News

Syria Chemical Weapons Update: Front Companies for Procurement – 2013

Syria’s chemical weapon stockpile is reported to be one of the largest in the Middle East. According to a study prepared by French intelligence agencies, Damascus is understood to possess over 1,000 tons of chemical agents and precursors. This stockpile is thought to include several tens of tons of VX, several hundred tons of mustard agents, and several hundred tons of sarin. The Washington Post reports that the majority of the initial substances for Syria’s VX and sarin are stored separately, not in their mixed, final form.

The U.N. mission that investigated the August 21st chemical attack in the Ghouta area of Damascus concluded that sarin was the nerve agent employed, although it did not indicate who was responsible. The U.S. government has stated flatly that the attack was launched by Syrian government forces.The U.N. mission also found that the attack was made with artillery rockets. The investigators found evidence pointing to a variant of the M14 artillery rocket as well as to the 330 mm caliber artillery rocket.

In addition to artillery rockets, Syria’s arsenal of chemical-capable delivery vehicles includes missiles and aerial bombs. French intelligence agencies report that Syria’s chemical-capable missiles include the SS-21 short-range ballistic missile as well as several variants of the SCUD ballistic missile, including the SCUD-B and the SCUD-C.

The U.S.-Russian Agreed Framework and Syria’s CW Infrastructure

Despite the size of Syria’s stockpile, and its recent use against civilians, developments since the August 21st attack have been encouraging. In September, the United States and Russia jointly developed a framework for destroying the stockpile. The framework calls for eliminating the stockpile “in the first half of 2014,” as well as for the “unfettered right” of inspectors to examine any location in Syria. These points were incorporated into a UN Security Council resolution on Syria adopted on September 27th.

The challenges facing the inspectors will nevertheless be considerable. Inspectors will need to work in the midst of a volatile civil war while trying to determine where throughout the country the weapons have been dispersed. In order to accomplish this task, they will require the close cooperation of Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC), which built and oversees the stockpile.

According to the U.S. government, the SSRC is responsible for both the development and production of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons, and for their delivery vehicles. According to the Wall Street Journal, the SSRC’s elite Unit 450 has spent months scattering Syria’s CW munitions across the country to as many as 50 sites in an effort to protect them from possible U.S. attack. A report released recently by the Los Angeles Times puts the total number of storage and production sites at roughly 45. While the Syrian government’s cooperation so far has been encouraging, the number of sites underscores the need for vigilance as inspectors carry out their mission. Furthermore, it is still not clear how deep the inspectors will go into the SSRC’s procurement operation, which is discussed below.

Origins of Syria’s CW Program and the Current Procurement Operation

Declassified U.S. intelligence documents indicate that before 1983, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia provided Syria with chemical agents, delivery systems, and relevant training. By the mid-1980s, Syria had begun a quest for self-sufficiency, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service. However, U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Syria’s CW effort is still not self-sufficient, and that it relies on “foreign sources for key elements of its CW program, including precursor chemicals.”

The SSRC is in charge of procuring these elements, using front companies and subsidiaries to do so. Below is a list compiled by the Wisconsin Project of entities reported to be linked to procurements on behalf of the SSRC. The list is not comprehensive:

Expert Partners. Listed by the European Union as a “proxy” for the SSRC; deals in dual-use goods prohibited by the EU to Syria.

Megatrade. Listed by the European Union as a “proxy” for the SSRC; deals in dual-use goods prohibited by the EU to Syria.

Handasieh General Organization Engineering Industries. Listed by the United States as acting on behalf of the SSRC; linked to the SSRC’s efforts to acquire equipment and technology for SCUD missiles.

Business Lab. Listed by the United States as acting on behalf of the SSRC, and as attempting to procure pinacolyl alcohol, which can be used to prepare a nerve agent; listed by the European Union as a front company for the SSRC for the acquisition of sensitive equipment.

Industrial Solutions. Listed by the United States as acting on behalf of the SSRC; listed by the European Union as a front company for the SSRC for the acquisition of sensitive equipment.

Mechanical Construction Factory (MCF). Listed by the United States as acting on behalf of the SSRC, and as acquiring equipment for producing solid propellant for rockets and missiles; listed by the European Union as a front company for the SSRC for the acquisition of sensitive equipment.

Higher Institute for Applied Sciences and Technology (HIAST). An SSRC subsidiary, HIAST provides training to SSRC engineers; it has also played a minor role in SSRC procurement in the past.

Environmental Studies Center (ESC). Intended recipient of chemical detection equipment and coats for chemical protection shipped from North Korea; “appears to be linked” to HIAST, according to U.N. experts.

Further investigation of these and other SSRC affiliates will provide important insight into how Syria developed its chemical weapons stockpile.

More on the North Korean Vessel Seized in Panama

The Chong Chon Gang is not the only North Korean vessel traveling to Latin America

On July 12, authorities in Panama boarded and searched the Chong Chon Gang, a North Korean-flagged cargo vessel returning from Cuba and preparing to transit the Panama Canal. The search is ongoing but so far has revealed military cargo, apparently including components for missile systems, hidden under a load of sugar.

The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control has analyzed the voyage history of the Chong Chon Gang and related vessels over the past decade. According to the data, last month’s visit to Cuba is only the most recent of at least three voyages to Central and South America that the vessel has made. In August 2008, the Chong Chon Gang made another transit of the Panama Canal (from Atlantic to Pacific), and in October 2009 it stopped at a port in Santos, Brazil, before heading through the Mediterranean for stops in Ukraine and Turkey.

The data also show that the Chong Chon Gang is not the only North Korean vessel calling at ports in Latin America. At least two vessels, the O Un Chong Nyon Ho and the Mu Du Bong, docked in Cuba in May 2012 and May 2009, respectively. Both made voyages similar to the one just made by the Chong Chon Gang. Two other vessels, the Ryong Gun Bong and the Ap Rok Gang, have also made recent transits of the Panama Canal.

All of these vessels operate in a classic shell company network. In the case of the Chong Chon Gang, the registered owner is Chongchongang Shipping Co., Ltd., a company that does not appear to hold any other vessels. However, the company of real interest is the vessel’s manager: Pyongyang-based Ocean Maritime Management Co. This company is affiliated with more than a dozen other vessels, including all of those listed above. The pattern is common: a company is set up to act as a vessel’s nominal “owner,” but is in fact controlled by a much larger company. Iran has followed a similar pattern in seeking to evade international sanctions on its shipping sector.

Panama has called in United Nations experts to examine whether the Chong Chon Gang’s cargo constituted a breach of U.N. sanctions on North Korea. This would not be the first time that North Korea is found to be violating U.N. sanctions by shipping arms; but this publicized interdiction in Latin America is a first. It confirms the scope of North Korea’s proliferation reach and the need for global vigilance.

Table of Iran’s Principal Nuclear Facilities

The table below lists information about facilities in Iran’s declared nuclear infrastructure.

FacilityPurposeLocationStatusSupplier
Uranium Minesextraction of uranium oreSaghand
Gchine
operationalallegedly China
Yellowcake Production Plantsproduction of uranium concentrateArdakan and Bandar Abbasoperational or under construction
Uranium Conversion Plant (UCF)uranium conversionIsfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTC)operationalChina supplied blueprints
Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP)uranium enrichment with gas centrifugesNatanzoperationalA.Q. Khan network provided centrifuge blueprints and components
Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP)uranium enrichment with gas centrifugesNatanzpartially operationalA.Q. Khan network provided centrifuge blueprints and components
Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP)uranium enrichment with gas centrifugesnear Qompartially operational
Heavy Water Production Plantproduction of heavy water; used as a moderator in nuclear reactorsArakoperationalRussia helped with know-how
Heavy Water Research Reactor (IR-40) (40 MWt)production of radioisotopes; by-products include plutoniumArakunder construction
Light Water Power Reactor (1,000 MWe)electricity productionBushehrcompleted, not operatingGermany and Russia
Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) (5 MWt)radioisotope productionTehran Nuclear Research CenteroperationalUnited States
Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories (JHL)research, including on uranium metal developmentTehran Nuclear Research Centeroperational
Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility (MIX Facility)radioisotope productionTehran Nuclear Research Centeroperational
Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP)manufactures fuel for the Arak reactorIsfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTC)operational
Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant (FPFP)manufactures fuel for the TRRIsfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTC)operational
Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) (30 kWt)reportedly for isotope productionIsfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTC)operationalChina
Heavy Water Zero Power ReactorresearchIsfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTC)operationalChina
Light Water Sub-critical Reactor (LWSCR)researchIsfahan Nuclear Technology Center (ENTC)operationalChina

India Missile Milestones: 1947-2012

1947: Dr. Vikram Sarabhai establishes the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL), which will later become a national center for space research, supported primarily by India’s Department of Space.

1962: The Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), established one year earlier as an extension of the Special Weapon Development Team (SWDT), is moved to Hyderabad to work on missile design and development.

1962: The Indian Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR) is established under the auspices of the Department of Atomic Energy.

1963: INCOSPAR establishes the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS).

November 1963: A U.S.-produced, solid-propellant Nike-Apache rocket is launched from Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station. The launch is part of an international effort under the United Nations. It is later followed by 350 U.S. French, Soviet and British rockets launched between 1963 and 1975.

1964: The Centre National d’ Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) conclude a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for CNES to supply four Centaure rockets with payloads for vapor cloud experiments. For its part, DAE will manufacture in India, under license, the Belier and Centaure types of sounding rockets.

1965: India establishes the Space and Technology Center (SSTC) in Thumba.

1967: The Satellite Telecommunication Earth Center is established in Ahmedabad.

1967: India launches its first sounding rocket, Rohini-75.

1969: The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is formed under the Department of Atomic Energy.

1970: India and the Soviet Union sign a MoU on Collaboration in the Organization of Rocket Sounding of the Atmosphere by Soviet Meteorological Rockets at Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station.

1972-1982: DRDL establishes missile-related infrastructure, including aerodynamic, structural and environmental test facilities, liquid and solid propulsion facilities, fabrication engineering facilities, control, guidance, FRP, and computer facilities.

June 1972: The Space Commission and Department of Space are established and ISRO is brought under the Department of Space.

1975: India launches its first satellite, Aryabhata.

1977: India and France sign a Cooperation Agreement in the Field of Space Affairs.

1979: Bharat Dynamics Ltd. becomes India’s guided missile headquarters.

March 1979: A Centaure-2 type rocket is launched from Thumba, as part of an agreement and program begun in 1974. The rocket carries Bulgarian and Indian equipment for exploration and measurement in space of proton and electron fluxes.

1980: India conducts the second experimental launch of its SLV-3 after its failed initial launch in 1979, and succeeds in placing the Rohini satellite into orbit.

1982: The Vikram Sarabhai Space Center (VSSC) successfully launches a Centaure rocket under the joint cooperation of India, West Germany, and Austria.

1983: India’s Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP) begins, with more than 60 public and private organizations involved.

September-October 1984: A senior Indian delegation led by the Deputy Minister for Electronics, Dr. Sanjeevi Rao, visits the Soviet Union to purchase high-powered computers for India’s defense and nuclear industry. The Soviet Union agrees to supply its latest-generation “Elbrus” computer system to India after 1986.

1986: India’s Scientific Advisor to the Defense Minister Dr. V.S. Arunachalam announces that scientists at DRDL have successfully developed and tested a high-thrust, liquid-fueled rocket engine that generates a thrust of 30 tons and is capable of lifting a payload to a height of 600 km into space.

February 1988: India conducts the first test flight of its surface-to-surface Prithvi ballistic missile, under a program headed by the DRDL.

March 1988: India launches its first operational remote sensing satellite, IRS-1A.

April 1988: ISRO signs a cooperation agreement with the European Space Agency.

1989: India conducts a test launch of its first medium-range ballistic missile, called the Agni. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi states “The Agni is an R&D vehicle, not a weapons system. However, the technologies proved in Agni are deeply significant for evolving national security options.”

1991: ISRO and Russia’s Glavkosmos reach an agreement for the supply of engines and cryogenic technologies to India. Under U.S. pressure and sanctions imposed on ISRO in 1992, the agreement will be limited to the sale of seven KhimMach KVD-1 engines, each of which produces 7.5 metric tons of thrust.

1992: India acquires the ability to manufacture liquid hydrogen.

May 1992: India conducts a successful test of the third-stage motor for its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), ignited under simulated high-altitude conditions. The PSLV is a four stage vehicle that uses solid and liquid propulsion alternately.

May 1992: India stages its first successful launch of the four-stage ASLV, carrying its SROSS-C satellite into orbit, following two failed attempts in 1987 and 1988.

1994: The periodical Flight International reports that India’s Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) has for the past two years been engaged in designing a ramjet-powered, submarine-launched missile dubbed the Sagarika.

1995-1996: India suspends development of the Agni missile project.

January 1996: India conducts the first test flight of the Prithvi-II surface-to-surface ballistic missile with a range of between 250 km-350 km, far enough to reach Islamabad.

March 1996: India successfully conducts its third and final developmental launch of the four-stage PSLV, deploying a 1-ton Indian satellite into 500-mile polar orbit.

May 1997: India completes development of two variants of the Prithvi ballistic missile. A 150-kilometer range version with a heavier warhead is ready for introduction into the Army, while the 250-kilometer version with a lighter warhead destined for the air force is ready for user trials.

June 1997: Fewer than a dozen Prithvi missiles are moved close to the Pakistani border.

August 1997: The Agni missile program is revived in response to Pakistan’s test of the Hatf-III missile in July.

September 1997: India conducts the first operational launch of its PSLV-C1, deploying a 1200-kilogram Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS-1D) into orbit. In reaching 817 km circular polar sun-synchronous orbit, the PSLV was powered by four stages of alternating solid and liquid propellant.

