Latest news with #AtlanticCouncil
NBC News
36 minutes ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Can Iran secretly build a nuclear bomb without being caught by Israel?
Iran's top nuclear scientist was driving to his country house with his wife on an autumn day four years ago. As he slowed down for a speed bump, a remote-controlled machine gun mounted on a nearby pick-up truck fired a volley of bullets, killing him instantly, Iranian authorities said. The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the architect of a dormant nuclear weapons project known as Project Amad, illustrated in brutal fashion how deeply Israel had penetrated Iran. That vulnerability has only been exposed further in recent weeks, with Israeli air strikes killing several other scientists believed to be involved in Iran's nuclear work. Iran's political leaders now face a dilemma. After the heavy U.S. bombing of their nuclear sites and air defenses, they can strike a painful compromise with Washington and abandon their uranium enrichment program, or revive the secret weapons project masterminded by Fakhrizadeh. Unlike other countries that were able to develop nuclear weapons in secret, Iran cannot assume it will be able to keep its work hidden. Israel has demonstrated repeatedly it can evade Iran's security, uncover its clandestine nuclear activities and hunt down senior figures in the military, former intelligence officials and experts said. 'Iran's principal challenge in pursuing a covert pathway is going to be keeping it hidden from U.S. and Israeli detection,' said Eric Brewer, a former intelligence official now with the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit focusing on global security. 'That's the key challenge, because both countries, particularly Israel, have demonstrated an ability to penetrate Iran's nuclear program,' he added. 'And Israel has demonstrated an ability to use kinetic force to take it out.' The Israeli air force has effectively wiped out Iran's air defenses. For the moment, Iran cannot protect any target on its territory -- especially suspected nuclear sites -- from a U.S. or Israeli bombing raid, former intelligence officials said. 'The Israelis have complete intelligence dominance over Iran,' said Marc Polymeropoulos, a former career CIA officer and now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. 'If they see something emanating as a threat, they will take it out. . .That could mean military strikes. It could be covert action.' Iran has already tried once to build an atomic bomb under the veil of secrecy. It had a covert nuclear weapons project more than two decades ago, according to Western intelligence agencies. But its cover was blown in December 2002, when satellite photos emerged showing an enrichment site in the city of Natanz and a heavy water plant about 200 miles away in Arak. Iran has denied it ever had a weapons program. Archival documents stolen in 2018 by Israel's Mossad spy agency, which the U.S. says are authentic, showed detailed plans to build five nuclear weapons. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons project in 2003. At that point, the secrecy around the project had been breached and Iran had reason to be anxious in the wake of a U.S. invasion in neighboring Iraq. Since then, Iran maintained what it said was a civilian nuclear program. Iran's uranium enrichment and other nuclear work gave Tehran the potential option to pursue an eventual weapon if it chose to go that route – what arms control experts call a 'threshold' nuclear capability. Stolen blueprints If the regime chooses to race towards a bomb, it will be calculating that nuclear weapons will discourage any adversary from trying to stage an attack or topple its leadership. And it would be following a familiar path taken by other countries that successfully pursued secret bomb projects, including North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. The Israeli government kept the Americans in the dark about their nuclear weapons project for years. In the 1950s, French engineers helped Israel build a nuclear reactor and a secret reprocessing plant to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel. Israel's government to this day does not officially confirm or deny its nuclear arsenal, saying it will not be the first to "introduce" nuclear weapons in the Middle East. India's nuclear program also began in the 1950s, with the United