Latest news with #WMD
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
President George W Bush 'feared Saddam Hussein would attempt his own version of 9/11 terror attacks', newly declassified records reveal
President George W Bush was desperate to topple Saddam Hussein amid fears he might orchestrate a repeat of the 9/11 terror attacks, newly declassified records reveal. Private remarks from the US President in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq underlined his commitment to 'ridding (the world) of evil-doers', according to the UK's ambassador in Washington. Sir Christopher Meyer said Americans broadly trusted President Bush's decision making on foreign policy, even if, in late 2002, the public were 'not keen to go to war with Saddam'. Documents released to the National Archives in Kew hint at Tony Blair 's initial reluctance to invade Iraq on the basis of Iraqi tyrant Hussein's claim that it had destroyed its WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). And the Ministry of Defence (MOD) also warned there would be 'significant levels of internecine violence' in the aftermath of any invasion. The UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, leading to Hussein being ousted, with images memorable of jubilant Iraqis toppling a statue of their overthrown former president in Baghdad. But an inquiry led by Sir John Chilcott later found Mr Blair's case for invasion was not justified, and that Hussein posed no imminent threat. Mr Blair stood by the decision to go to war - which many perceive to have tainted his modernist legacy - but apologised for mistakes made. The newly released documents show Sir Christopher, the UK's man in Washington, told Downing Street in December 2002 about President Bush's intentions - and his binary philosophy of good and evil. He wrote in an end-of-year dispatch: 'If Bush decides to invade Iraq in 2003, as looks increasingly likely, it will make or break his presidency. 'Much of the impulse for deposing Saddam Hussein comes from Bush himself. More than anything else he fears another catastrophic terrorist attack on the homeland, especially one with an Iraqi connection. 'His view of the world is Manichean. He sees his mission as ridding it of evil-doers.' The files also reveal how Mr Blair had travelled to Camp David in January 2003 to urge President Bush to allow more time for diplomacy work. But Sir Christopher warned it had become 'politically impossible' to draw back from war at this stage unless Hussein surrendered.
Korea Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- Korea Herald
US stresses commitment to combating maritime NK sanctions evasion activities
WASHINGTON -- The United States on Friday reaffirmed its commitment to addressing maritime activities that evade sanctions against North Korea, as it co-hosted a maritime security conference in Cote d'Ivoire this week. The State Department reiterated the commitment after it, the Maritime Organization of West and Central Africa and Cote d'Ivoire's Ministry of Transport co-hosted the Global Maritime Security and Sanctions Enforcement Conference in Abidjan on Wednesday and Thursday. The conference brought together global maritime industry leaders from 25 countries to strengthen due diligence practices, and enhance enforcement of sanctions to prevent North Korea, Iran and other countries from exploiting commercial maritime supply chains to advance proliferation activities, according to the department. "The DPRK circumvents US and UN sanctions through the export of coal and iron ore to generate revenue to support the development of its WMD and ballistic missile programs," the department said in a media note on the conference. DPRK and WMD are short for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and weapons of mass destruction, respectively. "The United States is committed to combating maritime sanctions evasion activities and illicit maritime trade," it added. The department also accused Iran of continuing to use the commercial shipping industry to transport proliferation-related items and export oil to generate revenue for its global "malign" activities. The conference was designed to share challenges, lessons learned, and best practices to improve US sanctions enforcement globally, prevent illicit maritime activity that threatens US interests, and ultimately increase global maritime security, it said. (Yonhap)
The Diplomat
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Diplomat
How Barack Obama Planned to Destroy North Korea's Weapons of Mass Destruction
U.S. President Donald Trump's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has once again raised the prospect of Washington destroying North Korea's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). That's only natural given Trump's first term in office, when he appeared on the brink of launching such an attack on North Korea. But as analysts have pointed out, Pyongyang's WMD programs have grown to alarming proportions over the past decade. As a result, such a strike has virtually no chance of succeeding. What analysts haven't pointed out is that serious planning for a first strike against North Korea's arsenal was initiated by then-President Barack Obama almost five years before Trump's 'fire and fury' threats, and those plans came up short. Obama and Trump met for the first – and only – time days after the Republican candidate had won the presidential