Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intellige

What you are allowed to think and what you do think are two different things, aren't they? That's another way of saying that this forum may be NSFW, if your boss is a Republican. A liberal won't fire you for it, but they'll laugh at you in the break room and you may not get promoted. Unless you're an engineer, of course, in which your obsession with facing reality is not actually a career-disabling disability.

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intellige

Postby admin » Mon May 09, 2016 11:41 pm

Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
by Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate
Pat Roberts, Chairman; and John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman
July 7, 2004

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ

Ordered Reported on July 7, 2004

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
108th CONGRESS

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Vice Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
MIKE DEWINE, Ohio
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
CARL LEVIN, Michigan
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
BARBARA MIKULSKI, Maryland
BILL FRIST, Tennessee, Ex Officio
THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota, Ex Officio

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• I. INTRODUCTION
o A. Understanding Intelligence Analysis
 1. Developing Professional Intelligence Analysts
 2. An Analyst's Daily Taskings
 3. The Finished Product
o B. Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities
 1. What is an NIE?
 2. The 2002 NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
 3. Overall Conclusions - Weapons of Mass Destruction
o C. Iraq's Ties to Terrorism .
 1. Overall Conclusions -- Terrorism
• II. NIGER
o A. The Original Niger Reporting
o B. Former Ambassador
o C. Continuing Analysis
o D. The British White Paper
o E. The National Intelligence Estimate
o F. The Cincinnati Speech
o G. The Niger Documents
o H. The Fact Sheet
o I. The State of the Union
o J. Secretary Powell's UN Speech
o K. Niger Conclusions
• III. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM
o A. Background
o B. Nuclear Reconstitution
 1. Aluminum Tubes
 a. The National Intelligence Estimate
 b. Other Assessments of the Tubes
 2. Procurement Attempts for Magnets, High-Speed Balancing Machines and Machine Tools
 3. Iraq's Efforts to Re-Establish and Enhance Its Cadre of Weapons Personnel as well as Activities at Several Suspect Nuclear Sites
 a. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission is Expanding the Infrastructure - Research Laboratories, Production Facilities, and Procurement Networks - to Produce Nuclear Weapons
 b. Many of Iraq's Nuclear Scientists Recently Have Been Reassigned to the IAEC
 c. Renewed Regular Contact Between Saddam and the IAEC, as Well as Enhanced Security, Suggests the IAEC is Again the Focal Point of Sad dam 's Nuclear Program
 d. Activity at Several Suspect Nuclear Sites
o C. Niger
o D. Explaining Uncertainties
o E. Intelligence Agencies' Analysis on Reconstitution Prior to Publication of the NIE
o F. Analysis of Iraq's Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Disclosure
o G. Nuclear Conclusions
• IV. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM
o A. Background
o B. Baghdad Has Transportable Facilities/or Producing Bacterial and Toxin BW Agents
 1. Other Sources
 2. CURVE BALL ..
 ([DELETE]) 3. [DELETE]
 4. INC Source
 ([DELETE]) 5. [DELETE]
 6. Intelligence Community Mind Set Concerning Mobile BW Programs
o C. Baghdad Has Been Able to Renovate and Expand its Fixed Dual-Use BW Agent Production Facilities
 1. Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute
 2. Habbaniyah I Castor Oil Plant
 3. Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Production Plant
o D. We Assess That Iraq Has Some BW Agent and Maintains the Capability to Produce a Variety of BW Agents
 1. Smallpox
 2. Other Agents
o E. In the Absence of UN Inspectors, Iraq Probably Has Intensified and Expanded Research and Development in Support of Iraq's BW Program. Baghdad Probably Has Developed BW Agents
 ([DELETE]) 1. Research Activity [DELETE]
 2. Reported BW Testing Near Qadisiyah Reservoir
o F. We Assess That Baghdad Also Has Increased the Effectiveness of its BW Arsenal by Mastering the Ability to Produce Dried Agent