1998: India conducts five underground nuclear tests at Pokhran, ranging in yield from less than 1 kiloton to about 45 kilotons. Defense Minister George Fernandes reportedly says that India will “inevitably” arm itself with nuclear warheads. The United States proceeds to implement sanctions, in place by November 1998, on a large number of research, development, and production entities relating to space and missile technology.

February 1999: Indian Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif meet in Lahore, Pakistan. They agree to exchange strategic information about their nuclear arsenals, to give each other advance notice of ballistic missile tests, and to increase efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.

April 1999: India conducts its first test of the nuclear-capable Agni-II missile. The two-stage solid fuel missile, which can carry a 1,000 kg payload, was successfully fired to a range of 2,000 kilometers.

May 1999: India launches a PSLV and successfully deploys an Indian remote sensing satellite and two other payloads.

July 1999: India successfully tests the Nishant, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed to conduct aerial reconnaissance of battlefields.

October 1999: Scientists from the DRDO announce they are developing the Surya, an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range exceeding 5,000 kilometers.

April 2000: India tests the medium-range Dhanush missile, a naval version of the Prithvi. It has a range of 350 km and is nuclear-capable.

August 2000: India’s Agni-II missile reportedly reaches the operational stage. India’s Defense Minister, George Fernandes, states that re-entry, guidance, and maneuverability have been tested.

February 2001: Dr. Vasudev Aatre, head of India’s DRDO and scientific adviser to the Indian Minister of Defense, announces that India is developing the Agni-III intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM). The Agni-III is anticipated to have a range of 3,500 km, improving upon the “range and capability” of the 2,100 km-range Agni-II.

March 2001: India’s Defense Minister, George Fernandes, announces that the Agni-II ballistic missile is operational and is ready for mass production after its second successful test launch in January. The 2,500 km range missile may be launched from a static launch pad or mobile launcher and offers India a nuclear second-strike capability.

March 2001: The periodical Defense News reports that India and Russia’s Central Scientific and Research Institute of Automatics and Hydraulics (TsNIIAG) are negotiating the sale of a variant of an electro-optical guided missile warhead originally developed for Scud-B ballistic missiles, which could drastically improve the accuracy of India’s ballistic missiles.

March 2001: India aborts the first attempt to launch its Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV), when computers detect that one of its four liquid-fueled strap-on booster engines is not generating the required 90 percent thrust.

April 2001: After tracing the March 2001 malfunction to a defective oxidizer line, India’s GSLV successfully launches, setting the 3,000 lb experimental GSAT-1 communication satellite into orbit. This was the first successful launch of the GSLV-Mark I and Mark II series. GSLV-Mark I and II are three stage vehicles with a combination of liquid and solid propellants. They are 49 meters tall, weigh 414 tons at the time of lift off, and have a maximum diameter of 3.4 m at the payload fairing. They can place satellites weighing between 2000-2500 kg into geosynchronous transfer orbit.

June 2001: According to the periodical Defense News, India successfully launches the PJ-10, also known as the BrahMos cruise missile, developed by DRDO and Russia’s NPO Mashinostryenia (NPOM) under a secret 1998 Indo-Russian accord. The missile has a range of 280 kilometers and may be fired from Indian and Russian mobile launchers, ships, submarines and aircraft.

July 2001: India and France reportedly sign a MoU to co-develop and co-produce battlefield surveillance radars and ballistic missiles, and for India to domestically build Scorpene submarines.

August 2001: According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, the Indian Army is to create a second missile regiment, the Strategic Rocket Regiment, to induct the Agni-II intermediate-range ballistic missile.

September 2001: U.S. President George Bush lifts sanctions against India and Pakistan imposed under the Arms Export Control Act.

December 2001: An unclassified summary of the U.S. National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) National Intelligence Estimate claims most components required for an ICBM are found in India’s indigenous space program. India could “convert its polar space launch vehicle into an ICBM within a year or two of a decision to do so.” However, the report cautions that while India is striving for self-sufficiency, it still relies “heavily” on foreign assistance. The NIC also states that India will probably not deploy its Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missile until 2010 or later.

December 2001: India successfully test-fires a 250 km extended-range version of the Prithvi missile, developed for the Indian Air Force. The indigenously developed surface-to-surface missile is one of the five missiles being developed under the IGMDP. The earlier version of the Prithvi is already in service with India’s Army.

March 2002: India’s Ministry of Defense announces that the Agni-II ballistic missile has entered into production phase and will soon be inducted into the Army.

March 2002: Scientists at India’s LPSC successfully fire an upper-stage cryogenic engine for 12 minutes, the duration it will fire during actual flight. On the same day, ISRO successfully tests an improved variant of the two-meter diameter solid-propellant motor that powers the third stage of the PSLV. Improvements include “optimization of the motor case and nozzle and increased propellant loading.”

April 2002: Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that, according to U.S. intelligence sources and contrary to the claims of Indian officials, the first test of a single-stage variant of the Agni was a failure. The missile flew its anticipated range of 700 km, but the warhead failed to separate.

June 2002: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in its Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions states that India “still lacks engineering or production expertise in some key missile technologies.” The report adds that during 2001 Russia and Western Europe remained the main sources of missile-related and dual-use technology to fill these gaps.

July 2002: According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, Indian defense officials claim that India has acquired two Green Pine radar systems from Israel, but say they have had little success in developing a missile defense capability against a possible Pakistani attack.

December 2002: The CIA in its Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions states that India was among the countries supplying assistance to Libya’s ballistic missile program.

January 2003: India has allocated $1 billion to the DRDO for the development of hypersonic missile systems, powered by an indigenously developed cryogenic engine fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

January 2003: The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approves the creation of a Strategic Forces Command (SFC) to manage and administer all nuclear and strategic forces. The Nuclear Command Authority (NCA), comprised of a Political Council and an Executive Council, will be responsible for India’s nuclear arsenal.

January 2003: India reportedly places under its SFC two operational missile groups of the Indian Army, which possess the 150-250 km-range Prithvi and the 2,500 km-range Agni nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

May 2003: India conducts the second launch of its GSLV, lifting a 1,800 kg experimental communications satellite. Unlike the first flight, when the GSLV’s Russian-made cryogenic upper stage burned out four seconds too soon, this launch occurred without incident. ISRO announces that once declared operational, the GSLV will “make the Indian space program a self reliant one.” This was part of the GSLV-Mark I and Mark II series.

May 2003: The Indian periodical Vayu announces that with the lifting of “restrictions imposed by collaborators,” India’s Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) has been cleared for missile exports. BDL manufactures a variety of missiles including the Prithvi-I and Prithvi-II surface-to-surface missiles.

August 2003: R. N. Agarwal, the former Director of the Agni missile project and currently the Director of the Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL), states that the carbon composite content of the new Agni variants will be increased from 35 to 80 percent making them lighter and able travel longer distances. Agarwal says that the Agni’s re-entry heat shield is entirely made up of carbon composite.

October 2003: India clears the short-range Agni-I and medium-range Agni-II surface-to-surface missiles for the Army.

December 2003: Indian Defense sources indicate that the BrahMos cruise missile has been configured for launch from submarines. Submarine-to-surface launch is one of the four BrahMos designs, which are anticipated to include air-to-surface, ship-to-surface, and surface-to-surface. The missile was launched successfully from a surface ship and travelled 290 km to its target.

January 2004: India and the United States agree under the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership with India (NSSP) to expand cooperation in civilian nuclear programs, civilian space programs, and high-technology trade, including expanded dialogue on missile defense. This agreement initiates three major steps: removal of ISRO from the Department of Commerce Entity List, removal of export license requirements for items subject to Export Administration Regulations EAR99, and establishment of a presumption of approval for all items not controlled for nuclear proliferation reasons.

March 2004: India successfully test-fires an “improved” version of its Prithvi-II surface-to-surface ballistic missile with an extended-range of 250 km and “much higher accuracy,” according to a defense ministry official.

September 2004: India conducts the first operational flight of its GSLV, lifting a 1,950 kg spacecraft. This was part of the GSLV-Mark I and II series.

October 2004: India conducts a launch of its single-stage, Prithvi-III missile.

November 2004: India successfully test-fires the 350 km-range Dhanush missile, marking the induction of the system into the Navy.

December 2004: The Russian Federal Space Agency says that it will continue cooperation with India in the development of an oxygen-hydrogen booster for space rockets.

December 2004: India and Russia sign 10 agreements on space, defense, and aviation, including an agreement to jointly cooperate on satellite manufacture and launch under the Russian Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS). Russia’s Federal Space Agency head, Anatoly Perminov, states that India’s military use of the GLONASS system, which could help improve the accuracy of Indian missiles, has not been ruled out.

February 2005: President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam states before Parliament that the BrahMos missile “has been successfully tested … and is ready for induction” into India’s military.

May 2005: ISRO’s four-stage solid and liquid propellant PSLV-C6 successfully propelled two satellites into polar sun synchronous orbit. The Spacecraft Control Centre of ISTRAC at Bangalore will continuously monitor the CARTOSAT-1, which is a cartographic satellite mounted with two cameras with 2.5 meter spatial resolution and 30 km coverage, and the HAMSAT, which is a micro-satellite intended for radio transmission.

May 2005: India’s Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, passes the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Bill, which bans proliferation of mass destruction weapon and missile technology.

May 2005: India has reportedly added the short-range Agni-I and intermediate-range Agni-II to its Strategic Forces Command arsenal.

May 2005: Agni program director, Dr. R. N. Agarwal says that the Agni-III, India’s long-range ballistic missile designed to be capable of hitting targets 3,000 to 3,500 km away, will be ready for flight testing by the end of 2005.

June 2005: The Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Bill receives presidential assent.

June 2005: India’s VSSC, which is run by ISRO, has begun work on its first hypersonic wind tunnel (HWT).

July 2005: A joint venture between Russia’s Mashinostroenie Scientific Industrial Association and India’s DRDO has begun mass production of the BrahMos cruise missile. The Indian Navy has placed the first order for the missile, which is also anticipated to be fielded by the Russian Navy. The baseline version is an anti-ship missile, which also may be fired from air platforms.

August 2005: India’s Defense Secretary Yogendera Narain states that India has acquired a Green Pine radar from Israel for “advanced research,” after three to four years of discussions.

August 2005: The U.S. Department of Commerce removes from the Entity List ISRO subordinates: ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC), ISRO Intertial Systems Unit (IISU), and Space Applications Center.

October 2005: India and Pakistan’s Foreign Secretaries sign a formalized agreement on notification at least 72 hours ahead of ballistic missile tests. Contained within the agreement is a bilateral pledge not to set up any missile test launch site within 40 km of the Line of Control or the international border.

January 2006: ISRO successfully tests a prototype of the Supersonic Combustion Ramjet (SCRAMJET) engine at VSSC at Thiruvananthapuram. SCRAMJET is an air- breathing rocket system which uses the atmospheric oxygen from its surroundings to burn the stored on-board fuel to produce forward thrust.

July 2006: India reportedly conducts an unsuccessful test of its nuclear-capable Agni-III ballistic missile from the Wheeler Island facility off the coast of Orissa. The missile crashed into the Bay of Bengal, falling 1,000 km short of its target.

July 2006: India conducts the second operational flight of the GSLV (GSLV-F02) from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SDSC) SHAR, but its satellite fails to reach orbit. This was part of the GSLV-Mark I and II series.

November 2006: The BrahMos cruise missile is inducted into the Indian Defense forces.

January 2007: ISRO successfully launches two Indian satellites, the Cartosat-2 and Space Capsule Recovery Experiment (SRE-1), along with an Indonesian satellite and an Argentinian satellite, using its PSLV-C7. The combined payload of the four satellites is 1,292 kg.

April 2007: India successfully test-fires the nuclear-capable Agni-III ballistic missile from Wheeler Island. This was its first successful test.

July 2007: According to the Calcutta Telegraph, Advanced Systems Laboratories, a DRDO lab, is developing a new cruise missile named the Nirbhay (the fearless). The Nirbhay is expected to have the capability to be launched from land-based, sea-based, and air-based platforms.

July 2007: India reveals that it has successfully tested the Sagarika submarine launched cruise missile (SLCM). According to DRDO sources, the Sagarika has a range of 1,000 km and has been accepted for induction by the Indian navy.

March 2008: Parthasarathy Sudarshan, the owner of Cirrus Electronics, pleads guilty to illegally exporting 500 controlled microprocessors and other electronic components from the United States to Indian government entities involved in India’s strategic weapons programs. Recipients included VSSC and Bharat Dynamics Ltd., two Indian entities involved in ballistic missile production, and the Aeronautical Development Establishment.

May 2008: India successfully tests the Prithvi-II ballistic missile from ITR at Chandipur as part of an army training exercise. The missile is launched with an improved inertial navigation system.

September 2008: Siddabasappa Suresh, an Indian national, and Rajaram Engineering Corporation, an Indian corporation, are charged in a U.S. court for the illegal export of over 100 controlled goods from the United States to Indian government entities involved with India’s ballistic missile program from 2001-2003. The exports have an estimated value of $136,000. Included in the indictment are six shipments to VSSC of instruments used in the development of missile delivery systems.

September 2008: India and Russia agree to begin joint development of a follow-on to the BrahMos cruise missile, the BrahMos-II. The BrahMos- II will be a hypersonic missile able to fly at speeds of over Mach 5.

October 2008: The Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft is successfully launched from Shriharikota using the PSLV-C11.

November 2008: India successfully tests the nuclear-capable surface-to-surface Shourya missile from ITR. The Shourya is a two-stage solid propellant missile with a range of 700 km. It is 10 meters long with a 74 cm diameter, weighs 6.2 tons, and is road-mobile. This was its first successful test.

December 2008: India successfully tests the BrahMos cruise missile from a naval warship in the Bay of Bengal. This was the first time that the BrahMos was launched from a sea-based universal vertical launcher.

March 2009: India successfully conducts two tests of the BrahMos Block-II cruise missile, both from a mobile launcher at the Pokhran ranges. The new version is equipped with a homing device for greater accuracy. With these successes the BrahMos Block-II is declared ready for induction.

April 2009: According to Agence France Presse, India successfully tests an improved version of the Prithvi-II ballistic missile from ITR at Chandipur.

November 2009: India conducts a night-time test of the Agni-II ballistic missile from ITR on Wheeler Island. The test fails when the missile falters just before second stage separation and deviates from the intended trajectory.

February 2010: India successfully tests the Agni-III ballistic missile from Wheeler Island in the Bay of Bengal. With this fourth successful test, the Agni-III is declared to be ready for induction into the Indian armed forces.

March 2010: India successfully test-fires a vertically launched version of the BrahMos cruise missile. The BrahMos is cleared for induction into the Indian Air Force (IAF).

March 2010: An Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV-D01) developed by ISRO and equipped with a scramjet engine combustor module is successfully launched from SDSC, SHAR.

April 2010: The GSLV-D3 is launched with the GSAT-4 satellite on board, but does not reach orbit as a result of a failure in the vehicle’s cryogenic stage.

August 2010: The DRDO announces that Russian-built Global Navigation Satellite System (Glonass) receivers have successfully been used to enhance the accuracy of the BrahMos cruise missile.

December 2010: India successfully tests an upgraded BrahMos cruise missile, the Block III, from ITR at Chandipur. The upgraded version is equipped with improved guidance and upgraded software. This was the first successful test of the BrahMos Block III.

December 2010: According to the Hindu, India conducts an unsuccessful test of the Agni-II Prime (Agni-II P) ballistic missile from ITR at Wheeler Island. The missile deviated from its path soon after lift-off and crashed into the sea. The Agni-II P reportedly has a range of 3,000 km, up from the 2,000 km range of the Agni-II.

January 2011: The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) removes nine entities from its Entity List that are connected with India’s space and missile programs. The entities are Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Defence Research and Development Lab (DRDL), Missile Research and Development Complex, Solid State Physics Laboratory, Liquid Propulsion Systems Center, Solid Propellant Space Booster Plant (SPROB), SHAR, and VSSC.

March 2011: According to the Press Trust of India, Indian Defence Minister A. K. Antony announces that India is developing a variant of the Agni missile with a range of 5,000 km known as the Agni-V.

July 2011: India successfully tests its newest surface-to-surface missile, the Prahaar, from a road mobile launcher at ITR at Chandipur. The Prahaar is a tactical missile with a range of 150 km. It is 7.3 meters long and has a diameter of 420 mm, and can carry a payload of up to 200 kg. This was the Prahaar’s first test.

November 2011: India successfully tests the Agni-IV missile from Wheeler Island. The Agni-IV is a two-stage solid-fuel missile with a range of 4,000 km. This was its first successful test. It was previously known as the Agni-II Prime.

March 2012: India successfully tests the nuclear-capable K-15 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from an underwater launching platform off the Visakhapatnam coast. The K-15 has a range of 700 km and can carry a payload of up to 500 kg.

April 2012: India successfully tests the Agni-V ballistic missile from Wheeler Island. The Agni-V is a three-stage missile equipped with a ring laser gyro based inertial navigation system (RINS) and a micro navigation system (MINS). It has a range of 5,000 km. This was the Agni-V’s first test.

July 2012: India conducts an unsuccessful test of the BrahMos cruise missile. This was a developmental test with new components and subsystems produced in India in place of Russian parts.

September 2012: ISRO successfully launches French and Japanese satellites from Shriharikota using the PSLV-C21. This was India’s 100th space mission.

October 2012: India successfully tests the Prithvi-II ballistic missile from the test range at Chandipur. With this test India has tested all variants of the Prithvi and Agni missiles in operational conditions.

Table of Iran’s Ballistic Missile Arsenal

The table below sets forth what is publicly known about the size and capability of Iran’s nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

NameRangePayloadPropulsionSourceCEPStatus
Scud B (Shahab-1)up to 300 km770-1,000 kgliquid fuel, single stageLibya, North Korea~1 kmdeployed
Scud C (Shahab-2)~500 km~700 kgliquid fuel, single stageNorth Koreadeployed
Shahab-31,300 km~750 kgliquid fuel, single stageRussia, North Korea~3 kmdeployed
Shahab-3 variantsup to 2,000 km750-1,000 kgliquid fuel, single stagetested successfully
(Qadr, Ghadr)
BM-252,500 kmliquid fuel, single stageNorth Korealimited number delivered
Safir2,000 km (estimated if used as a missile)1,000 kgliquid fuel, two stageoperational
(space launcher)
Sejilup to 2,500 km1,000 kgsolid fuel, two stagetested 

A History of Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program

Iran’s ballistic arsenal is one of the largest in the Middle East, and, according to the Director of National Intelligence, many of Iran’s missiles are “inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload.” Iran has made important technical strides in recent years with regard to missile development: it has successfully placed three satellites into low earth orbit using its own two-stage launch vehicle; it has built and successfully tested multi-stage missiles; it has improved missile guidance; and it has improved and diversified the fuel used to propel its missiles. These developments allow Iran to extend the range of its missiles and to deploy and fire them more quickly. Iran has also worked to ensure survivability of its missiles: they can be mounted on mobile launchers and deployed to newly built silos.

Iran’s arsenal of liquid- and solid-fueled ballistic missiles has grown steadily. The Shahab-3 ballistic missile has been deployed for several years. Iran is believed to have fielded several hundred, which have a range of about 1,300 km, and to developed variants of the Shahab-3 with an extended range. Iran has also displayed and successfully tested the solid-fueled Sejil, a two-stage ballistic missile with an estimated range of over 2,000 km. These missiles could be adapted to carry a nuclear warhead.

Iran’s rapid growth in missile prowess has led to increased concern about the country’s intentions. According to Israeli engineer Uzi Rubin, (see interview with Iran Watch) Iran could be building a fleet of long-range missiles that, armed with conventional warheads, might serve a “saturation” strategy. A salvo of such conventionally-armed missiles against an Israeli city, for example, could substitute for Iran’s skeletal air force. Given that many of Iran’s ballistic missiles are inherently capable of carrying nuclear payloads, Iran may also be developing a long-range nuclear weapon delivery system. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating evidence that Iran may have worked on re-designing a missile re-entry vehicle for its Shahab-3 missile to accommodate a nuclear warhead.

This essay traces the history of Iran’s missile effort, explains where Iran managed to find foreign help, and reviews efforts to hinder Iran’s missile progress.

Early Missile Ambitions

Iran’s determination to acquire and produce ballistic missiles grew out of its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Tehran found itself ill-prepared to retaliate against Iraq’s missile attacks on Iranian cities. Tehran decided that, for its own protection, it had to achieve self-reliance in missile production.

Scud B and Scud C

Iran’s first efforts to achieve this aim focused on the import and production of short-range Scud-type missiles. In 1985, the then-head of Iran’s Parliament, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, led a high-level delegation to Libya, Syria, North Korea, and China. As a result of the trip, Iran obtained Scud missiles from Libya and North Korea, and later acquired rocket components and know-how from both North Korea and China.

Iran’s first batch of Scuds (known as Scud Bs) arrived from Libya in 1985. These single-stage, nuclear-capable, Soviet-origin missiles use liquid fuel and can fly about 280-300 km when carrying a 770-1,000 kg warhead. Before long, Iran had depleted its small supply. It then turned to North Korea in hope of finding a new supplier. Tehran offered to help finance Pyongyang’s missile program in exchange for technology transfer and an option to buy North Korean missiles as soon as they came off the production line.

The first batch of North Korean Scud Bs was delivered in July 1987, and it was reported that the delivery took place even before the missiles were available to North Korea’s own army. Over the next seven months, Iran imported 90-100 missiles, most of which were promptly used in combat. According to the U.S. Defense Department, Iran fired nearly 100 Scuds at Iraq between 1985 and 1988.

After the war ended, Tehran continued its missile efforts. By late 1990, Tehran had negotiated to buy North Korea’s newest missile offering, the Scud C. U.S. intelligence began to detect shipments of North Korean Scud C missiles moving to Iran in 1991. The liquid-fuel Scud C is longer and wider than the Scud B, which suggests that the fuel tanks were expanded to hold more propellant. It has an estimated range of more than 500 km when carrying a 700 kg warhead. According to press reports, Iran ordered some 200 Scud Bs and Scud Cs from North Korea in 1991. Iran also succeeded in test-firing what U.S. intelligence identified as a Scud C in 1991.

In early 1993, an additional North Korean shipment of Scud Cs, along with several launching pads, was reported by the Israeli media. According to U.S. intelligence, Pyongyang also supplied Scud production technology. “Iran’s relationship with North Korea follows the usual pattern,” said a U.S. State Department official at the time, “you first buy entire missiles and the kits to assemble missiles, and then you learn to make them on your own – designs and blueprints come with the package.” According to the official, North Korean specialists worked on the ground in Iran to help Iranian scientists master the basic steps of Scud production. In 1993, Iranian Minister of Defense Akbar Torkan announced that “our technological capability is such that if we require similar missiles [to the Scud-B] then we can manufacture them ourselves.”

According to The Middle East Military Balance, an annual survey of military might published by Israel’s Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, Iran was already thought to have acquired or built some 300 Scud B missiles and 100 Scud Cs by 1994. The Central Intelligence Agency, in a report on missile proliferation in 2003, estimated that Iran possessed “a few hundred” short-range ballistic missiles at that time. According to a threat assessment in 2012 by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Iran’s inventory of ballistic missiles has grown to be among the largest in the Middle East.

Liquid Fuel Technology

Shahab-3

In July 1998, Iran first tested its imported version of North Korea’s medium-range No-Dong missile. This single-stage, liquid-fueled, road mobile, nuclear-capable ballistic missile became known as the Shahab-3 in Iran. According to Iranian officials and U.S. and Russian technical experts, the original Shahab-3 could carry a 1,000 kg payload 1,300 km. Iran subjected the missile to at least seven test flights, with mixed results, between July 1998 and July 2003, when Iran declared the missile operational and delivered it to the armed forces. After these initial steps, Iran has continued to test variants of the missile. According to Uzi Rubin, Iran tested a longer-range version of the missile, in 2004, with a much revised baby bottle-shaped reentry vehicle. Variants of the Shahab-3, including the Ghadr (Qadr), have been tested several times since then. Iran claims that these variants have a greater range (up to 2,000 km) and throw weight (750 – 1,000 kg), as well as improved accuracy.

The Shahab-3, like the North Korean No-Dong missile from which it is derived, is a scaled-up version of the Scud B and Scud C missiles, and shares the Scud’s weaknesses. The Scud B is only accurate to within about a kilometer of its target at a range of 300 km. Because accuracy diminishes with range for a given guidance system, the accuracy of the Shahab-3 at a range of 1,300 km has been estimated at no better than three kilometers of its target, making it of little use as a battlefield weapon. With such low accuracy, it could not be counted on to hit troops or even an airfield. Iran is believed to have fielded several hundred 1,300 km Shahab-3 missiles. However, according to a 2009 assessment by the U.S. Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Iran has fewer than fifty launchers for all variants of the Shahab-3.

BM-25

In November 2007, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that North Korea had sold Iran a missile with a range of 2,500 kilometers. This appeared to confirm earlier press reports that Iran had acquired the BM-25, a modified version of the Soviet SS-N-6, which is a single-stage, liquid-fueled, submarine-launched ballistic missile with a range of 2,400 to 3,000 km and the ability to carry a nuclear warhead.

Space Launch Vehicle

In October 2005, Russia launched Iran’s first satellite, the Sina-1, on a Russian rocket. From that point, Iran began to pursue the technology needed to launch a satellite into space on its own. February 2008 saw the inauguration of an Iranian space center in Semnan Province, marked by the test launch of Iran’s Kavoshgar 1 research rocket. Iran’s first space launch vehicle, the Safir, failed during an August 2008 flight test, but the following February, Iran demonstrated how rapidly it was progressing by successfully launching the two-stage Safir space rocket, and placing Iran’s first domestically-built satellite, Omid, into low earth orbit.

Iran followed with a second successful satellite launch in June 2011 (the Rasad), and a third in February 2012 (the Navid Elm-o Sanat), in both cases using the Safir. After the first launch, U.S. officials admitted “grave concern” over the achievement and cautioned that the capabilities necessary for the space launch could be applied toward developing long-range ballistic missiles. According to Iranian media reports, the Safir is 22 meters long, has a diameter of 1.25 meters, and weighs 26 tons. This diameter would be able to accommodate a nuclear warhead, although the rocket has so far carried only satellites weighing between 15 and 50 kg into low-earth orbit. In February 2010, Iran unveiled a larger space launch vehicle, called the Simorgh. Iran claims that this carrier could place a 100 kg satellite into a 500 km orbit. And in January 2011, Iran inaugurated ten laboratories for testing space structures and complete rocket systems. These facilities reportedly feature testing rigs for rocket sections a thermal test rig for heat shields, and fixtures for aeroelasticity testing; hey will allow Iran to test ballistic missile systems, as well as space launchers.

