This story reinforces for me how misguided Bush's WMD policies are. First, he attacks Iraq; now he's pressing sanctions against Iran. We have a big mess threatening to get bigger.
But where is the most likely source of terrorist bombs and bomb making? Pakistan.
Four years after Abdul Qadeer Khan, the leader of the world’s largest black market in nuclear technology, was put under house arrest and his operation declared shattered, international inspectors and Western officials are confronting a new mystery, this time over who may have received blueprints for a sophisticated and compact nuclear weapon found on his network’s computers.
[...]
Yet even as inspectors and intelligence officials press their investigation of Dr. Khan, officials in Pakistan have declared the scandal over and have discussed the possibility of setting him free. In recent weeks, American officials have privately warned the new government in Pakistan about the dangers of doing so.
Last week I heard an expert on nuclear nonproliferation run down the reasons why Pakistan, not Iran, should be the focus of our most intense efforts to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists. Couldn't locate the piece, so here's a paraphrase of his points:
- To stop the spread of nuclear bombs, control the ones already made and the necessary fissile material to build them. Weapons grade plutonium is the hardest-to-make and most expensive component in a nuclear weapon, and without it, there's no bomb. This is Graham Allison's "No Loose Nukes" principle I wrote about several years ago.
- Pakistan has an active nuclear program, about 100 nukes in its arsenal, and its "father" has already been established as a rogue weapon smuggler.
- Pakistan has an unstable government and is apparently so lenient with the Taliban in its border regions that Hamid Karzai has threatened to send in Afghan troops if Pakistan continues to harbor them.
- Osama bin Laden — remember him? — hangs out in that 'hood as well.
Countries — as opposed to terrorists — want nukes because their enemies have them, so those fears and conflicts between nations must be addressed, too. But a policy that focuses more on threatening Iran than stabilizing Pakistan seems off-base to me.