States and Canada providing nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel for purely peaceful purposes. India agreed to safeguards designed to prevent the reactors and fuel from being used for weapons. But India secretly reprocessed spent fuel into plutonium in the 1960s, building up fissile material for a nuclear weapon. By 1974, India carried out its first nuclear test, code-named Smiling Buddha. Pakistan built its bomb with the help of nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, a metallurgist who stole blueprints and other information on advanced centrifuges while working at a nuclear engineering firm in Amsterdam. Khan later was linked with distributing nuclear weapons technology to Iran and North Korea among others. Khan's assistance in the 1990s proved crucial for North Korea's program. The Pyongyang regime also bought technology and hardware abroad through front companies or on the black market, according to U.N. monitors. It was America that helped Iran launch its nuclear program, before the 1979 revolution that toppled the monarchy. During the Shah's rule, through the U.S. 'Atoms for Peace Program,' the United States provided nuclear technology, fuel, training and equipment to Iran in the 1960s, including a research reactor. Now Iran likely has no need to turn to outside partners for technical know-how, experts say. Still, the regime will have a daunting task reconstituting whatever is left of its nuclear program. Every known nuclear site in Iran was targeted in Israel's air campaign earlier this month. And then last week the U.S. launched an attack on three enrichment sites using 14 'bunker buster' 30,000-pound bombs and more than a dozen Tomahawk missiles. The CIA says key facilities were destroyed and the nuclear program was 'severely damaged' in the strikes. Despite the unprecedented damage, which is still being assessed, it's possible Iran may have the technical means to relaunch a weapons program – including enriched uranium, centrifuges and access to tunnels or other underground sites, some arms control experts say. Iran's entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium has yet to be accounted for, and it has an unknown number of centrifuges in storage that were not located at the sites bombed by Israel, NBC News has reported. Iran's most significant technical obstacle, however, could be producing uranium metal. Iran only had one known site where it could convert uranium into a solid metal state, and Israeli air strikes destroyed it in Isfahan. Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon without such a facility, and it's unclear if the regime has a secret uranium metal product plant elsewhere. Technical hurdles aside, the decision whether to build a nuclear bomb ultimately will be shaped by political considerations rather than technology or logistics, according to Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. 'It really is a political decision not a technical one," Lewis said. "They still have a lot of capability left." After coming under a withering aerial assault that demonstrated Israel's air superiority, Iran may view nuclear weapons as the only way to defend itself and preserve the regime's survival, according to Marvin Weinbaum, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute think tank and a professor at the University of Illinois. 'Iran has every reason now, based on what's just happened, to say we've got to have a bomb, [and] we'll be treated differently if we do,' Weinbaum said. Officials in Iran's regime have long debated whether to develop nuclear weapons, and its policy over the past two decades appeared to strike a compromise, giving Tehran the option to go nuclear if circumstances required. The question for Iranian officials is whether nuclear weapons will help ensure the regime's survival or endanger its grip on power, regional analysts said. Looming over Iran's decision is the threat of Israeli espionage and air power, potentially catching Tehran in the act of rushing to produce a bomb. 'It will be interesting to see whether the regime buckles down and gets serious about it, or whether their operational security remains as terrible as ever,' Lewis said. 'They have been so careless.' President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff is due to hold talks on a possible agreement with Iran in coming days to try to halt its uranium enrichment in return for sanctions relief.