As a result of the launches, and of Iran’s expanding missile-relevant infrastructure, international concern over Iran’s ballistic missile program has increased exponentially. According to the findings of a joint assessment by U.S. and Russian technical experts, the successful launch showed that Iran “can exploit low-thrust rocket motors to build a two-stage rocket, and that it has qualified engineers who are able to make good use of the technology that is available to them.” According to the U.S. Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Iran’s space launch vehicle could “serve as a testbed for long-range ballistic missile technologies.” The U.S.-Russian joint assessment calculated that “the Safir could be modified with a different upper rocket stage so that it could carry a warhead weighing roughly 1,000 kg to a range of about 2,000 km.”

Solid Fuel Technology

In addition to its Scud and Shahab missiles, which rely on liquid fuel technology, Iran has developed solid fuel technology, which is more useful militarily.

Short-range Missiles

One of Iran’s earliest steps in this direction was to produce the “Mushak” short-range surface-to-surface missile. A U.S. official compared this primitive solid-fuel missile to the unguided Soviet Frog missile and to the Pakistani Hatf 1 missile, which flies about 80 km. The first Mushak, also known as the Iran-130, was test-fired in early 1988, and was designed to fly to a maximum range of 130 km. By March 1988, five Mushak missiles had been fired at Iraq during the War of the Cities. And by August 1988, Tehran had test-fired a 160 km-range Mushak and announced that mass production would soon follow. Iran claimed that the Mushak was designed and produced without foreign support, but Chinese assistance was suspected.

Iran also possesses the solid-fueled, Chinese-made, 150 km-range CSS 8 (also called the Tondar 69) and a second solid-fuel missile called the Fateh 110. Both are short-range, tactical missiles. Iran claims to have successfully flight tested the Fateh 110 in September 2002. It is reportedly a single-stage missile with at least a 200 km range. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has served as head of Iran’s Parliament and as President of Iran, asserted that Iran itself produced the solid fuel propellant for the missile. In addition, then-Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in January 2000 that Iran had commissioned projects to produce the solid fuel ingredients HTPB resin, aluminum powder and potassium chlorite at the Ministry of Defense’s Education and Research Institute. The Aerospace Industries Organization, which reportedly manages a number of missile plants, claims to be capable of producing “many types of liquid and solid propellant.” According to an Iranian media report, the Aerospace Industries Organization opened a plant to mass produce the Fateh 110 in mid-September 2002, after completing a successful test flight. Iran has reported a number of successful tests of the Fateh 110 since then.

An upgraded version of this missile was allegedly delivered to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Air Force in September 2010. And an anti-ship variant of the Fateh 110, called the Khalij Fars, has also been tested. According to a 2012 report to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence, this missile would allow Iran to threaten military and commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

Sejjil

On May 20, 2009, Iran successfully tested the Sejjil-2, a two-stage, solid-fuel, surface-to-surface missile. It appaers to have been successfully tested several times since then. U.S. officials confirmed Iran’s claim that the missile’s range is between 2,000 to 2,500 km. A May 2009 joint threat assessment by U.S. and Russian technical experts estimated the rocket motors for each of the two stages are alike except for their length. The assessment also estimated an overall weight of roughly 21 tons, if the missile were carrying a 1-ton warhead, which the Sejjil “should be able to carry…to a range of about 2200 km.” Further advances on the Sejjil continue. Iran announced that it test-fired an upgraded version in December 2009. According to an Iranian official, this version boasted a shorter launch time.

Matine Warhead to Missile

In 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that it had been shown documents containing evidence of high explosives testing, and work done to redesign the inner payload chamber of the Shahab-3 re-entry vehicle to accommodate a “nuclear device.” This effort was known as “Project 111.” In November 2011, the Agency reported that Iran may have explored a number of missile warhead designs suitable for delivering a nuclear payload. The Agency said it was “increasingly concerned” about activities in Iran “related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” Iran has refused the Agency’s request to address these allegations, claiming that they are based on fabricated evidence.

International Sanctions

Apprehensions about the objectives of Iran’s ballistic missile program have given rise to international sanctions. In 2006, the U.N. Security Council adopted resolution 1737, which banned the supply of materials and technology to Iran that might aid nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. It also asked countries to freeze the assets of certain companies and individuals. Three subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions, 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), and 1929 (2010) increased sanctions and designated additional companies and individuals for their involvement with Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

All together, the resolutions asked countries to freeze the assets of many of Iran’s key missile companies. These included Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG), Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group (SBIG), and Fajr Industrial Group (all subordinate entities of Iran’s Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO)). Also sanctioned were Ya Mahdi Industries Group (another AIO subordinate) for international purchases of missile equipment; Parchin Chemical Industries (a branch of Iran’s Defense Industries Organization), which produces solid propellant for missiles; Niru Battery Manufacturing Company (a DIO subsidiary), which manufactures power units for Iranian missile systems; Sanam Industrial Group (subordinate to AIO), for purchasing equipment for Iran’s missile program on behalf of AIO; and Electro Sanam Company, Ettehad Technical Group, Joza Industrial Co., and Safety Equipment Procurement (all front companies for AIO and linked to Iran’s ballistic missile program).

Sanctions adopted by the European Union and the United States have gone farther, targeting not only dozens of individuals and firms involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program, but also banks and transport companies linked to procurement and financing for this program.

Foreign Suppliers

The success of the Iranian missile program and the speed of its development would not have been possible without extensive foreign assistance, notably from North Korea, Russia, and China. While North Korea furnished the basic hardware for liquid-fueled rocket propulsion, Russia supplied materials, equipment, and training. China supplied help with guidance and solid-fueled rocket propulsion. According to a 2012 report to Congress by the Director of National Intelligence, Iran remained dependent on foreign suppliers for obtaining important missile components.

North Korea

As noted above, North Korea furnished the basic building blocks for Iran’s liquid fuel, Scud-type missile effort. Iran received both complete missiles and the plants to build them. In effect, North Korea served as Iran’s off-shore missile development site. Many of Iran’s missiles, the BM-25, the Shahab-3 and the Scud B and C, have come directly from North Korea, either in the form of components or finished missiles. In May 2011 a U.N. panel of experts reported that Iran and North Korea were suspected of exchanging ballistic missile technology by using regular scheduled Air Koryo and Iran Air flights, in violation of sanctions on both countries.

The U.S. State Department has repeatedly sanctioned the Changgwang Sinyong Corporation (also known as Korea Mining Development Trading Bureau or KOMID), North Korea’s main missile exporter. In May 1996, it levied sanctions against Changgwang Sinyong and Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics. Since 2000, Changgwang has been sanctioned continuously for proliferation activities with Iran. Changgwang was also reportedly the source of 12 No-Dong missile engines that arrived in Iran from North Korea on November 21, 1999. The engines were most likely intended for use in the Shahab-3.

China

For years, Beijing has been a major supplier of battlefield and cruise missiles to Iran. In 1987, Iran purchased the Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missile and then acquired the more capable C-802, a Chinese anti-ship missile that Iran test-fired in 1996 from one of its ten Chinese-built “Houdong” patrol boats. During the 1990s, Iran reportedly acquired Chinese CSS 8 surface-to-surface missiles, which can carry a 190 kg warhead up to 150 km.

China has also outfitted Iran with solid fuel missile technology. Beijing’s help appears to have started in the 1980s, during Iran’s work on the Mushak missile, described above. In 1998, the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (known as the Rumsfeld Commission after its chair, Donald Rumsfeld) reported that China had already “carried out extensive transfers to Iran’s solid-fueled ballistic missile program.”

In addition, Iran has received missile testing and guidance assistance from China. In June 1996, the chairman of a Congressional hearing cited U.S. intelligence findings that China had already “delivered dozens, perhaps hundreds of missile guidance systems and computerized tools to Iran.”

In response to such transfers, the U.S. State Department has sanctioned a number of Chinese firms for engaging in proliferation activities with Iran. In June 2006, the U.S. Department of the Treasury added the China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC) to the Specially Designated National (SDN) list, freezing its assets under U.S. jurisdiction, for the sale of goods controlled under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) to the Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group (SBIG). CPMIEC markets the “M-family” missile, liquid and solid rocket motors, precision machinery, and a variety of tactical missiles; it supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency. . The firm, like a number of other Chinese firms, is a repeat offender.

A number of other Chinese firms engaged in missile-related work have also been punished by the United States for proliferation activities with Iran, including the China Shipbuilding Trading Company; Beijing Alite Technologies Company; and LIMMT Metallurgy and Minerals Company Ltd.

The Chinese government has pledged to improve its proliferation posture, notably by committing not to assist any country in the development of a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, and by adopting a set of export control laws. In 2004, China also began talks with officials from the Missile Technology Control Regime on Beijing’s national export control system and China’s possible membership in the regime. China has since adopted export control legislation similar to the controls of the Missile Technology Control Regime, but the 2012 Director of National Intelligence report to Congress found that “Chinese entities – primarily private companies and individuals – continue to supply a variety of missile-related items to multiple customers, including recent exports to Iran and Pakistan.”

Russia

Despite Russia’s adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime since 1995, Russian entities have continued to help Iran develop missiles. In October 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency reported to Congress that Russian assistance had “helped Iran save years in its development of the Shahab-3.” And in its report covering missile proliferation during the first half of 2003, the CIA observed that Russian assistance was also supporting “Iranian efforts to develop new missiles and increase Tehran’s self-sufficiency in missile production.”

In July 1998, the State Department imposed sanctions on seven Russian entities for “proliferation activities related to Iran’s missile programs.” They were the INOR Scientific Center, Grafit Research Institute, Polyus Scientific Production Association, Glavkosmos, MOSO Company, Baltic State Technical University, and Europalace 2000.

Reportedly, INOR contracted in September 1997 to supply special alloys for long-range missiles, including steel for missile casings and foil to shield missile guidance components. In addition, Russia’s arms exporting agency, Rosoboronexport, was allegedly involved in Iran’s Shahab program. Rosoboronexport also reportedly helped to construct a wind tunnel, in 1997, which can be used to design and test missile components. Russian assistance to Iran’s Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) was thought to include solid rocket fuel technology and the design of guidance and propulsion systems. Europalace 2000 reportedly was caught shipping Iran 22 tons of stainless steel that could have been used to make fuel tanks for Scuds, while Polyus was suspected of supplying navigation and guidance technology. Grafit was said to make material used to coat missile warheads, and U.S. officials reportedly suspected that Iranians were being trained in missile guidance and propulsion at Baltic State Technical University and through a joint missile education center called Persepolis. These suspicions culminated in the Russian investigations and the U.S. sanctions. The United States imposed additional sanctions on Rosoboronexport for proliferation activities in 2006 and 2008.

How Close Is Iran to Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and What Has the World Done to Slow Iran’s Progress?

Remarks at the AIPAC Policy Conference

I’ve been asked to address two questions:

I. How close is Iran to acquiring nuclear weapons?

II. What has the world done to slow Iran’s progress?

I. How close is Iran to acquiring nuclear weapons? An equally important question is how close is Iran to acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, because at that point all that will remain between Iran and nuclear weapons is a decision by Iran’s leaders and a bit of time.

  • The assessment of my organization is that Iran will have limited nuclear weapon “breakout” capability by the end of this year, meaning the ability to produce fuel for one or more nuclear weapons in a short time.
  • To be clear, this doesn’t mean a nuclear arsenal by the end of the year – more work would be necessary. Rather, the basic requirements for constituting the arsenal should be in place, including material and infrastructure.
    • By May, we estimate that Iran will have enough uranium enriched to the level of 20 percent for one weapon if the fuel is enriched further to weapon grade
    • By end of this year, we estimate that Iran may have enough of this 20 percent material for a second weapon if further enriched.
    • The assumptions we use to establish these predictions are described on Iranwatch.org and are available from the homepage.
  • In both cases, further enrichment to bring the uranium stockpile from 20 percent to weapon grade would be required. But numbers are misleading. Enrichment to 20 percent accomplishes 90 percent of the work necessary to bring natural uranium to weapon grade. Little additional time is required.
  • Iran’s work to build a stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium has no real purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program. But a stockpile of several hundred kg of this material, which could be brought to weapon grade quickly, is essential for establishing the ability to “breakout” and make nuclear weapons whenever desired.
  • To constitute this stockpile, Iran is using as feed the low-enriched uranium (power reactor-grade, enriched to the level of 3.5%) that it has accumulated at Natanz. Iran now has over 5,000 kg of this material. And the Natanz plant continues to produce more of this reactor-grade uranium, at a rate of about 5.2 kg each day.
  • The bulk of this work is being done at the Fordow plant, which should be fully operational by the end of this year.
    • Fordow now has about 700 centrifuges and will have nearly 3,000 centrifuges by end of this year, all of which will be devoted to making 20 percent material.
  • Once Fordow is fully equipped, and assuming that the rate of enrichment there mirrors that at Natanz, Iran could have enough 20 percent material for 4-5 weapons by the end of 2013.
  • Fordow is a troubling and telling choice for this work.
    • It is a series of chambers built into a mountain.
    • The plant was built secretly and its existence was only revealed by President Obama in 2009.
  • Iran began enriching uranium at Fordow late last year. Fordow has allowed Iran to triple its production of 20 percent material and this development explains why there is so much attention on Iran right now.

Making weapon-grade fuel is widely accepted to be the most difficult component of a nuclear weapon program; about 90 percent of the work needed to make nuclear weapons is devoted to making the fuel. The other two components, weaponizing the fuel and delivering the weapon, are generally expected to be ready and waiting. Let’s look at where Iran is on these latter two components.

