? how'd that work out?

i'm glad you feel it's america's role to reshape the world. build democracy. too bad bush talks the game, but doesn't carry out that desire in any other aspect of his foreign policy except the iraq war. russia's turning its back on democracy, with little comment or concern from the bush administration, we support brutal dictators in the former soviet states.

the only thing the bush administration did in iraq was to set up its economic structure as a supply-sider's dream. low taxes, no barriers to trade, tort laws favoring business etc. instead of doing the dirty work of setting up a political and security system that would allow democracy to get a foothold and then flourish, it set iraq up to be plundered by corporations. basically, it's auctioned iraq's future off to the highest bidder. and if that's the long term plan for the rest of the region, god help us.

and that's how the average arab citizen sees it. as osama kept telling them, the west wouldn't be happy until it invaded and then exploited the region. it's no wonder that this action would spur the growth of the resistance and the ranks of al-qaeda. oh, somethings gonna change in the region years into the future, but it's not gonna be what you seem to think it will.


whos changing cultures? they going to get to vote, whether partial or not. i havent ever heard of a war with a timetable that details we will be done in x years, months, days,hours. have you? no country is remaking their image by military force. a democratic iraq will still have more differences than similarities with the u.s.

security system? i think youd still be wailing if one iraqi citizen was found with one of john kerrys chinese assault rifles he says he owns. wait a minute, now he says he doesnt own one. oh well, i guess the other bad news is that iraq already had evil corporations operating in their country. nevermind that alot of them had monies skimmed to personally profit saddam and his family. however, the last time i looked, corporations were the ones HIRING people and allowing them to earn a living. i cant remember the last iraqi peasant or goat farmer who was in a big hiring mode.

the u.s. didnt invade iraq for exploitation unless youre on the "no blood for oil" side which sounds likely. if so, then it would explain your confusion on the whole issue.

thats what i thought. no real response or insight. youre right on track!
right back atcha bill.... ;)

right back atcha bill.... ;)


ditto. no answers coming from bill. just more of his partisan dribble.