o G. Iraq's Capability to Manufacture Equipment and Materials ... and to Procure Other Necessary, Dual-use Materials ... Makes Large-scale BW Agent Production Easily Attainable
 1. Foreign Procurement
 2. Indigenous Iraqi Efforts
o H. The Nature and Amounts of Iraq's Stored BW Material Remain Unresolved by UNSCOM Accounting
o I. We Judge That We Are Seeing Only a Portion of Iraq's WMD Efforts, Owing to Baghdad's Vigorous Denial and Deception Efforts
o J. Explaining Uncertainties
o K. Intelligence Agencies' Analysis of Iraq's Biological Weapons Program Prior to Publication of the NIE
o L. Biological Conclusions
• V. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CW) PROGRAM
o A. Background
o B. Baghdad Has Chemical Weapons
o C. We Judge That Iraq Is Expanding its Chemical Industry Primarily to Support Chemical Weapons (Cw) Production
o D. We Assess That Baghdad Has Begun Renewed Production of Mustard, Sarin, GF (Cyclosarin), and IT
o E. Although We Have Little Specific Information on Iraq's CW Stockpile, Saddam Probably Has Stocked at Least 100 Metric Tons and Possibly as Much as 500 Metric Tons of CW Agents -- Much of it Added in the Last Year
o F. Iraq Had Experience in Manufacturing CW Bombs, Artillery Rockets, and Projectiles
o G. Baghdad Probably Is Hiding Small-Scale Agent Production Within Legitimate Research Laboratories
o H. Baghdad Has Procured Covertly the Types and Quantities of Chemicals and Equipment Sufficient to Allow Limited CW Production Hidden Within Iraq's Legitimate Chemical Industry
o I. Chemical Weapons Defensive Posture and Procurements
o J. Explaining Uncertainties
o K. Intelligence Agencies' Analysis of Iraq's Chemical Weapons (CW) Prior to Publication of the NIE
o L. Chemical Conclusions
• VI. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S DELIVERY SYSTEMS
o A. Background
o B. Scud-Type Missiles
o C. Iraq Was in the Final Stages of Development of the Al Samoud Missile (2000), May Be Preparing to Deploy the Al Samoud (2001), and Was Deploying the Al Samoud and Ababil-100 Short Range Ballistic Missiles, Both Which Exceed the 150-km UN Range Limit (2002)
o D. Development of Medium-Range Missile Capabilities
o E. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
o F. Other Possible Missions for the UAVs
o G. UAVs to the U.S.
o ([DELETE]) H. [DELETE]
o I. Explaining Uncertainties
o J. Intelligence Agencies' Analysis of Delivery Systems Prior to Publication of the NIE
o K. Delivery Conclusions
• VII. IRAQ WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION INTELLIGENCE IN SECRETARY POWELL'S UNITED NATIONS SPEECH
o A. Nuclear Program
o B. Biological Weapons
o C. Chemical Weapons
o D. Delivery Systems
o E. WMD Powell Conclusions
• VIII. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY COLLECTION ACTIVITIES AGAINST IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
o A. Human Intelligence (HUMINT)
o B. Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)
o C. Imagery Intelligence (IMINT)
o D. Measurement and Signatures Intelligence (MASINT)
o E. Impact of Increased Collection on Analysis
o F. Collection Directives
o G. CIA HUMINT Compartmentation
o H. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Collection Conclusions
• IX. PRESSURE ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSTS REGARDING IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) CAPABILITIES
• A. Allegations of Influence
o B. INR Analyst
o C. Former INR Office Director
o D. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Senior Intelligence Analyst
o E. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Senior Intelligence Officer
o F. Former Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Desk Officer
o G. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Pressure Conclusions
• X. WHITE PAPER ON IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS
o A. Differences Between the Classified NIE and Unclassified White Paper
 1. Nuclear Weapons
 2. Biological Weapons
 3. Chemical Weapons
 4. Delivery Systems
o -B. Primary Differences in the Key Judgments of the Classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and Unclassified White Paper
o C. White Paper Conclusions
• XI. THE RAPID PRODUCTION OF THE OCTOBER 2002 NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ON IRAQ'S CONTINUING PROGRAMS FOR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
