Today US Secretary of State Colin Powell will present America's case against Iraq to the UN Security Council. His appearance will come a week after Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei -- the chiefs of the UN inspectors -- demonstrated their inability to fulfill their mandate.
Faced with reports of their failure to cooperate with the heads of the two UN inspection teams, the Iraqis have abandoned their description of the inspectors as independent professionals. Amir Rashid, the former head of the Iraqi military industry and an adviser to President Saddam Hussein, now openly describes the inspectors as spies.
It was this Iraqi attitude of implacable hostility that, in 1998, forced UN weapons inspectors to leave the country, leading to today's confrontation. In view of that precedent, and what has happened in Iraq since Blix and ElBaradei have filed reports that contain some troubling surprises.
The UN's Resolution 1441 requires Iraqi disarmament in terms of actual weapons of mass destruction and the ability to make them. This is where the inspectors have focused so far.
But Resolution 1441 also empowers the inspectors to gather intelligence about Iraq's weapons and weapon-making capabilities through in-depth interviews with Iraqi experts, either inside or outside the country, but certainly without Iraqi-government minders present. To assure the experts that they could talk without fear, the resolution gave the inspectors the authority to bring entire families out of the country.
Control of access to Iraqi experts has always been essential to uncovering the truth about weapons and weapon programs. Without independent access, the Iraqi government retains total control of the information supplied to inspectors. In fact, after inspections were suspended in 1998, Iraq worked tirelessly to build an impenetrable wall around the people responsible for its weapons programs. The small community of Iraqi experts was put under a harsh security regime. Some have been murdered; others have been imprisoned. Security officials keep constant tabs on the whereabouts of family members.
For the most part, these measures have succeeded. The outside world currently knows little about the inner workings of the Iraqi weapons program. Since 1998, there has not been a single defection from the upper levels of the program, despite low pay and substandard living conditions -- deteriorating medical care, erratic electricity supplies and a ban on travel.
Incredibly, neither Blix nor ElBaradei pressed for interviews with scientists outside Iraq, although they are fully aware that this is the only safe way to conduct effective inquiries. Both men understood disarmament as simply the removal of weapons and equipment, if and when they were found. Understanding the system that produces these weapons, and finding the means to disable this system, has not been on their agenda.
As a result, Iraq's refusal to cooperate in making the scientists available for interviews -- the key to its entire strategy of denial -- was mentioned only in passing at the end of the inspectors' reports.
The fact that this entire exercise has told us nothing about Iraq's weapons infrastructure has simply been filed away for future reference.
The inspectors even managed to falter when they stumbled across hard evidence of Iraqi cheating. For example, the inspectors found a dozen chemical weapons warheads in mint condition in a relatively new warehouse, but minimized the significance of their discovery by arguing that the warheads were empty.
Never mind that storing warheads in this way is simply an elementary protocol of proper handling procedures. Storing warheads that are filled with chemicals would be dangerous and wasteful.
Because the chemicals are likely to corrode the warhead over time, extended storage has a high probability of leakage and degradation of the weapon. But Blix dismissed this as "not a serious problem," and did not require Iraq to produce the poisons to be used to arm the warheads.
ElBaradei was even more accommodating.
Relying solely on radiation detection equipment at various sites and some environmental samples -- but without interviewing a single scientist in private, he declared that there was no evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.
This is a lamentable repeat of the International Atomic Energy Agency's performance in both 1990 and 1994, when, under the leadership of Blix, Iraq was given a clean bill of health on nuclear weapons development. Only after the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and head of the Iraqi military industry, did Blix get the clues to uncover the actual workings of Iraq's ambitious program.
Most shockingly, the inspector's reports failed to state clearly and unequivocally that Iraq remains unwilling to disarm. Neither Blix nor ElBaradei was willing to suspend the inspections until Iraq provides forthright, open cooperation.
These gentlemen inspectors fail to understand a fundamental point: to disarm a thuggish, murderous regime you need strict enforcement. Any concession will be interpreted as weakness.
Iraq's government knows exactly what it needs to do to hide its weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the inspectors' reports make one thing clear: they will not take the bold steps that the international community needs to expose Iraqi cheating.
Khidhir Hamza is a former adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Organization and former director of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS