Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Institute for Science and International Security

1. Sudan/Russian Nuclear Power Cooperation Poses Proliferation Risks

Author:
David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, Allison Lach, Bridget Leahy, and Andrea Stricker
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
Reuters reported on March 13, 2018 that Russia has agreed to sign a “roadmap” with Sudan on building nuclear power stations.1 However, Sudan has poor export controls, no adherence to nuclear power safety or nuclear terrorism conventions, and weak safeguards standards. Its neighbors also maintain poor implementation of these preventions against nuclear material and commodity theft or diversion. Russia should not build nuclear reactors in Sudan. Sudan should instead bolster its infrastructure so that it can at some point in the future underpin a well safeguarded nuclear power program backed by robust, internationally-acceptable strategic export controls. After reviewing data from the Institute’s Peddling Peril Index (PPI) for 2017,2 which ranks the efforts of 200 countries, territories, and entities to implement export controls and prevent trafficking in strategic commodities, Sudan and its bordering countries, such as the Central African Republic, Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, and South Sudan, are seen to pose a high proliferation and safety and security risk.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, Sudan, and Eurasia

2. Iran Nuclear Deal Procurement Channel Update: Is it being bypassed?

Author:
David Albright and Andrea Stricker
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
The procurement channel set up under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, appears to be considering fewer proposals than expected and is altogether unused by a traditionally illicit conduit to Iran’s nuclear, missile, and non-nuclear programs, namely China. The procurement channel was designed to regulate Iran’s imports of nuclear and nuclear-related dual-use goods for nuclear or non-nuclear use. Given that Iran’s non-nuclear industries have often imported nuclear dual-use goods, this finding raises the question of whether the procurement channel, and its associated Procurement Working Group (PWG), is simply not being used, but illicit, nuclear dual-use supplies are still going to Iran. Although no evidence has emerged of banned sales going from the United States, Europe, or Japan, which have often been targets of Iranian illicit procurement networks, there is concern that banned sales could be going from parts of Asia. In particular, Chinese entities may be continuing to make sales of nuclear dual-use goods to Iran without using the channel. The United States and its allies should augment efforts to detect and intercept the flow of any strategic goods from China to Iran and from other potentially illicit supplier countries to Iran. China needs to reach out to suppliers or distributors of dual-use goods operating on its territory and ensure that they are informed about China’s export control laws and PWG requirements governing the sale of nuclear dual-use goods to Iran’s industries, whether they be nuclear or non-nuclear.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Nuclear Power, and JCPOA
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Iran, Middle East, and United States of America

3. Case Study: Two Plead Guilty in Pakistan Illicit Procurement Case

Author:
Bridget Leahy and Andrea Stricker
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
On March 5, 2018, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Connecticut announced the guilty pleas of two Pakistani men on one count of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).1 Between 2012 and 2013, Muhammed Ismail, 67, and Kamran Khan, 38, purchased U.S. goods on the Commerce Control List (CCL) and subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) or EAR-99 status without a license on behalf of listed or sanctioned entities in Pakistan.2 In one instance, they also used the United States as a turntable, or transshipment point, from which to receive goods from Lithuania. Another defendant, Imran Khan, 43, was involved in the scheme and pled guilty to export violations in a separate case. Muhammad Ismail is the father of Kamran and Imran Khan. The three carried out a scheme to use their businesses Kauser Enterprises LLC-USA, Brush Locker Tools, and North Haven Tools of Connecticut, and Kauser Enterprises in Karachi, Pakistan, to fulfill equipment requests sent by an unnamed co-conspirator residing in Pakistan. The defendants used the address of a Connecticut grocery store or one of the defendants’ residence in Littleton, Massachusetts as the stated end destination for the goods, shipped under the name of their companies. Kamran Khan, and perhaps Muhammed Ismail, often resided in Karachi and operated the Kauser Enterprises, Pakistan location. The unnamed co-conspirator worked for his own company or companies and was an illicit procurement agent filling orders on behalf of the Pakistani Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), and the National Institute of Lasers and Optronics (NILOP).
Topic:
Crime, Law, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, and United States of America

4. Correlating a Country’s Economic Output with its Level of Export Controls

Author:
David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, Allison Lach, Bridget Leahy, and Andrea Stricker
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
The Peddling Peril Index (PPI) for 2017 is a strategic export control ranking of 200 countries, territories, and entities produced by the Institute.1 It evaluates states as to the effectiveness of their strategic export control systems. In this report, we evaluate the countries ranked in the PPI according to their Volume of Exports and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), both absolute and per capita2. This evaluation uses data on volume of exports and GDP, measured in U.S. dollars, as published by the United Nations and the World Bank. The nature of the exports for each country was not evaluated. The report focuses on the top and bottom 25 percent of countries by export volume (100 countries), GDP (100 countries), and GDP per capita (100 countries). It finds that six countries in particular deserve additional scrutiny due to their weak export controls and high volume of exports. They have very low PPI scores, meaning they do not have adequate export controls in place.3 They are: Indonesia, Nigeria, Kuwait, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Iran (Islamic Rep. of). Two additional countries, Colombia and Egypt, are identified as having relatively high GDP or GDP per capita, but exceptionally low PPI rankings. In general, countries with lower GDP per capita did worse in PPI performance, which highlights the need to tailor export controls in these countries to their resources. Chapter 12 of the PPI report describes several ways in which to do so, ensuring that the countries would have basic but adequate strategic export controls in place.
Topic:
GDP, Economy, Exports, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Colombia, Egypt, and Nigeria

5. Case Study: Fake Defense Contractor Indicted for Exporting Military Related Drawings to Turkey

Author:
Hanah Joudi and Andrea Stricker
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
On September 5, 2018, the owner of a New Jersey defense contracting firm, Ferdi Murat Gul, was indicted by a grand jury in the United States District Court in the District of New Jersey on charges of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), and conspiracy to violate the AECA. Gul, a Turkish citizen, is the principal owner, chief executive officer, and general manager of two U.S.-based businesses: an alleged defense contracting company, Bright Machinery Manufacturing Group Inc. (BMM), and an alleged manufacturing company, FMG Machinery Group (FMG), and also holds ownership interests in a manufacturing company in Turkey, HFMG Insaat (HFMG). From October 2010 to June 2015, BMM was awarded approximately $7 million in 346 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) contracts to manufacture military parts in the United States and provide them to DOD customers, such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. But according to the indictment, in reality, BMM was a front company set up with the purpose of defrauding the United States. The parts it manufactured included those “for torpedoes for the U.S. Navy, bomb ejector racks and armament utilized in U.S. Air Force aircraft, and firearms and mine clearance systems used by U.S. military personnel abroad.” Allegedly, Gul and two unnamed, un-indicted co-conspirators falsely claimed that BMM manufactured these parts in the United States. However, the indictment alleges that BMM illegally exported technical military drawings to manufacture the parts in Turkey, and then sold the parts – some of which had “design flaws and non-conformities and were unusable” – to U.S. customers.
Topic:
Crime, Illegal Trade, and Military Contractors
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

6. What is new in the Iran Nuclear Archive?

Author:
David Albright
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
The Nuclear Archive seized by Israel in Iran contains much new information not previously available to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or Western governments about Iran’s past work on nuclear weapons under the so-called AMAD project. I have reviewed much of the information gathered by the IAEA about Iran’s past nuclear weapons programs and it is compelling, but this information has many gaps and is unable to allow for conclusions about the current program and its intentions. The archive fills in many of these holes, and overall, according to the Israelis, it presents a relatively complete and alarming picture of Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts, and in far more detailed than previously available.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Science and Technology
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

7. Technical Note on a Timeline for North Korean Denuclearization

Author:
Institute for Science and International Security
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
On May 28, 2018, the New York Times reported on a technical roadmap for North Korean denuclearization written by Stanford University professor and scientist Siegfried S. Hecker and colleagues Robert L. Carlin and Elliot A. Serbin. While we greatly respect the work of Dr. Hecker and colleagues, we disagree on the up to 15-year timeline put forth for completing full denuclearization. Our assessments are based on verified dismantlement in other countries. If North Korea agrees to denuclearize and to cooperate fully, admittedly big “ifs,” then verified dismantlement of the key parts of its nuclear weapons program can happen in parallel and be accomplished in as little as about two years. Gaining assurance that North Korea is not hiding relatively small but significant amounts of plutonium, enriched uranium, or nuclear weapons will take longer than two years and will likely fall to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to handle as part of bringing North Korea into compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. This whole process could take several more years, as the IAEA insists on accounting for even grams of nuclear explosive materials, as it should. Decommissioning operating reactors and plutonium separation plants will also take years longer. But within a few years, all the declared nuclear weapons and stocks of plutonium and enriched uranium could be verifiably eliminated, and all key facilities identified and rendered unable to operate. Moreover, the verification process can include a sufficient estimate of the amount of plutonium and enriched uranium North Korea has produced, allowing a first order check on whether North Korea has declared all its nuclear weapons. Of course, this process could take longer, but such a process should not be structured in a way that invites North Korea to go slowly and delays the date when North Korea demonstrates it intends to get rid of its nuclear weapons. The past two major negotiations with North Korea are a cautionary tale for avoiding a drawn-out process, where the most difficult decisions are left to the future.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Nuclear Power, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
Asia and North Korea

8. Nuclear Infrastructure and Proliferation Risks of the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt

Author:
Sarah Burkhard, Erica Wenig, David Albright, and Andrea Stricker
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
Apart from Saudi Arabia, which our Institute views as currently the largest proliferation risk in the Middle East, three key neighbors of Iran also warrant intensive study as to their nuclear capabilities and plans, safeguards and obstacles to proliferation, and future proliferation risks. After Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Turkey, and Egypt are seen by the Institute as states in the Middle East most poised to seek advanced nuclear capabilities in response to a resurgent nuclear Iran, or as the limitations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) conclude or otherwise end. Egypt has the most experience of the three in working with nuclear materials and facilities under efforts dating back decades. Turkey may pose the greatest risk as far as surprise proliferation given the state of political affairs in that country and growing impulse of President Erdogan to consolidate power. The UAE, which was the first Middle Eastern country to adopt a so-called “gold standard” of renouncing enrichment and reprocessing, will be a country to watch for reversing course on its pledge. Each of these countries has varying security concerns with regard to Iran, and each has nuanced domestic goals that could propel proliferation attempts. A common recommendation for all three countries is that the United States and its allies should seek strong defensive relationships with those countries potentially affected by the end of JCPOA limits; others include the United States should work to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities in the region and use national intelligence and diplomatic capabilities to detect and work to reverse proliferation if it emerges. A summary of findings on each country follows, with a technical look at their emerging nuclear capabilities and plans, the security context with regard to Iran, status of their safeguards and obstacles to proliferation, and recommendations for preventing the spread of advanced nuclear capabilities in the region.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Infrastructure, Nuclear Power, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates

9. Strengthening the Counter-Illicit Nuclear Trade Regime in the Face of New Threats: A Two-Year Review of Proliferation Threats Associated with the Middle East

Author:
David Albright, Andrea Stricker, Sarah Burkhard, and Erica Wenig
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
The United States’ and associated global export control regime is losing ground due to several global events and trends underway in the United States and the Middle East. The developments at home and abroad are reducing controls and oversight over the flow of commodities vital to the development of nuclear weapons. Unless these trends are reversed, U.S. efforts to stem and stop nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and elsewhere will weaken. Events contributing to this greater proliferation danger include: 1) relaxed U.S. export control regulations and greater emphasis on global trade with streamlined exchange of intellectual property and commodities, including nuclear commodities; 2) on-going questions over the strong regulation of sensitive trade to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs; and 3) the expected actions of additional states to obtain nuclear capabilities to counterbalance Iran. This report provides findings from four studies that were part of a two-year Institute for Science and International Security review which identified threats to the United States’ and interconnected global export control regime and actions to take now to mitigate damages. The review found that U.S. policy goals should include strong efforts to restrict the flow of sensitive technologies to the Middle East where proliferation and security concerns are currently high. This includes examining its own export control reforms and repairing new or ongoing deficiencies that contribute to the spread of sensitive military or other technologies. It should work to negotiate or otherwise impose the extension of limitations on Iran’s nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), since the legitimization of Iran’s advanced nuclear program exacerbates proliferation concerns. It should counter illicit nuclear and missile trade in the Middle East and elsewhere, which could support nuclear weapons development. The United States should affirm its strong defensive commitment to allies such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Turkey, and Egypt, while working against their development or import of advanced fuel cycle capabilities. The United States should also support the implementation of strong controls and transparency measures in the Middle East to ensure that burgeoning civilian nuclear programs remain peaceful, such as commitments not to enrich or reprocess, implementation of the Additional Protocol, and provision of secure, lifetime fuel supplies for nuclear reactors. It should monitor via national intelligence capabilities any concerning research or imports by Middle East nations that could signify proliferation intentions, and use all available diplomatic or coercive means to prevent additional nuclear proliferation. Finally, the United States and its allies should work to reduce Middle East security tensions and develop threat reduction efforts more broadly.
Topic:
Nuclear Power, Nonproliferation, Trade, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
Middle East

10. Transfer of Firearms on U.S. Control Lists Raises Proliferation, Terrorism Concerns

Author:
Andrea Stricker and David Albright
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Science and International Security
Abstract:
On September 19, 2017, Reuters reported that the Trump administration is in the final stages of deciding about the transfer of three categories of items (Categories 1-3) controlled by the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List.1 Those categories include firearms, ammunition, and artillery. These items are currently controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, administered by the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, but would be moved to the Commerce Control List under the Export Administration Regulations, which is administered by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security.2 The planned transfers would finish a proposed Obama administration reform under the Export Control Reform Initiative that was halted due to opposition from U.S. federal law enforcement agencies.3 The transfers are being hailed as an export promotion program, but the potential risks to U.S. national security are dire. There are a few key problems with the proposed transfers that the administration should be aware of, which could contribute to the proliferation of U.S. firearms worldwide to nefarious countries and to terrorists.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Terrorism, Weapons, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America