The Diplomat
11 hours ago
- Business
- The Diplomat
Washington Discusses the Future of Central Asia-US Relations, While Beijing Takes Concrete Action
The Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, held its inaugural U.S.-Central Asia Forum on June 5 to discuss the future of Washington's strategy toward the region. The discussion, organized by the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, comes at an opportune time as Central Asia engages extraregional states to cement relationships and attract new partners and investors. In the past two months, several high-profile meetings have taken place, including the first Central Asia-European Union summit, the first Central Asia-Italy summit (which took place during Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Miloni's visit to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), and an informal summit of heads of states of the Organization of Turkic States. Moreover, the second China-Central Asia summit occurred in mid-June. Meanwhile, Washington has lagged behind regarding high-profile engagement with Central Asia in the first months of the second Trump administration. Speakers at the event included Kazakhstan's Ambassador to the U.S. Yerzhan Ashikbayev; Alisher Akhmedov, the deputy chief of mission of Uzbekistan in Washington; and former officials like Lisa Curtis, currently a senior fellow and director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and former U.S. Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan (2008 to 2011) Tatiana Gfoeller. Mining was a significant topic for the conference. Ashikbayev, for example, highlighted that Kazakhstan produces '20 critical minerals;' regarding uranium, 'we have a gargantuan share of the global production, 40 percent.' Investment in infrastructure remains a priority for the country, which would help with the transportation of critical minerals to international markets, like the U.S. and Europe. Current projects include expanding Kazakhstan's railroad system 'We are planning to construct 5,000 kilometers of railroads [by] 2030,' the ambassador said. Moreover, Astana plans to expand the size of its Caspian fleet 'from 17 to 34 [transport] vessels.' The Caspian Sea is a critical artery of the Middle Corridor, connecting Kazakhstan's Aktau and Kuryk ports with Azerbaijan's Baku port, hence additional vessels and tankers are mandatory to increase the volume of transportation. Meanwhile, Akhmedov highlighted an April visit to the U.S. capital by an Uzbek government delegation led by Foreign Affairs Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov, which included meetings with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. A memorandum on critical minerals was reportedly signed during Saidov's visit. 'We are now moving forward' via this document, Akhemdov said at the forum, as the 'critical mineral focus is a strategic realignment' of bilateral relations. Figuring out how to capitalize on the second Trump administration's focus on critical minerals and energy-related supply chains in general to attract U.S. interest and engagement with the Central Asian countries is the primary challenge for Astana and Tashkent. Ashikbayev highlighted Astana's membership in the Mineral Security Partnership, the country being a 'strong supporter and participant in the critical minerals dialogue,' and noted how Kazakhstan is the 'driver' of the C5+1 format. Similarly, Akhmedov noted that Uzbekistan aims to use the country's mineral resources not only for extraction and mining-related profit but also to 'become a trusted and highly valued partner in global supply chains.' It is worth noting that, during the recent China-Central Asia summit, the presidents of China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan discussed expanded cooperation on natural gas and minerals, and the construction of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway. Central Asian countries are engaging with Beijing on critical topics like energy and minerals, and pursuing concrete projects in these areas, while Washington remains stuck in conversation. The forum attempted to game out how Washington, once again under Donald Trump's leadership, will engage Central Asia. Curtis, a former National Security Council senior director for South and Central Asia (2017-2021), explained that the new Trump administration is still in its early days, and 'we haven't heard about Central Asia' in the U.S. capital yet. She argued that 'the China angle will dictate' U.S. engagement in Central Asia, with a focus on 'mostly economic but also political, and maybe security' issues. Gfoeller was more pessimistic, hypothesizing that Washington won't fully engage Central Asia 'unless President Trump sees that there is a specific reason to engage with a particular country.' The terms 'transactional' and 'realistic' were used often to describe how Washington may engage Central Asia for the next four years. For comparison's sake, Xi talked about 'mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual benefit' at the recent summit in Astana. The Biden administration maintained momentum in Central Asia-U.S. engagement with highlights including a historic presidential 5+1 meeting in 2023, a business-oriented B5+1 in Almaty and the launch of the C5+1 Critical Minerals Dialogue in 2024. (I have proposed a Green 5+1 to promote engagement on environmental issues.) During his confirmation