Iran’s efforts related to weaponization are as follows:

  • Iran appears to have had a structured weaponization program through 2003 and a less structured one since then. Much of this work is laboratory scale, which is not easy to detect. An example of the difficulty of detection is the Iraqi site of Al Atheer. This site was unknown to U.S. intelligence and so was not bombed by the United States during the first Gulf War. Following the war, international inspectors discovered it to be a major facility for nuclear weapon development.
  • According to allegations reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which the IAEA considers credible, Iran has:
    • Conducted high explosives testing simulating a nuclear explosion
    • Studied and experimented with an initiation system used in nuclear detonation
    • Developed specialized detonators used in nuclear weapons
    • Worked on making and shaping high-enriched uranium metal components
    • Has had access to an implosion bomb design
  • The IAEA concludes that the only logical application for many of these activities is nuclear weapons.
  • Concerns arising from these allegations are further heightened by the fact that Iran has refused to explain these allegations, or to work with international inspectors to help resolve questions about alleged military links to its nuclear program.
  • Just today, the IAEA director general said that his Agency has “serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”

What is Iran’s ability to deliver a nuclear weapon?

  • Iran has fielded several hundred Shahab 3 liquid-fueled missiles, which have a range of between 1,300 and 2,000 km. This is far enough to reach Israel and U.S. forces in the region.
  • There are credible allegations that Iran has worked on a warhead design for this missile, which is large enough to accommodate a nuclear payload.
  • Iran has also tested successfully a solid-fuel missile called Sejil, with a range of about 2,200 km, which is also large enough to accommodate nuclear warhead.
  • All Iran’s missiles are regularly tested and publicly displayed.
  • Iran has been working to ensure survivability of its missiles: they can be mounted on mobile launchers and Iran has also built silos.
  • So, it is safe to assume that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon, a delivery system will be ready and survivable against preemptive strikes.

Thus, when we look at this work on weaponization, this progress on a delivery system, and the nearing ability to fuel one or more warheads, we should not be particularly reassured by the U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran has not yet decided to build nuclear weapons. The facts on the ground speak for themselves.

II. What has the world done to slow Iran’s progress? All of Iran’s enrichment work is being done in violation of several binding U.N. Security Council resolutions. Iran has also been found in non-compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

What has the world done in response to Iran’s defiance? The response has been a combination of diplomacy and sanctions. So far, this two-track approach has not yielded the desired result. It has not convinced Iran to forgo nuclear weapons, despite the increasing economic and political cost sanctions have imposed.

Diplomatic efforts have been ongoing since 2003:

  • Britain, France, and Germany (the “EU-3”) managed to negotiate two temporary freezes of enrichment work, in 2003 and 2004. The United States was occupied in Iraq at the time and did not support these efforts, which eventually failed.
  • P5+1 (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany) then tried to strike grand bargain with Iran, offering political and economic benefits in exchange for a temporary halt to enrichment and other nuclear activities.
  • Beginning in 2009, President Obama made an effort to reengage with Iran that lasted a year and a half, during which efforts to pressure Iran were suspended. It was all for naught. Iran rejected the olive branch.
  • There was also a narrower effort to forge agreement in the form of a nuclear fuel swap deal.
  • Other countries (Brazil and Turkey) have tried to broker limited compromise.
  • It now appears that Iran and the P5+1 may return to the negotiating table.
  • Overall, nothing offered during past negotiations has satisfied Iran.

A sanctions regime has been implemented in tandem with diplomacy. These sanctions started out narrowly, being aimed at Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, and have been progressively broadened to target Iran’s economy.

  • One aspect of sanctions has been an asset freeze on entities, and a travel ban on key individuals. Initially, these penalties were targeted at firms and individuals linked to proliferation. More recently, the penalties have targeted banks, insurance companies, shipping companies, oil and gas companies, and entities linked to the Revolutionary Guards. At this point hundreds of entities have been blacklisted by the United States, and also by the European Union, Canada, South Korea, Japan, and Australia.
  • Restrictions have also been placed on Iran’s access to sensitive technologies. The list of banned goods has been expanded over time and now includes all nuclear and missile related items, plus advanced conventional weapons.
  • Most recently, sanctions were broadened to include:
    • penalties against firms that invest in new energy development projects in Iran
    • penalties against firms that support Iran’s energy sector, including those that facilitate the sale of Iranian oil, or buy oil or petrochemical products from Iran, or are involved in any transaction with an Iranian bank, including the Central Bank and including oil purchases.
    • Europe is preparing to implement an embargo on Iranian oil in July.
    • Additional measures are under consideration in the U.S. Congress to further isolate Iran from the global economy.

These energy sanctions are causing hardship for Iran’s population, and they are having a crippling effect on Iran’s economy. But given the Iranian regime’s human rights record, it is safe to say that worsening the daily living condition of the population will only be important to the regime if it threatens the regime’s survival.

Sanctions must convince Iran’s leaders that the cost of continuing their illicit nuclear program exceeds its value. But the program has now “grown roots.” It is a symbol of strength for the regime, and the regime may well see a nuclear weapon capability as a lifeline to survival. The program is also close to the finish line. The cost of giving it up is now greater than ever. Therefore, any additional sanctions that could further raise the cost to Iran should be applied now. Once Iran has a breakout capability, the decision to build nuclear weapons will largely be in Iran’s hands.

Iran Chemical Milestones 1929-2011

November 1929: Iran accedes to the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.

September 1980: The Iran-Iraq War begins.

November 1983: In a communication to the United Nations, Iran alleges that it has been targeted with chemical weapons by Iraq.

1983: According to a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency study, Iran’s offensive chemical weapon program begins in response to Iraq’s use of chemical agents on the battlefield. The D.I.A. believes that the program began under the auspices of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, with some assistance from the Ministry of Defense.

April 1984: The U.N. Security Council releases a report confirming that aerial bombs with mustard gas and tabun, a nerve agent, have been used against targets in Iran.

1985: The Australia Group forms in reaction to the U.N. documented use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War. Member states pledge to harmonize export licensing for chemicals used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.

July 1987: The United States imposes controls on the export of eight chemicals, useful in the production of chemical weapons, to Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

1987: Iran is able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops using artillery shells, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

May 1988: U.N. Security Council Resolution 612 is unanimously adopted, condemning the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and calling on both sides to adhere to the Geneva Protocol.

August 1988: Iran-Iraq war ends in a stalemate.

1989: Media reports reveal that an Iranian diplomat arranged for a West German firm to purchase 210 tons of thiodiglycol from a supplier in the United States and then ship it to Iran in three installments, from March 1987 to April 1988. Reportedly two shipments totaling 90 tons successfully made it to Iran, while the third 120 ton shipment was intercepted by U.S. Customs agents. Thiodiglycol is a chemical weapon (blister agent) precursor.

March 1989: Iran allegedly acquires 60 tons of thionyl chloride from India’s government-run State Trading Corporation. Thionyl chloride is a chemical weapon (nerve agent) precursor.

March 1990: A U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report confirms Iran’s indigenous chemical weapon production capability, including sulfur mustard gas.

October 1992: The United States passes the Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act. This act opposes the “transfer to Iran or Iraq of any goods or technology… [that] could materially contribute to either country’s acquiring chemical, biological, nuclear, or destabilizing numbers and types of advanced conventional weapons.”

January 1993: Iran signs the Chemical Weapons Convention.

November 1994: The United States sanctions one Austrian, one Australian, and one German citizen under the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act of 1979, allegedly for supplying Chinese chemicals to Iran.

February 1995: The United States sanctions three entities operating in the Asia-Pacific region for chemical weapon proliferation under the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act of 1979, allegedly for supplying Chinese chemicals to Iran.

February 1996: The Central Intelligence Agency estimates that Iran has one of the largest chemical warfare programs in the developing world. Its arsenal of several thousand tons of chemical agents includes sulfur mustard, phosgene, and cyanide, which can be delivered using artillery, mortars, rockets, aerial bombs and perhaps Scud warheads. The C.I.A. also estimates that Iran is capable of producing an additional 1,000 tons of chemical agent each year.

1997: In its report to Congress on worldwide proliferation, the Central Intelligence Agency says Iran has “manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons, including blister, blood, and choking agents and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them,” and has continued to import “material related to chemical warfare” from China.

May 1997: The United States imposes sanctions on seven Chinese entities and one Hong Kong entity under the Arms Export Control Act and the Export Administration Act of 1979, for “knowingly and materially” contributing to Iran’s chemical weapon program.

November 1997: Iran ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention.

May 1998: At the Third Conference of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Iran acknowledges for the first time that it had a chemical weapon program during the Iran-Iraq war, but claims that the program was terminated after the war. The U.S. State Department assesses that Iran has not submitted an accurate declaration under the Convention and claims that Iran is attempting to “retain and modernize key elements of its CW program.”

June 2001: The United States imposes sanctions on a Chinese entity under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, reportedly for assisting in the construction of a facility in Iran which manufactures dual-use equipment that can be used to produce chemical weapons.

September 2001: Pars Company Inc. of Cary, North Carolina, pleads guilty to exporting two STX gas monitors from the United States to the United Arab Emirates and transshipping the monitors to Iran. The monitors are controlled for export by the U.S. Department of Commerce because of their possible use in the development or production of chemical and biological weapons.

May 2002: The United States imposes sanctions on two Armenian, eight Chinese, and two Moldovan entities under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 for transferring to Iran technology controlled under multilateral export control lists. Reportedly, four of these companies were sanctioned for providing chemical weapon materials.

April 2003: At the First Review Conference of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the United States accuses Iran of continuing “to seek chemicals, production technology, training, and expertise from abroad” for a chemical weapon program. The United States believes that Iran has stockpiled blister, blood, choking and perhaps nerve agents.

July 2003: The United States imposes sanctions on five Chinese and one North Korean entity under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 for transferring to Iran technology controlled under multilateral export control lists. Reportedly, some of the companies were sanctioned for selling chemicals and equipment that could be used in chemical weapons production.

October 2003: The head of the Iranian delegation to the Eighth Conference of States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention states that Iran has submitted all declarations and information required by the CWC and criticizes the continued application of Australia Group export controls to CWC States Parties.

December 2005: The United States sanctions two Indian companies under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, reportedly for the export of phosphorus oxychloride and trimethyl phosphite to Iran; both are Schedule 3 chemical precursors, according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and can be used in the production of nerve agents.

January 2006: According to The Guardian, an intelligence assessment drawing on material gathered by European governments claims that Iran has developed an extensive purchasing network for its biological and chemical weapon programs. Purchase requests and acquisitions are “registered almost daily,” according to the assessment, and target suppliers in Western Europe and the former Soviet Union.

June 2006: The U.S. Treasury Department sanctions four Chinese companies and one U.S. company for having supplied missile-related and dual-use components to Iran’s military for use in chemical weapon-capable missiles. The companies were designated under Executive Order 13382, an authority intended to financially isolate firms that proliferate weapons of mass destruction or missiles capable of delivering such weapons.

July 2009: U.S. officials reportedly accuse the Chinese company Zibo Chemet of having supplied technology to manufacture glass-lined chemical reactor vessels to the Iranian firm Shimi Azarjaam.

March 2010: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence reports that “Iran is capable of weaponizing CW agents in a variety of delivery systems,” that “Iran maintains the capability to produce chemical warfare (CW) agents,” and that Iran “continues to seek dual-use technologies that could advance its capability to produce CW agents.”

Chinese Companies Evade U.S. Trade Ban

A Report by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control

Lax enforcement of U.S. sanctions is allowing Chinese companies to continue to ship goods to the United States even after being hit with an import ban for proliferation to Iran. See Appendix listing U.S. companies that received imports from a sanctioned Chinese company since 2006. See also related story in the Wall Street Journal. (**Note: information contained in this report was presented to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in mid-December 2009. On December 31, 2009, after reviewing this information, OFAC added the name of one of the companies described in the report – “China JMM Import & Export Shanghai Pudong Corporation” – to its Specially Designated National (SDN) list.)

As the United States tries to muster support for stronger international sanctions against Iran, there is mounting evidence that the United States itself is not devoting the resources needed to enforce its own sanctions – notably against companies arming Iran. Tough laws have been enacted to punish such companies, but these laws are not being adequately enforced. In fact, the Wisconsin Project has discovered several instances in which two Chinese companies, sanctioned for arming Iran, have exploited holes in the U.S. sanctions regime.

These companies have managed to evade – and are still evading – one of the most powerful punishments the U.S. government can impose on a foreign company – to ban it from selling its goods in the United States. The purpose of the ban is to discourage a foreign company from conduct such as contributing to the spread of mass destruction weapons. By denying a foreign company access to the American consumer, our government can force the company to choose between what it can earn from exporting to the United States and what it can earn elsewhere from its sanctionable conduct. The hope is that the company will decide that exporting to the United States is better for its bottom line.

This strategy, however, can only work if the import ban is enforced. Unfortunately, in recent years more attention has been given to announcing prohibitions than to enforcing them. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which is responsible for administering and enforcing approximately 30 economic sanctions programs,[1] has seen its workload increase rapidly as new sanctions are announced and additional companies are blacklisted. Although it runs one of the U.S. government’s only effective programs for fighting weapons proliferation and publishes by far the most thorough and usable blacklists of suspect entities, OFAC has not been given nearly the resources it needs to keep up with the growth in its responsibilities. This failure to properly fund an agency widely acknowledged to play a vital role in national security is both dangerous and baffling, especially when one considers that OFAC’s 2009 budget of $32 million was roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-18C fighter jet.[2]

China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation

One tangible consequence of underfunding enforcement is that American firms have been receiving prohibited imports—probably unwittingly—from foreign firms that are barred from doing business in the United States. One such firm is China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC), a Chinese company that U.S. officials have branded a “serial proliferator” because of its long-time supply of missile technology to Iran.[3]

CPMIEC was first sanctioned by the United States in 1991 because it sold equipment for M-11 short-range ballistic missiles to Pakistan.[4] In 2002, CPMIEC was punished for missile-related sales to Iran,[5] the first in a series of sanctions that would be imposed on the company on a near-yearly basis under the then-new Iran Nonproliferation Act.[6] But these measures, while useful for drawing international attention to CPMIEC’s reckless sales, did nothing to restrict its access to the U.S. market.