election. Obama had decided to personally take on the task of making sure an uninformed Trump, who didn't even know there were two Koreas, understood that Pyongyang's nuclear weapons would soon be able to devastate American cities. Obama warned Trump that Kim Jong Un was about to cross a technological Rubicon. Obama often told his advisors that a future president might have to attack North Korea before it launched its weapons. While Obama informed Trump that he had ordered the Pentagon to figure out how to do that, their plan still fell short of achieving the objective. Obama's warning may have been too successful. It certainly left an impression on the president-to-be. An astounded Trump repeatedly asked his advisers how past presidents could have left him with this mess. He would also ask everyone, including the musician Kid Rock, what to do. Trump would later claim in public that Obama was about to start a war with North Korea, but all Obama was trying to do was to arm future presidents with a plan to prevent the destruction of American cities. Trump also claimed that Obama has been 'begging for a meeting' with Kim Jong Un. Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, called Trump's accusation 'horseshit,' but like many of Donald Trump's pronouncements, there was a grain of truth in what he said. The North Korean arsenal grew to alarming proportions during Obama's two terms in office. In 2009, intelligence estimates predicted the threat of a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was still a decade off. But in January 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made headlines when he announced that North Korea could attack U.S. cities in five to ten years. It turned out Pyongyang's long-range missile program had been hiding in plain sight. Suspicious purchases of 'large off-road vehicles,' perfect for transporting a new mobile ICBM, were announced on a Chinese company's website starting in October 2010. Deliveries started 8 months later. In April 2012, those transporters appeared carrying a new missile dubbed the KN-08 in a massive Pyongyang parade celebrating Kim Il Sung's birth. The missile was a potential game-changer for the Pentagon, since a stationary missile could be destroyed before launch. Mobile missiles were likely to survive an attack. Some experts argued the paraded missiles were only mockups and a hoax. The Pentagon, however, believed they were intended to help build a new weapon. The KN-08 confirmed the worst fears of a handful of Defense Department officials. James 'Jim' Miller, the third ranking civilian official at the Pentagon, had initially supported the majority view that the real North Korea threat was short-range missiles aimed at U.S. troops and allies – South Korea and Japan – in Northeast Asia. However, the more Miller and an aide, Tom Ehrhard, a former Air Force officer who didn't engage in wishful thinking, talked to intelligence analysts, the more they realized the ICBM danger was real. The two were joined by four-star Admiral James 'Sandy' Winnefeld, Jr., then the newly appointed vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tasked to protect the continental United States from attack in his last job, Winnefeld's wife had complained that Pyongyang ruined their holidays by launching rockets. He assured her he would take care of the problem. The admiral feared that North Korea would eventually be able to obliterate cities on the United States' West Coast. The April 2012 parade also set off alarm bells in the White House. Obama had been concerned about the North Korean threat. His daily brief, featuring the KN-08's appearance, concluded that the missile wouldn't be operational until it was successfully tested. But Obama sent an unequivocal message to the Pentagon. 'I have to defend this country. I want you to take this seriously,' a senior military officer recalled the president as saying. A successful North Korean satellite launch in December using a large rocket was a 'big wake up call,' according to a Pentagon official. Then, Pyongyang's nuclear detonation in February 2013, which it claimed helped develop nuclear warheads small enough to place on top of a rocket, proved to be the last straw. Miller and Winnefeld won their fight. In March, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a $1 billion initiative to buy 14 more Ground Based Interceptors, or GBIs, to add to the existing stockpile. They would protect the United States from Pyongyang's 'irresponsible and reckless provocations.' However, complacency soon set in again. The Pentagon's attitude was, 'We've got it,' according to one Defense Department official, even though it became clear that a modest upgrade in U.S. missile defenses wouldn't be able to cope with more than a handful of KN-08s. Officials reasoned, 'If they launch a nuclear weapon at San Francisco, we will nuke them.' That view wasn't shared by everyone. A policy review ordered by Obama confirmed that Hagel's GBI upgrade could easily be overwhelmed by a growing missile arsenal. The president ordered the Pentagon to consider the new North Korean ICBM operational even if it hadn't been tested and to develop a plan to take 'those missiles out' before they could be launched, according to a senior U.S. military officer. Obama didn't want the military to 'bring him another rock.' The fight to find a solution to the growing North Korean threat was joined by a