hearing, Rubio noted the need to repeal the Jackson Vanik amendment – a topic mentioned by Ashikbayev at the forum – however, that requires Congressional legislation and previous efforts have stalled in committee. In spite of this promising statement, we have yet to see the formulation of a strategy or even direct interest in Central Asia on the part of the administration. Another topic discussed were potential trips by senior U.S. officials to Central Asia. Miras Zhiyenbayev, advisor to the chairman of the board for international affairs and initiatives at Kazakhstan's Maqsut Narikbayev University, noted that 'high-level visits are political acts that demonstrate a country's willingness to work with the region and engage with the region.' As noted above, in recent weeks, there were several high-level visits and meetings by European officials and China's president to Central Asia. A visit by Rubio to Astana for a ministerial 5+1 would help jumpstart the new administration's momentum in the region, but so far no such meeting has been announced. Overall, the speakers at the forum agreed on the importance of increased U.S. engagement with Central Asia. 'The United States has a great opportunity to engage more in Central Asia. The Central Asians want the U.S. there,' Curtis argued. Gfoeller said, 'I recently met with a high-level Central Asian official who told me that he welcomed what he thought would be a more transactional approach from the Trump administration. She added that the official 'said that during the Biden administration, we were lectured to about climate change, about human rights, and it was just lecturing and never was anything concrete done to benefit our country.' Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan Daniel Rosenblum, moderating the panel, pushed back on that assessment, illustrating a diversity of perspectives on the tone and perception of U.S. engagement. Respecting the will and well-being of the people of Central Asia was a topic that the Atlantic Council's forum did not discuss in great detail. Navbahor Imamova, a longtime journalist with Voice of America, said on social media that the region's 'nontransparent and nepotistic regimes, marked by a lack of rule of law and media freedom,' should have been addressed. That label certainly applies to authoritarian Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and increasingly Kyrgyzstan. Finally, it is vital to acknowledge that the five Central Asian states differ regarding their foreign policy objectives, engagement styles, and domestic governance. Indeed, of the five states, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are clearly very interested in increasing engagement and cooperation with Washington, and have the capacity to do so. Two days before the forum, Kazakhstan's Ashikbayev spoke at the Future Resilience Forum about Kazakhstan as a middle power, an event also held in the U.S. capital. 'The more partnerships we have, the better it will be for our own development,' the Kazakhstani diplomat summarized at the Atlantic Council event. Similarly, Uzbekistan routinely sends delegations to Washington. However, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan's footprint in Washington is much more limited, with Turkmenistan's engagement in the U.S. capital almost non-existent. A lack of a strategy with short-, medium- and long-term goals and projects toward Central Asia continues to be Washington's loss, and Beijing's gain.
Bloomberg
15 hours ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
The Business for Zero Day Exploits in the US is Broken
Atlantic Council research says market for zero days is bloated, leaving the US behind rivals such as China.
Edmonton Journal
a day ago
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
How Donald Trump finally learned to love NATO — for now
Article content WASHINGTON — It will go down as the summit where U.S. President Donald Trump learned to stop worrying and love NATO. Trump revelled in gushing praise from leaders in The Hague — including being called 'daddy' by alliance chief Mark Rutte — and a pledge to boost defense spending as he had demanded. Article content But it went further than just lapping up flattery. Trump also spoke of what sounded like an almost religious conversion to NATO, after years of bashing other members as freeloaders and threatening to leave. Article content 'I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing, but I left here a little bit differently,' Trump said at his closing press conference on Wednesday. 'I watched the heads of these countries get up, and the love and the passion that they showed for their country was unbelievable. I've never seen quite anything like it. 'It was really moving to see it.' A day after returning to the White House, Trump still sounded uncharacteristically touchy-feely about his time with his 31 NATO counterparts. 