In July 2003, however, CPMIEC was sanctioned by the U.S. State Department under Executive Order 12938.[7] It was the first time that CPMIEC was subjected to an import ban, a prohibition that remains in effect today. The special strength behind this measure, the part that gives it “teeth,” is the fact that the ban applies not only to CPMIEC itself, but also to any entity it owns or controls,[8] including “any subsidiaries and branches, wherever located…”[9] In June 2006, CPMIEC was also penalized under Executive Order 13382,[10] which freezes assets under U.S. jurisdiction and bans transactions with U.S. parties.[11] E.O. 13382 applies not only to the listed entity itself, but to any entity “in which it owns, directly or indirectly, a 50% or greater interest,” and applies “regardless of whether the entity itself is listed in the annex to an Executive order or otherwise placed on OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals.”[12] Yet the U.S. government has never provided the names or addresses of any such CPMIEC subsidiaries, making it difficult for American buyers to figure out their identities and comply with the law.

CPMIEC Shanghai Pudong Corp./China JMM Import and Export Shanghai Pudong Corp.

Since at least 2006, American companies have been importing prohibited goods from two CPMIEC subsidiaries. The first is “CPMIEC Shanghai Pudong Corp.,” which CPMIEC lists in English as one of its subsidiaries in a brochure obtained by the Wisconsin Project.[13] The full Chinese name of this subsidiary, which CPMIEC lists in a second brochure with both English and Chinese text, translates directly as “China Precision Machinery Import-Export Shanghai Pudong Corporation.”[14] Thus, there can be no doubt that this company is a CPMIEC subsidiary and that imports into the United States from it are banned. Nevertheless, at least four shipments of goods have passed through U.S. ports since 2006 with the full name of the subsidiary listed as the shipper. Two went to U.S. consignees: the first, to “Component Supply” in Louisville, Kentucky,[15] the second to “American Forge & Foundry” in New York.[16] The two other shipments transited U.S. ports on their way to foreign destinations.[17]

A far greater number of this company’s shipments, however, have arrived in America under an alias: “China JMM Import and Export Shanghai Pudong Corp.” Although this name may not have raised red flags when run through U.S. government screening lists, it is actually an alias for CPMIEC Shanghai Pudong Corp., described above. This fact is revealed on China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) website, which provides brief company descriptions in both Chinese and English. There, “China JMM Imp. & Exp. Shanghai Pudong Corp.” is given as the English name of a company whose name in Chinese characters translates literally as “China Precision Machinery Import and Export Shanghai Pudong Corporation.”[18] (The Chinese word for “precision” is rendered into English as “jing-mi,” so “JMM” appears to be an abbreviation for “Jingmi Machinery”).[19] Several other sources in English, such as the websites of the Canton Trade Fair and the Chinese Export Commodities Fair,[20] use the two names interchangeably, while a number of purely Chinese sources use only the “China Precision Machinery Import-Export Shanghai Pudong Corp.” version of the name, yet provide the same address and company website as the one given by China’s Ministry of Commerce.[21] In addition to these sources, the identity of the two names has been confirmed by the company itself. When asked, via email, whether the two names referred to different companies or the same company, a representative replied, “Yes, we are the same company. JMM is the abbreviation of our name.”[22]

Because it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CPMIEC, imports from China JMM into the United States are prohibited, and U.S. companies or individuals receiving these imports are subject to civil and criminal penalties. Nonetheless, bills of lading obtained by the Wisconsin Project show that China JMM has made numerous shipments to and through the United States during the past four years, including at least 79 in 2006, at least 81 in 2007, at least 94 in 2008, and at least 49 as of November 29, 2009.[23] These shipments went to 39 different American companies and consisted of a wide range of goods, from automobile parts and textiles to pet toys.[24]

CPMIEC Fuzhou Company/Sharp Industrial Company Ltd.

The second CPMIEC subsidiary that is making prohibited shipments to the United States, and that CPMIEC identifies in its English language brochure, is “CPMIEC Fuzhou Corp.”[25] CPMIEC’s English/Chinese brochure also provides the Chinese version of this subsidiary’s name, which translates directly into English as “China Precision Machinery Import-Export Fuzhou Corporation.”[26] In 2003 this subsidiary’s address, as it appeared on the company website at the time, was “3/F, Minxing Bldg., 190, 817 Northern Street, Fuzhou, China.”[27] This is the very location identified by the Treasury Department in its import ban designation of CPMIEC in July of that year, which read “wherever located, including, 3/F, Minxing Building No. 190, 817 (North) Road, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, China”.[28] Thus, there can be no doubt that this company is a subsidiary of CPMIEC.

Shipments from this subsidiary sent under the name “China Precision Machinery Imp and Exp Fuzhou Corp.” have gone through U.S. ports to foreign destinations several times since 2006. These shipments should have produced a “hit” during a search of the U.S. government’s screening lists, and should have been denied access to U.S. territory. The shipper’s name and address were a near match and perfect match, respectively, to CPMIEC’s U.S. government listing.[29]

This subsidiary has also been shipping directly to American buyers, but by using a different name: “Sharp Industrial Company Ltd.” In August 2005, the website for CPMIEC Fuzhou Corp. was changed abruptly to become the website for Sharp Industrial. Everything on the website remained exactly the same except for the new corporate name (unchanged were the name of the person to contact, the telephone number and address, graphic displays, the navigation bar, and the text describing the company).[30] China’s Ministry of Commerce continues to list the company under the name China Precision Machinery Import and Export Fuzhou Corp., but refers the reader to the website for Sharp Industrial.[31] Even the company itself has admitted that both names describe the same entity. When asked about the two names, a sales manager confirmed that the name was changed from “China Precision Machinery Import & Export Fuzhou Corp.” to “Sharp Industrial Company Ltd.,” but went on to explain that this change was in name only. She wrote: “Although we changed the name, the employees and business are same as before.”[32]

Three shipments arrived in the United States under the name “Sharp Industrial Company Ltd.” in 2008.[33] The U.S. consignee for all three shipments was “Amaury Int’l Corp.” in Miami. Amaury also received shipments from Sharp Industrial in 2007 and 2006, in each case for “twist drills” and other hardware.[34]

LIMMT Economic and Trade Company, Ltd.

A second Chinese company that has managed to circumvent U.S. restrictions is LIMMT Economic and Trade Company, Ltd. Over the past several years, LIMMT has been the target of both U.S. government sanctions and legal action in New York due to its continued proliferation to Iran.[35] LIMMT was penalized under Executive Order 13382 in June 2006,[36] and was the subject of E.O. 12938 sanctions in February 2009, which banned any import by LIMMT into the United States.[37] In April 2009, LIMMT was indicted in New York State on charges of falsifying business records and conspiracy.[38] In the indictment, prosecutors documented LIMMT’s repeated use of aliases and false names to evade U.S. sanctions.[39]

The Wisconsin Project has found what appears to be an additional alias that LIMMT is now using to continue exporting to customers in the United States. It is “Dalian Orient Pipe Components Co., Ltd.” There are several reasons to believe that this is the same company as LIMMT. First, its address, as listed on bills of lading obtained by the Wisconsin Project, is identical to the address for LIMMT that has been listed by the Treasury Department. The address is “2501-2508 Yuexiu Mansion, No. 82 Xinkai Road, Dalian, China.”[40] Second, on several bills of lading Dalian Orient Pipe lists the same address and same phone number as given on bills of lading for “Dalian Sunny Industry and Trade Co.,”[41] which has been identified as an LIMMT alias by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. State Department.[42] Finally, the pattern of Dalian Orient Pipe’s exports to one U.S. customer in particular strongly suggests that Dalian was used as an alias to avoid detection. In 2006, “Dalian Sunny Industry and Trade,” an acknowledged alias for LIMMT, made seven shipments of “carbon steel forgings” to “Coastal Flange, Inc.” in Houston.[43] Beginning in 2007, bills of lading stopped showing shipments of carbon steel forgings from Dalian Sunny to Coastal Flange and began showing shipments of the same product from “Dalian Orient Pipe Components Co., Ltd” to the same company.[44] For many of these shipments to Coastal Flange, the only difference in the bills of lading from Dalian Sunny and Dalian Orient Pipe was the shipper’s name. Other essential information remained the same, including shipper and consignee addresses,[45] “notify party” information,[46] and commodity descriptions.[47]

The example of LIMMT shows that the utmost vigilance is required to maintain trade restrictions against a company that is determined to evade them. In 2004, when LIMMT was sanctioned for the first time, the State Department provided only the company’s primary name, with no aliases or name variations.[48] Two years later, when the Treasury Department initially placed LIMMT on its list, Treasury identified four name variations.[49] In April 2009, largely as a result of LIMMT’s indictment earlier in the year, Treasury published additional names and addresses, resulting in a new total of 12 aliases and four addresses for the same company.[50] Now, in light of the emergence of “Dalian Orient Pipe,” described above, it seems that even that was not enough.

Enforcement

Any U.S. company or individual found to be violating the import ban is subject to civil penalties, including a fine of as much $250,000, and if the violation is willful, criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison.[51] In addition to actually receiving an import of goods from a banned entity, U.S. companies and individuals are also prohibited from financing, acting as a broker for, transferring, transporting, or otherwise participating in such an import, as well as any transaction that has the purpose of evading or avoiding these prohibitions.[52] None of the companies listed in the annex of this report appear to have been penalized for sanctions violations. In fact, a review of monthly reports on civil penalties imposed since 2003 under Treasury’s sanctions programs did not find any example of a U.S. company penalized for violating the import ban on CPMIEC.[53]

For the import ban to be effective, it is essential that the U.S. government identify each sanctioned company as completely as possible, including the names and addresses of all subsidiaries covered by the sanctions. For most U.S. importing companies, sanctions compliance –if done at all – consists only of checking a supplier’s name against the Treasury list or running it through interdiction software. If the search produces a “hit,” it is the importer’s responsibility to investigate further and/or contact Treasury. Yet, even the most sophisticated interdiction software is no better than the names that go into it. At present, the government is simply not providing enough data for red flags to go up when they should.

Congress needs to provide Treasury the resources and personnel required to monitor the growing number of companies sanctioned for proliferation. That is not happening today. A 2007 audit report from the Inspector General of the Treasury Department found that between 2001 and 2004, Treasury’s sanctions programs increased in number from 21 to 29, yet there was no commensurate increase in personnel to oversee them.[54] According to the testimony of a former director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, in 2004 personnel in OFAC’s Civil Penalties Division had an average individual workload of 477 cases.[55] Moreover, competing priorities such as the embargo on Cuba consumed most of OFAC’s time.[56] In April 2006, almost a year after E.O. 13382, dubbed “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters,” went into effect, only six percent of OFAC’s sanctions administration personnel (approximately three full time employees) were allocated to work on proliferation sanctions.[57] These three individuals were apparently responsible for compliance, licensing, enforcement, and civil penalties for all proliferation sanctions.[58] And although there has been a slight increase in funding for this work since 2006, it remains far below the level needed to truly enforce the import ban and other prohibitions.[59]

Without adequate personnel and resources devoted to enforcing nonproliferation sanctions, it is difficult to see how the prohibitions against even “serial proliferators” like CPMIEC and LIMMT can be real deterrents. Instead, these prohibitions will continue as mostly symbolic gestures, and the companies helping Iran will continue to evade them.

Appendix

Exports into the United States since 2006 by companies controlled by or acting for China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC)

A. Exports to the United States by the CPMIEC subsidiary China Precision Machinery Import and Export Shanghai Pudong Corp. (also known as China JMM Import and Export Shanghai Pudong Corporation)

American Consignees:

1. Great China International (Corona, California)
-12 shipments in 2009.
-26 shipments in 2008.
-22 shipments in 2007.
-28 shipments in 2006.

2. Kohler Engines (Hattiesburg, Mississippi)
-2 shipments in 2009.
-10 shipments in 2008.
-18 shipments in 2007.
-4 shipments in 2006.

3. Crystal Temptations (North Arlington, New Jersey)
-6 shipments in 2008.
-11 shipments in 2006.

4. Greenlee Textron (Southaven, Mississippi)
-5 shipments in 2009.
-9 shipments in 2008.

5. Idm Llc. (Auburn, Indiana)
-11 shipments in 2008.

6. Pettraport (North Bergen, New Jersey)
-1 shipment in 2009.
-7 shipments in 2008.

7. Ivy International Trading (Chula Vista, California)
-1 shipment in 2008.
-3 shipments in 2007.
-4 shipments in 2006.

8. Electro Mechanical Industries (Houston, Texas)
-5 shipments in 2007.
-2 shipments in 2006.

9. American Sportsman Sign (Columbia, Missouri)
-1 shipment in 2007.
-6 shipments in 2006.

10. Rockwell Automation (Madison, Indiana)
-1 shipment in 2007.
-3 shipments in 2006.

11. H + H Dist. (Ann Arbor, Michigan)
-4 shipments in 2007.

12. Bright Solutions Inc. (Troy, Michigan)
-2 shipments in 2009.
-1 shipment in 2008.

13. Convert a Ball (Sidney, Nebraska)
-3 shipments in 2008.

14. Sedco Corporation (Guaynabo, Puerto Rico)
-1 shipment in 2009.
-1 shipment in 2008.

15. International Pet Supplies and Distribution (San Diego, California)
-2 shipments in 2008.

16. Orrco, Inc. (Orrville, Ohio)
-1 shipment in 2007.
-1 shipment in 2006.

17. Textile One (Los Angeles, California)
-1 shipment in 2007.
-1 shipment in 2006.

18. Oxford Textile (Los Angeles, California)
-2 shipments in 2007.

19. Amca International Inc. (Arlington Heights, Illinois)
-2 shipments in 2006.

20. Ton Qiang Construction (Corona, California)
-2 shipments in 2006.

21. Truemark International Corp. (Stafford, Texas)
-1 shipment in 2009.

22. Boca Advanced Materials (Blue Ash, Ohio)
-1 shipment in 2009.

23. N.t.t. Fashion (Bayside, New York)
-1 shipment in 2009.

24. Global Commerce System (Compton, California)
-1 shipment in 2008.

25. Decoy Motion Masters (Rogers, Minnesota)
-1 shipment in 2008.

26. Show Off Body Art (Clarkston, Michigan)
-1 shipment in 2008.

27. Ruben Badillo Sanchez (Rincon, Puerto Rico)
-1 shipment in 2008.

28. Petra Pet Inc. (North Bergen, New Jersey)
-1 shipment in 2008.

29. E.I. Dupont De Nemours (Wilmington, Delaware)
-1 shipment in 2008.

30. Dgi, Llc (Warren, New Jersey)
-1 shipment in 2008.

31. CMC Tech (Houston, Texas)
-1 shipment in 2008.

32. Millennium Int’l Group (Hillside, New Jersey)
-1 shipment in 2007.

33. Maycrick Corporation (Cincinnati, Ohio)
-1 shipment in 2007.

34. Elizondo Inc. (Laredo, Texas)
-1 shipment in 2007.

35. Esca Inc. (Laredo, Texas)
-1 shipment in 2007.

36. Welco Lumber Corp. (South Kent, Washington)
-1 shipment in 2006.

37. Standard Hardware Inc. (Euless, Texas)
-1 shipment in 2006.

38. Giant Fabric Inc. (Vernon, California)
-1 shipment in 2006.

39. Expo Convention Contractors, Inc. (Miami, Florida)
-1 shipment in 2006.

40. Component Supply (Louisville, Kentucky)
-1 shipment in 2006.

41. American Forge and Foundry (New York, New York)
-1 shipment in 2006.

B. Exports to the United States by the CPMIEC subsidiary China Precision Machinery Import and Export Fuzhou Corp. (also known as Sharp Industrial Company Limited)

American Consignees:

1. Amaury Int’l Corp (Miami, Florida)
-3 shipments in 2008.
-3 shipments in 2007.
-4 shipments in 2006.


Footnotes:

[1] “Hundreds of OFAC Civil Penalty Cases Expired Before Enforcement Action Could Be Completed,” Audit Report (OIG-07-032), Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, March 2, 2007.

[2] Fact File, United States Navy World Wide Web site, http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1, accessed on August 18, 2009.

[3] Testimony of Stephen G. Rademaker, Assistant Secretary for Arms Control, U.S. Department of State, before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, March 10, 2005, available at http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_03_10wrtr/
rademaker_stephen_wrts.php, accessed on August 4, 2009; Testimony of Paula A. DeSutter, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, July 24, 2003, available at http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2003hearings/written_testimonies/03_07_24/tesut.htm, accessed on August 4, 2009.

[4] “Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments,” Bureau of Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department of State, August 30, 2005, available at http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rpt/51977.htm, accessed on August 4, 2009.

[5] Testimony of Paula A. DeSutter, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, July 24, 2003, available at http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2003hearings/written_testimonies/03_07_24/tesut.htm, accessed on August 4, 2009.

[6] Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, U.S. Department of State, available at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c15234.htm, accessed on August 4, 2009.

[7] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Nonproliferation, “Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures on an Entity in China, Including a Ban on U.S. Government Procurement,” Federal Register 68 FR 44832, July 30, 2003.

[8] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Nonproliferation, “Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures on an Entity in China, Including a Ban on U.S. Government Procurement,” Federal Register 68 FR 44832, July 30, 2003; “31 C.F.R. Part 539—Weapons of Mass Destruction Trade Control Regulations,” Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, available at http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.9.html, accessed on July 13, 2009.

[9] “31 C.F.R. Part 539—Weapons of Mass Destruction Trade Control Regulations,” Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, available at http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.9.html, accessed on July 13, 2009.

[10] Treasury Designates U.S. and Chinese Companies Supporting Iranian Missile Proliferation, Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury World Wide Web site, http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js4317.htm, June 13, 2006; Nonproliferation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury World Wide Web site, http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/wmd/wmd.pdf, accessed on July 14, 2009.

[11] Treasury Designates U.S. and Chinese Companies Supporting Iranian Missile Proliferation, Press Release, U.S. Department of the Treasury World Wide Web site, http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js4317.htm, June 13, 2006.

[12] “Guidance on Entities Owned by Persons Whose Property and Interests in Property are Blocked,” Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, February 14, 2008, available at http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/common/licensing_guidance.pdf, accessed on July 14, 2009; Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 69, April 13, 2009, pp. 16771-16781.

[13] CPMIEC brochure obtained by the Wisconsin Project, undated.

[14] China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corporation, undated brochure, available at NEFA Foundation World Wide Web site, http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/
US_v_WangWoodford_exhibitB.pdf, accessed on July 21, 2009.

[15] Bill of Lading (B/L: ORLCSHUSA509457E).

[16] Bill of Lading (B/L: EXDO6394190625).

[17] Bill of Lading (B/L: COHE0604455C); Bill of Lading (B/L: MOLU484949879).

[18] China JMM Imp. & Exp. Shanghai Pudong Corp., China Commodity Net, Ministry of Commerce World Wide Web site, http://ccn.mofcom.gov.cn/249702, accessed via Google cache on July 14, 2009.

[19] China JMM Imp. & Exp. Shanghai Pudong Corp., China Commodity Net, Ministry of Commerce World Wide Web site, http://ccn.mofcom.gov.cn/249702, accessed via Google cache on July 14, 2009.

[20] China JMM Import & Export Shanghai Pudong Corp., Chinese Export Commodities Fair World Wide Web site, http://www.cecf.com.cn/web/en/seller/26741934.html, accessed on July 16, 2009; China JMM Import & Export Shanghai Pudong Corporation, Canton Trade Fair World Wide Web site, http://promoter.cantonfair.org.cn/pages/
simply.aspx?version=en&corpid=0731006928&TopPage_search_bound=exp, accessed on June 24, 2009.

[21] Import-Export Representatives, Global Importer World Wide Web site, http://china/globalimporter.net/cgongqiu/35/87/1897552.html (in Chinese), accessed on July 16, 2009; China Precision Machinery Import-Export Shanghai Pudong Corporation, China Import Export Agent World Wide Web site, http://www.cniea.cn/co.asp?id=13590 (in Chinese), accessed on July 22, 2009; China Precision Machinery Import-Export Shanghai Pudong Corporation, Alibaba World Wide Web site, http://china.alibaba.com/company/detail/contact/thomaswy.html (in Chinese), accessed on July 14, 2009; China JMM Imp. & Exp. Shanghai Pudong Corp., China Commodity Net, Ministry of Commerce World Wide Web site, http://ccn.mofcom.gov.cn/249702, accessed via Google cache on July 14, 2009.

[22] Email communication with China JMM Imp/Exp Shanghai Pudong Corp, July 17, 2009.

[23] Commercial bill of lading database searches for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 shipments from shipper “China JMM,” conducted September 9, 2009.

[24] Commercial bill of lading database search for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 shipments from shipper “China JMM”; Bill of Lading (B/L: ACJJSHA08110157); Bill of Lading (B/L: CHHKXSHLGB3AY990); Bill of Lading (B/L: NAQASNYC9402481W).

[25] CPMIEC brochure obtained by the Wisconsin Project, undated.

[26] China National Precision Machinery Import & Export Corporation, undated brochure, available at NEFA Foundation World Wide Web site, http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/
US_v_WangWoodford_exhibitB.pdf, accessed on July 21, 2009.

[27] Introduction, China Precision Machinery Imp. & Exp. Fuzhou Corp. World Wide Web site, accessed via http://web.archive.org/web/20030621070233/http://www.cutting-tools.com.cn/, accessed on August 10, 2009.

[28] Recent OFAC Actions, July 30, 2003, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, available at http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20030730.shtml, accessed on August 10, 2009.

[29] Bill of Lading (B/L: DMERDFS670052880); Bill of Lading (B/L: CHHKXSHMTR3AT659).

[30] Introduction, China Precision Machinery Imp. & Exp. Fuzhou Corp. World Wide Web site, accessed via www.archive.org at http://web.archive.org/web/20050407172241/http://www.cutting-tools.com.cn on August 10, 2009; Welcome to China Precision Machinery Imp. & Exp. Fuzhou Corp. World Wide Web site, accessed via www.archive.org at http://web.archive.org/web/20050406092040/http://www.cutting-tools.com.cn on August 10, 2009; Welcome to Sharp Industrlal Company Limited, Sharp Industrlal Company Limited World Wide Web site, accessed via www.archive.org at http://web.archive.org/web/20050828153100/http://www.cutting-tools.com.cn, accessed on May 14, 2009.

[31] China Precision Machinery Import and Export Fuzhou Corp., China Commodity Net, Ministry of Commerce World Wide Web site, http://ccne.mofcom.gov.cn/html/crse/product.php?ls_fileno=10033291, accessed on July 15, 2009.

[32] Email communication with Sharp Industrial Company Ltd., July 20, 2009; Email communication with Sharp Industrial Company Ltd., July 18, 2009.

[33] Bill of Lading (B/L: PRSHMZ31973A).; Bill of Lading (B/L: PRSHMZ31615E); Bill of Lading (B/L: PRSHMZ32697F).

[34] Bill of Lading (B/L: NAQASMIA7413493W); Bill of Lading (B/L: NAQASMIA6353698W).

[35] Indictment, The People of the State of New York v. Li Fang Wei et. al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, available at http://manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2009-04-07/Indictment%20LFW%20and%20Limmt%20%20FINAL.pdf, accessed on July 24, 2009.

[36] Changes to List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Since January 1, 2006, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury World Wide Web site, http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/t11sdnew.pdf, accessed on June 14, 2006; Nonproliferation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury World Wide Web site, http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/wmd/wmd.pdf, accessed on June 14, 2006.

[37] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation,
“Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures on Two Chinese Entities and Two Iranian Entities,” Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 20, p. 5883, February 2, 2009.

[38] News Release, New York County District Attorney’s Office, April 7, 2009, available at http://manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2009-04-07.shtml, accessed on August 10, 2009.

[39] Indictment, The People of the State of New York v. Li Fang Wei et. al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, available at http://manhattanda.org/whatsnew/press/2009-04-07/Indictment%20LFW%20and%20Limmt%20%20FINAL.pdf, accessed on July 24, 2009.

[40] Bill of Lading (B/L: FGWIUMSCGG65102F); Recent OFAC Actions, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, April 7, 2009, available at http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20090407.shtml, accessed on May 12, 2009.

[41] Bill of Lading (B/L: FGWIUMSCGG65102F); Bill of Lading (B/L:FGWIUMSCGG70310F); Bill of Lading (B/L: UPSPTJN06030246); Bill of Lading (B/L: UPSPTJN06040266); Bill of Lading (B/L: DSIEJXG07064006).

[42] U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation,
“Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures on Two Chinese Entities and Two Iranian Entities,” Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 20, p. 5883, February 2, 2009; “Treasury Designates Iranian Proliferation Network and Identifies New Aliases,” Press Release, April 7, 2009, U.S. Department of the Treasury, available at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg84.htm, accessed on April 27, 2009.

[43] Bill of Lading (B/L: UPSPTJN06040266); Bill of Lading (B/L: UPSPTJN06030246); Bill of Lading (B/L: FGWIUMSCGG60217F); Bill of Lading (B/L: FGWIUMSCGG60401F); Bill of Lading (B/L: UPSPTJN06030299); Bill of Lading (B/L: FGWIUMSCGG60406F); Bill of Lading (B/L: RCKI183XINHOU02).

[44] Commercial bill of lading database search for 2007, 2008, and 2009 shipments from shipper “Dalian Sunny Industry,” conducted September 9, 2009; Commercial bill of lading database search for 2006 and 2007 shipments to consignee “Coastal Flange,” conducted September 10, 2009; Commercial bill of lading database search for 2006 and 2007 shipments to consignee “Coastal Flanges,” conducted September 10, 2009.

[45] Bill of Lading (B/L: FGWIUMSCGG60401F); Bill of Lading (B/L: RCKI206XINHOU04); Bill of Lading (B/L: UPSPTJN06030299); Bill of Lading (B/L: PUDGTJ023697).

[46] Bill of Lading (B/L: RCKI183XINHOU02); Bill of Lading (B/L: RCKI200XINHOU06).

[47] Bill of Lading (B/L: RCKI183XINHOU02); Bill of Lading (B/L: RCKI200XINHOU06).

[48] “Imposition of Nonproliferation Measures Against Fourteen Foreign Entities, Including Ban on U.S. Government Procurement,” U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Nonproliferation, Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 188, pp. 58212-58213, September 29, 2004.