new important ally. Robert 'Bob' Work, a Marine veteran who was appointed deputy secretary of defense, quickly focused on the danger, with the aid of Ehrhard, who had remained behind when Miller left the Pentagon. History had proved that destroying mobile missiles is hard. The Allies only managed to stop one German V-1 rocket during World War II. None was destroyed during the 1991 'Great SCUD hunt' for Saddam Hussein's mobile rockets. However, technology had advanced. Missiles could be tracked more precisely, data could be transmitted more quickly, and more accurate weapons could destroy the missiles before they moved. Moreover, exotic 'left of launch' technologies, such as cyberstrikes against computers that controlled the weapons, might destroy or disable missiles before they left the ground. Both Work and Winnefeld had their own expert groups examining this new toolkit. While much of the Pentagon was fixated on the exotic to the exclusion of the pragmatic, those technologies were only '1 percent of the answer,' according to a senior Pentagon official. There was no substitute for old-fashioned detective work, tracking and blowing up North Korea's missiles. Ehrhard had experienced that drudgery as a young Air Force captain assigned the job of figuring out how to destroy mobile Russian missiles. The U.S. intelligence community had been monitoring Pyongyang's weapons. but there was still much more work that remained to be done, tracking their daily movements and operations. The Pentagon missed White House deadlines twice to come up with an ICBM-busting plan. When it did deliver, the proposals were bounced back. 'It's not good enough, I want another version,' Rice commented after seeing the first report. 'Is that enough? What else can you do?' White House officials asked during briefings. In May 2015, the Joint Chiefs of Staff organized a half-day long secret war game to review how much progress had been made. The answers fell far short of what Obama wanted. According to one White House aide, the Pentagon's bottom line – 'We are just not sure we can catch everything' – was disappointing. Moreover, North Korea's response to a strike could devastate South Korea and Japan. Past presidents going back to Richard Nixon, who considered attacking the North after it shot down an American spy plane in 1969, had faced the same dilemma. Seoul, a city with millions of inhabitants, is only 22 kilometers from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Still, Obama reminded his advisers that the United States had found Osama Bin Laden. Why couldn't it find North Korea's mobile missiles? 'You've got to be working harder,' an aide heard him argue. After Pyongyang's hydrogen bomb test in September 2016, Obama asked again if it was possible to launch a preemptive strike supported by cyber operations. It's unlikely that the Obama administration ever succeeded in formulating a plan for an attack on North Korea. One administration official recalled that on a scale of one to ten, it rated a five on the priority list. By the end of Obama's administration, North Korea was well on the way to building a nuclear arsenal that could withstand a U.S. first strike. Eight years later, Trump's options for such a strike would be even more constrained.
Korea Herald
09-07-2025
- Business
- Korea Herald
US sanctions NK cyber actor for IT worker scheme to generate revenue for Kim regime
The US Treasury Department on Tuesday sanctioned a North Korean cyber actor accused of facilitating a scheme under which Pyongyang uses its overseas information technology workers to generate revenue for the recalcitrant regime. The department's Office of Foreign Assets Control announced the sanction on Song Kum-hyok, describing him as a "malicious" actor associated with the sanctioned Reconnaissance General Bureau hacking group Andariel. RGB is the North's key military intelligence agency. "Song facilitated worker scheme in which individuals, often DPRK nationals working from countries such as China and Russia, were recruited and provided with falsified identities and nationalities to obtain employment at unwitting companies to generate revenue for the DPRK regime," the department said in a release. DPRK is short for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "In some cases, these DPRK IT workers have been known to introduce malware into company networks for additional exploitation," it added. The office also sanctioned one Russian national, two Russian entities and two North Korean entities, accusing them of being involved in an IT worker scheme. "Today's action underscores the importance of vigilance on the DPRK's continued efforts to clandestinely fund its WMD and ballistic missile programs," Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Michael Faulkender said. WMD is short for weapons of mass destruction. "Treasury remains committed to using all available tools to disrupt the Kim regime's efforts to circumvent sanctions through its digital asset theft, attempted impersonation of Americans, and malicious cyber-attacks." The department underscored that the sanctions measure is part of the US government's objective to counter the North's efforts to advance its strategic goals through cyber espionage and revenue generation. (Yonhap)
Daily Maverick
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
All your questions about Israel's short war on Iran answered