'A wonderful day with incredible and caring Leaders,' he posted on his Truth Social platform on Thursday. Turnaround It was a remarkable turnaround from the US president's first term. Trump repeatedly berated allies as not paying up and threatened to pull the United States out of NATO as part of his wider disdain for international institutions and alliances. Article content At his first summit in 2017 in Brussels, Trump memorably shoved aside Montenegro's prime minister Dusko Markovic as he made his way to the front of the stage. A year later Trump publicly lambasted Germany and privately talked about wanting to quit. But this time NATO leaders had carefully choreographed the trip. They massaged the numbers to give Trump the defense spending deal he craved. And while Trump headed to the summit dropping F-bombs in frustration at a shaky Iran-Israel ceasefire, NATO leaders love-bombed him from the moment he arrived. The Netherlands put him up overnight in the Dutch king's royal palace and gave him a royal dinner and breakfast — 'beautiful,' according to Trump — while NATO organizers kept the summit deliberately short. Frederick Kempe, the chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council, said Trump had 'waxed poetic' about NATO in a way he had never done before. Article content 'Trump — the vilifier of European deadbeats on defense and crusader against allies for what he sees as unfair trade practices — sounded like an altered man,' he said in a commentary. 'Daddy's Home' The question now is what it means for NATO when the alliance's priorities end up guided by one man. The final summit statement's language on Russia's invasion of Ukraine was watered down from previous years. It also made no mention of Ukraine's push to join NATO. Reporters were not allowed into Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The move was partly because of their Oval Office bust-up in February, but it also deprived Zelensky of the set-piece he had craved. 'The biggest loser was Ukraine,' said Ed Arnold of the Royal United Services Institute in London. Trump also hinted at what lies in store for any backsliders on the defense spending pledge, threatening to make Spain 'pay' on trade over its resistance to commit to the new target. Article content Latest National Stories
France 24
2 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
How Trump finally learned to love NATO -- for now
Trump reveled in gushing praise from leaders in The Hague -- including being called "daddy" by alliance chief Mark Rutte -- and a pledge to boost defense spending as he had demanded. But it went further than just lapping up flattery. Trump also spoke of what sounded like an almost religious conversion to NATO, after years of bashing other members as freeloaders and threatening to leave. "I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing, but I left here a little bit differently," Trump said at his closing press conference on Wednesday. "I watched the heads of these countries get up, and the love and the passion that they showed for their country was unbelievable. I've never seen quite anything like it. "It was really moving to see it." A day after returning to the White House, Trump still sounded uncharacteristically touchy-feely about his time with his 31 NATO counterparts. "A wonderful day with incredible and caring Leaders," he posted on his Truth Social platform on Thursday. Turnaround It was a remarkable turnaround from the US president's first term. Trump repeatedly berated allies as not paying up and threatened to pull the United States out of NATO as part of his wider disdain for international institutions and alliances. At his first summit in 2017 in Brussels, Trump memorably shoved aside Montenegro's prime minister Dusko Markovic as he made his way to the front of the stage. A year later Trump publicly lambasted Germany and privately talked about wanting to quit. But this time NATO leaders had carefully choreographed the trip. They massaged the numbers to give Trump the defense spending deal he craved. And while Trump headed to the summit dropping F-bombs in frustration at a shaky Iran-Israel ceasefire, NATO leaders love-bombed him from the moment he arrived. The Netherlands put him up overnight in the Dutch king's royal palace and gave him a royal dinner and breakfast -- "beautiful," according to Trump -- while NATO organizers kept the summit deliberately short. Frederick Kempe, the chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council, said Trump had "waxed poetic" about NATO in a way he had never done before. "Trump -- the vilifier of European deadbeats on defense and crusader against allies for what he sees as unfair trade practices -- sounded like an altered man," he said in a commentary. 'Daddy's Home' The question now is what it means for NATO when the alliance's priorities end up guided by one man. The final summit statement's language on Russia's invasion of Ukraine was watered down from previous years. It also made no mention of Ukraine's push to join NATO. Reporters were not allowed into Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The move was partly because of their Oval Office bust-up in February, but it also deprived Zelensky of the set-piece he had craved. "The biggest loser was Ukraine," said Ed Arnold of the Royal United Services Insitute in London. Trump also hinted at what lies in store for any backsliders on the defense spending pledge, threatening to make Spain "pay" on trade over its resistance to commit to the new target. As with any relationship, the pressure will now be on NATO to keep up the first flush of love over the three summits that are due to take place over the rest of Trump's second term. "The real worry is that NATO will be unable to keep up the hype," said Arnold. For now, though, Trump and his administration seem to be content. As he arrived back in Washington, the White House posted a video of summit highlights, with the caption: "Daddy's Home." © 2025 AFP