o A. Rapid Production of the National Intelligence Estimate Conclusions
• XII. IRAQ'S LINKS TO TERRORISM
o A. Intelligence Products Concerning Iraq's Links to Terrorism
o B. September and October 2001 Papers
o C. Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, June 2002
o D. Alternate Analysis in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
o E. Iraqi Support for Terrorism, September 2002
o F. Iraqi Support for Terrorism, January 2003
o G. CIA Assessments on Iraq's Links to Terrorism
o H. Terrorist Activities Conducted by the IIS
o L Support for Regional Terrorist Groups
o J. Iraq's Relationship with al-Qaida
o K. Leadership Reporting
o L. Detainee Debriefings -- Comments on the Relationship
 1. Abu Zubaydah
 ([DELETE]) 2. [DELETE]
 3. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad
o M. Contacts Between the Iraqi Regime and al-Qaida
o N. Training of al-Qaida by Iraq
 ([DELETE]) 1. [DELETE]
 2. Additional Reports from Varying Sources
o ([DELETE]) 3. [DELETE] Reporting about Activity at Salman Pak
o O. The Use of Iraq as a Safehaven
 1. Discussions of Safehaven
 2. Iraqi Regime Knowledge of al-Qaida Presence in Northeastern Iraq
 3. Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi in Baghdad
o P. Operational Cooperation Between Iraq and al-Qaida
 1. 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
 2. The September 11th Attacks
 3. The Foley Assassination
o Q. Iraq's Use of Terrorist Strikes in the Event of War with the United States
 1. Saddam Hussein's Past Use of Terrorism
 2. The Decision-Making Environment in Iraq
 3. Iraq's Weapons Capabilities
o R. Iraqi Links to Terrorism Conclusions
• XIII. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY COLLECTION ACTIVITIES AGAINST IRAQ'S LINKS TO TERRORISM
o A. Human Intelligence (HUMINT)
o B. Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)
o C. Terrorism Collection Conclusions
• XlV. PRESSURE ON INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSTS REGARDING IRAQ'S LINKS TO TERRORISM
o A. Allegations of Influence
 1. CIA Ombudsman for Politicization
 2. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and "Alternative Analysis"
o B. Terrorism Pressure Conclusion
• XV. POWELL SPEECH -- TERRORISM PORTION
o A. Powell Speech Conclusions -- Terrorism Portion
• XVI. IRAQ'S THREAT TO REGIONAL STABILITY AND SECURITY
o A. Background
o B. IC Analysis on the Iraqi Threat
o C. Agency Level Papers and Current Intelligence Products
o D. Key Analysis Topics in Agency Level Documents
o E. Review of IC Level Assessments
 1. Summary of Assessments 1991 - 1994
 2. Summary of Assessments 1995 - 1998
 3. Summary of Assessments 1999 - 2003
o F. Iraq's Threat to Regional Stability and Security Conclusions
• XVII. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD
o A. Background
o B. Highlights of The Intelligence Record
o C. Collection and Analytical Approaches
 1. Information Sources
 2. Collection Issues
 3. Analysis Processes
o D. Saddam Hussein's Human Rights Record Conclusions
• XVIII. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S SHARING OF INTELLIGENCE ON IRAQI SUSPECT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SITES WITH UNITED NATIONS INSPECTORS
o A. Background
o B. The Lead-up to Renewed Inspections
o C. The Sharing of Information -- the "Pull" Side of the Exchange
o D. The Sharing of Information -- the "Push" Side of the Exchange
o E. Information Shared Compared to the Intelligence Community's Master Inspection List
o F. Multiple Intelligence Community Lists
o G. Statements Made by Administration Officials about the Sharing of Information
o H. The Intelligence Community's Sharing of Intelligence on Iraqi Suspect Weapons of Mass Destruction Sites with United Nations Inspectors Conclusions
• APPENDIX A
• APPENDIX B
• GLOSSARY
• ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
• ADDITIONAL VIEWS
• Chairman Pat Roberts joined by Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch
• Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, Senator Carl Levin and Senator Richard Durbin
• Senator Saxby Chambliss with Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Senator Trent Lott, Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Christopher S. Bond
• Senator Olympia Snowe
• Senator John Warner
• Senator Dianne Feinstein
• Senator Ron Wyden
• Senator Richard Durbin
• Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Mon May 09, 2016 11:49 pm