Daily Maverick foreign affairs journalist Peter Fabricius answers your questions on the 13-day War on Iran by Israel and the US. Question: Do you think the US action in Iran, to deter it from the ability to make a nuclear weapon – even though US intelligence services consider this an unlikely aim – echoes the US and UK decision to invade Iraq because of their claim about WMD? Or is it more about Israel's ambition to control the region? Answer: I think the concerns that Iran intended to build nuclear weapons are somewhat more credible than the claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003. For example, IAEA director general Rafael Grossi is ambivalent. He declines to say if he thinks Iran intends to construct nuclear weapons. He has said that he has not seen conclusive evidence pointing to that, but also that Iran has not answered all the IAEA's questions about its nuclear programme. Q: And should Iran wish to have its own nuclear deterrent, would that be any more of a threat to peace than the nuclear weapon capability that Israel (and/or other states) has? A: This is a good question. Of course Israel should not have nuclear bombs either. However, the objective view should be that any nuclear proliferation should be prevented if possible. We cannot say that it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel has them. Any proliferation of nuclear weapons represents an increase in the danger of nuclear war, which would endanger not only the direct belligerents. Q: How credible is the view that Iran is trying to kill all Jews? Could it be that they are in support of measures to liberate Palestinians who are currently in occupied territory or being mistreated in Gaza? A: It is impossible to assess Iran's attitude. I strongly doubt that it intends to kill all Jews. But it does oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state – which is not the same thing. Q: How sure can we be that the US' bombardment of Iran's nuclear facilities – and what we are told is the outcome – without verification from the IAEA, is not another huge scam à la WMD in Iraq? A: I have partly answered this in Question 1. I don't think this is a complete scam, as I believe Israel and the US – and several other Western states – really believe Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons. Whether they are right or wrong is less clear. Q: Why is Israel allowed to have a nuclear bomb but not Iran? A: This comes down to who is 'allowing,' of course. In theory, Israel should not be allowed to have an atomic weapon, but I believe the US and other allies tolerate this because they believe it is a deterrent against an existential threat – or just because they support Israel. As I said, though, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons does not mean Iran should be allowed to have them. Neither country should. Q: The truth as to whether Iran's nuclear-building capabilities have been or have not been totally wiped out. We hear/read 'yes', we hear/read 'only for a few months'. Once and for all, which is it? A: I am inclined to believe the leaked US intelligence report and the assessment of IAEA director-general Grossi that Iran's nuclear programme has been retarded for several months—not 'completely obliterated,' as Trump has claimed. However, Israel and the US could attack again. Q: Did the US really destroy Iranian nuclear power? A: Well, the answer to that question depends, of course, on whether Iran was intending to become a nuclear power – by which I assume the questioner means acquiring nuclear weapons. If it was, it would appear that the US and Israel failed to destroy its ambitions to become a nuclear power. (See also Question 6.) Q: Is the US president allowed to just attack any other country without having to get authorisation from the US government? A: If by 'the US government' this questioner means 'the US Congress', my understanding is that the US Constitution is rather ambiguous on this point. It gives very wide scope to the president in matters of war, according to the doctrine of the separation of powers. In any case, Republicans control both houses of Congress and I am sure would support Trump's actions. Q: How much of this war is related to oil? So many US interventions have been related to this. A: I don't believe this intervention is related to oil. The US and Israeli attacks have not – and were probably not intended to – topple the Iranian government, which therefore continues to retain control of its oil reserves. Q: What is wrong with Iran having a nuclear bomb? Other countries have it too. A: I think I have answered this question already, in my reply to Question 1. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – which most countries, including South Africa, support – forbids any countries other than the five original nuclear powers (the US, UK, China, Russia and France) from possessing nuclear weapons. This is in principle unjust, as those five have no more right to possess nuclear weapons than anyone else. But when the NPT was first extended in 1995, South Africa, like most countries, took the pragmatic view that it would be better to support the treaty anyway, rather than facing the risk of an uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would present a grave danger to the world. But in any case, not only Israel but also India, Pakistan and probably North Korea have developed atomic weapons outside the parameters of the NPT. DM