[49] Recent OFAC Actions, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, June 13, 2006, available at http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20060613.shtml, accessed on August 4, 2009.

[50] “Additional Designation of Persons and Identification of New Aliases Pursuant to Executive Order 13382,” U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 81, pp. 19635-19636, April 29, 2009.

[51] “31 C.F.R. Part 539—Weapons of Mass Destruction Trade Control Regulations,” Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, available at http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.9.html, accessed on July 13, 2009.

[52] “31 C.F.R. Part 539—Weapons of Mass Destruction Trade Control Regulations,” Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, available at http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.9.html, accessed on July 13, 2009.

[53] Review of monthly civil penalties reports from 2003-2009, available at Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury World Wide Web site, http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/civpen/index.shtml, accessed on September 9, 2009.

[54] “Hundreds of OFAC Civil Penalty Cases Expired Before Enforcement Action Could Be Completed,” Audit Report (OIG-07-032), Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, March 2, 2007.

[55] “Hundreds of OFAC Civil Penalty Cases Expired Before Enforcement Action Could Be Completed,” Audit Report (OIG-07-032), Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, March 2, 2007.

[56] “Hundreds of OFAC Civil Penalty Cases Expired Before Enforcement Action Could Be Completed,” Audit Report (OIG-07-032), Office of Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, March 2, 2007.

[57] “Weapons of Mass Destruction: Stopping the Funding-the OFAC Role,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, February 16, 2006, available at www.house.gov/financialservices/media/pdf/109-73.pdf, accessed on August 11, 2009.

[58] “Weapons of Mass Destruction: Stopping the Funding-the OFAC Role,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, February 16, 2006, available at www.house.gov/financialservices/media/pdf/109-73.pdf, accessed on August 11, 2009.

[59] “Senate Report 110-129 – Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2008,” available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/
?&sid=cp110AQGta&refer=&r_n=sr129.110&db_id=110&item=&sel=TOC_27967&, accessed on August 12, 2009.

Pakistan Nuclear Milestones, 1955-2009

1955: Establishment of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC).

1965: Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto announces “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry. But we will get one of our own.”

November 1965: The 5 MWt Pakistan Research Reactor (PARR-1), fueled with highly enriched uranium (HEU), achieves criticality.

1970s: Pakistan reportedly obtains technology and equipment for the New Labs reprocessing plant from Belgium and France, with the majority coming from Belgonucleaire, according to Pakistani sources.

1971: Pakistan’s 125 MWe Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) becomes operational. According to a report from the American Nuclear Society, Canadian General Electric Co. has served as the supplier, architect-engineer, and constructor of the facility.

1972: Z.A. Bhutto gathers Pakistan’s top scientists at Multan, and orders them to build an atomic bomb.

1972: Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan (a.k.a. A.Q. Khan) reportedly begins work in Amsterdam at the engineering company Physical Dynamics Research Laboratory (FDO), which worked closely with the Urenco uranium consortium.

1974: India conducts its first nuclear test.

1976: A.Q. Khan becomes director of the Engineering Research Laboratories at Kahuta.

1976: Canada terminates the supply of technical assistance, spare parts, and fuel to Pakistan’s KANUPP nuclear facility.

April 1978: According to A. Q. Khan, Pakistan achieves its first centrifugal enrichment of uranium in Rawalpindi.

1979: The United States suspends economic and military aid to Pakistan under section 669 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, after receiving what it believes to be credible evidence of Pakistan’s covert construction of an uranium enrichment facility.

Early 1983: According to A. Q. Khan, Pakistan achieves ninety percent enrichment of uranium.

1984: Kahuta enrichment plant produces enriched uranium. Pakistan’s President General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq is quoted as saying that “Pakistan has acquired very modest research and development capability of uranium enrichment very successfully,” emphasizing that it is for “nothing but peaceful purposes.”

1984: According to A. Q. Khan, Pakistan possesses a nuclear bomb that can be detonated in one week’s notice.

1985: Congress passes the Pressler Amendment conditioning U.S. aid on whether the U.S. can certify Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device.

1986: According to a classified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report cited in the press, Pakistan has succeeded in enriching uranium to 93.5 percent at Kahuta and has been developing the mechanisms necessary for nuclear explosions.

1988: Pakistan and India agree to exchange lists of nuclear installations, as part of an agreement not to attack each others’ nuclear facilities. The first exchange occurs in January 1992.

1989: Pakistan’s 30 kW PARR-2 research reactor achieves criticality.

Late 1980s: Pakistan reportedly completes a computerized “cold test” of its nuclear weapon technology, according to retired army chief of staff Mirza Aslam Beg.

1990: France announces approval of the sale of a nuclear power plant to Pakistan, ending a 14-year embargo.

1990: President Bush can no longer certify Pakistan has no nuclear weapons. The United States suspends military aid to Pakistan.

1991: China and Pakistan conclude an agreement for cooperation in constructing a 300 MWe reactor at Chashma. The China Chongyuan Engineering Corporation (CZEC) is to execute the project for China’s National Nuclear Corporation.

1992: Pakistani Foreign Minister Shahryar Khan says Pakistan has the components and know-how to make at least one nuclear explosive “device.”

1994: German officials announce the seizure of preforms for gas centrifuge scoops destined for Pakistan.

1995: On a visit to Washington, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto says her country does not have nuclear weapons and lobbies for the delivery of American F-16 aircraft to Pakistan.

February 1996: British customs seize a shipment of Swedish laser measuring equipment intended for a Pakistani company known to be a front for Pakistan’s nuclear weapon program.

February 1996: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reveals that China covertly sold 5,000 ring magnets to Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan Research Laboratories.

September 1996: China secretly sells an industrial furnace and high-tech diagnostic equipment with military applications to “unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in Pakistan.”

December 1996: Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry announces that China will build a second nuclear power plant in Pakistan.

1997: According to former Pakistani Army Chief Mirza Aslam Beg, Pakistan has completed computer simulations of a nuclear weapon explosion.

April 1998: A 50-MW (thermal) plutonium production reactor in Khushab reportedly goes operational.

May 1998: Pakistan conducts nuclear tests in the Chagai Hills. According to American scientists the first explosion measured 4.8 to 4.9 in magnitude, corresponding to a yield of 8 to 17 kilotons. The second blast, two days later, recorded a magnitude of only 4.3, corresponding to a yield of 1 kiloton, suggesting that the test was of a smaller device or that it failed. A.Q. Khan claimed that Pakistan tested “a big bomb which has a yield of about 30-35 kilotons, and four small, tactical weapons of low yield.” He also stated that uranium was used as the fissile material and none of the explosions were thermonuclear.

June 1998: Pakistan and India announce a moratorium on further nuclear weapons tests.

June 1998: The foreign ministers of the United States and seven other industrialized countries announce that they would act together to postpone loans to Pakistan by international financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

January 1999: The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund renew lending to Pakistan after the U.S. drops its opposition to multilateral aid.

February 1999: According to Ishfaq Ahmed, Chairman of the PAEC, Pakistan is self-reliant in the production of heavy water, enriched uranium, zirconium and spare parts for its nuclear program.

May 1999: Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan visits Pakistan’s secret nuclear facilities at Kahuta and a missile factory, raising Western concerns that Saudi Arabia may be interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia denies any such intentions.

July 1999: British customs intercepts 20 tons of key components used in manufacturing nuclear weapons, including high-grade aluminum, destined for Pakistan.

August 1999: A Pakistani official claims that Pakistan can “build a nuclear weapon of any type or size, including [a] neutron bomb.”

November 1999: PAEC announces it is developing a new uranium field in Tumman Leghari. Its uranium mining project at Baghalchar is being closed because “there are no more uranium reserves in the region,” and not because of international pressure.

February 2000: Establishment of a comprehensive command and control structure for Pakistan’s nuclear forces. The components are the National Command Authority, Strategic Plans Division and Strategic Forces Commands.

March 2000: According to U.S., French, and Pakistani officials, Pakistan reportedly smuggled in a heavy water production plant based on hydrogen sulfide exchange technology and set it up in Khushab. The plant generated heavy water for the Khushab reactor that became operational in 1998.

June 2000: Pakistan’s 300 MWe Chashma Nuclear Power Plant (CHASNUPP-1) pressurized water reactor (PWR), constructed by China National Nuclear Cooperation (CNNC) and China Nuclear Construction Cooperation (CNCC), becomes operational.

June 2000: The PAEC is reportedly operating an upgraded pilot reprocessing facility at New Labs in Rawalpindi to separate plutonium from spent fuel discharged from the unsafeguarded heavy water reactor at Khushab.

2000-2002: Pakistan reportedly starts construction of a second plutonium production reactor at Khushab.

January-June 2001: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) states that Pakistan continues to acquire nuclear-related equipment and materials from a variety of sources, “principally” in Western Europe. In spite of China’s May 1996 pledge not to assist any unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, the CIA “cannot rule out” the possibility of continued contact between Chinese and Pakistani entities on nuclear weapons development.

September 2001: U.S. President George Bush lifts sanctions against India and Pakistan imposed under the Arms Export Control Act.

November 2001: Pakistan reportedly detained two nuclear scientists and begun questioning them on their alleged connections to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, who assisted in Pakistan’s uranium enrichment efforts, and Abdul Majeed, who worked at PAEC until 1999, both admit having met with Osama bin Laden and Mohammad Omar on at least three occasions in 2000, but insist these meetings were in connection with a relief agency.

January 2003: The periodical Nuclear Fuel cites unnamed sources as stating that Pakistan provided North Korea and Iran with detailed Khan Research Laboratory (KRL) centrifuge design information, stolen from the Urenco program during the 1970s and 1980s.

Early 2003: Pakistan’s Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao sign a memorandum of understanding for construction of a second 300 MWe PWR, the Chashma Nuclear Power Plant unit (CHASNUPP-2).

July-December 2003: The CIA states that Iran and Libya have previously received “designs for Pakistan’s older centrifuges, as well as designs for more advanced and efficient models, and components.”

February 2004: A.Q. Khan is fired from his government position after investigators discover that he made millions of dollars from the sale of nuclear-related blueprints and technical assistance to Iran and Libya through a nuclear black market. Khan confesses to nuclear technology and enrichment technology transfers, involving North Korea, Iran, Libya, and Malaysia, beginning in the mid-1980s.

February 2004: Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf grants a full pardon to A.Q. Khan.

March 2004: According to Nigeria’s defense ministry, Pakistan’s Military Chief of Staff, General Muhammad Aziz Khan, announces that Pakistan is considering how best to “assist Nigeria’s armed forces to strengthen its military capability and to acquire nuclear power.”

May 2004: PAEC Chairman Parvez Butt and CNNC President Kang Rixin sign a deal to build CHASNUPP-2 at Chashma, under plant-specific inspections.

June 2004: India and Pakistan announce in a joint statement their decision to establish dedicated hotlines between their foreign secretaries and to upgrade bilateral military hotlines. The improvements are to prevent misunderstandings and to help avoid an accidental nuclear war.

September 2004: Pakistan’s national legislation entitled “Export Control on Goods, Technologies, Material and Equipment Related to Nuclear and Biological Weapons and Their Delivery Systems Act, 2004” comes into force. The regulations, which carry up to 14 years of imprisonment and Rs5 million in fines, apply to Pakistani citizens at home or abroad, foreign nationals in Pakistan’s territory, as well as ground, air, or ship transport registered in Pakistan.

March 2005: The PAEC has reportedly decided to establish new laboratories and facilities to counteract the “very serious threats/problems of embargo by foreign companies towards the supply of high-precision scientific and technical equipment and material,” by requesting government approval for Rs2.5 billion to upgrade and expand the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (Pinstech).

April 2005: Construction begins on the Chashma Nuclear Power Project Unit-2 (CHASNUPP-2).

May 2005: Japan makes public its decision to lift all economic sanctions imposed on Pakistan following its nuclear tests.

August 2005: A “senior official” reportedly states that after nine months of reviewing data collected by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, a group of scientists from the United States, France, Japan, Britain and Russia have definitively matched traces of HEU found in Iran with samples obtained from centrifuge equipment provided by Pakistan to the IAEA.

August-September 2005: Pakistan’s President, General Pervez Musharraf, confirms for the first time that A.Q. Khan provided North Korea with “centrifuges – parts and complete,” amounting to “probably a dozen.” Musharraf also states that Khan may have sent uranium hexafluoride to North Korea. In making these statements, Musharraf continues to assert that the Pakistan’s military was not aware of A.Q. Khan’s activities.

Mid-2006: Pakistan reportedly starts construction of a third plutonium production reactor at Khushab.

October 2007: Pakistan’s Executive Committee of the National Economic Council has approved construction of a Chemical Processing Plant (CPP) and Nuclear Fuel Enrichment Plant (NFEP). These projects are reportedly part of the Pakistan Nuclear Power Fuel Complex to be built at Kundian, which will also include a fuel fabrication plant, a fuel-testing laboratory and a tubing plant. Work on the fuel fabrication and tubing plants is reportedly underway.

2007: The Strategic Export Control Division (SECDIV) is set up to administer export controls related to the “Export Control on Goods, Technologies, Material and Equipment Related to Nuclear and Biological Weapons and Their Delivery Systems Act, 2004”.

2007: The commercial scale plutonium reprocessing facility at Chashma is reportedly nearing completion.

January 2009: Construction of the buildings associated with the second plutonium production reactor at Khushab appears to be completed. The second reactor could start in the near future.

March 2009: According to U.S. intelligence, Pakistan continues to develop its nuclear infrastructure and expand nuclear weapon stockpiles while seeking more advanced warheads and delivery systems.

September 2009: According to one estimate, Pakistan has approximately seventy to ninety nuclear weapons.