Part 1 OF 2

I. INTRODUCTION

(U) In June 2003, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence began a formal review of U.S. intelligence into the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, Iraq's ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein's threat to stability and security in the region, and his violations of human rights including the actual use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people, as a part of the Committee's continuing oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States.

(U) Committee staff had, for the previous several months, already been examining aspects of intelligence activities regarding Iraq, including the Intelligence Community's (IC's) intelligence support to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) weapons inspections in Iraq and the IC's analysis and collection of reporting related to the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal. On June 20, 2003, however, Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman, and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman, of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a press statement announcing their joint commitment to continue the Committee's thorough review of U.S. intelligence. Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller said the Committee would examine:

• the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein's threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people;

• the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community;

• whether those judgments were properly disseminated to policymakers in the executive branch and Congress;

• whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone to shape their analysis to support policy objectives; and

• other issues we mutually identify in the course of the Committee's review.

With the exception of the question of accuracy, all of the foregoing are addressed in this report.

(U) On February 12,2004, the Committee unanimously agreed to refine the terms of reference of the Committee's inquiry. In addition to the matters set forth in the joint release of the Chairman and Vice Chairman on June 20, 2003, the Committee agreed to examine additional issues in two phases. Issues annotated as phase one have been addressed in this report. Issues annotated as phase two are currently under review by the Committee. The additional issues are:

• the collection of intelligence on Iraq from the end of the Gulf War to the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom (phase I);

• whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information (phase II);

• the postwar findings about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and weapons programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with prewar assessments (phase II);

• prewar intelligence assessments about postwar Iraq (phase II);

• any intelligence activities relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (phase I and II); and

• the use by the Intelligence Community of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) (phase I and II).

(U) In early June 2003, the IC provided the Committee with nineteen volumes (approximately 15,000 pages) of intelligence assessments and source reporting underlying the IC's assessments of Iraq's WMD programs, ties to terrorist groups, threat to stability and security in the region, and repression of its own people. Committee staff began immediately to read and analyze every report provided to determine how intelligence analysts reached their conclusions and whether any assessments were not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. In late August and early September 2003, Committee staff requested additional intelligence to support IC assessments which Committee staff had judged were not supported by the intelligence that had been previously provided.

(U) The Committee began to receive this additional supporting intelligence in October 2003. In late October 2003, Committee staff requested that the IC provide any intelligence, which had not already been provided, that contradicted the IC's analyses regarding Iraq. For example, Committee staff requested intelligence that showed Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear program, had not renewed production of chemical agents, and had abandoned an offensive biological weapons program. In early November 2003, the IC wrote to the Committee that it was working to provide the contradictory intelligence requested by Committee staff. In the same letter, the IC said it had uncovered an additional six volumes of intelligence material that supported the IC's assessments on Iraq's WMD programs. These materials were also reviewed by Committee staff. The IC provided the contradictory intelligence information in late November. During the twelve months of the Committee's review, Committee staff submitted almost 100 requests for supplemental intelligence information, received over 30,000 pages of documents in response to those requests, and reviewed and analyzed each document provided. The Committee's request to review Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs) relevant only to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities and links to terrorists was denied by the White House. Without examining these documents, the Committee is unable to determine fully whether Intelligence Community judgments were properly disseminated to policymakers in the executive branch, one of the tasks outlined for review.

(U) Committee staff interviewed more than 200 individuals including intelligence analysts and senior officials with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of State, National Ground Intelligence Center, the Air Force, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Staff also interviewed former intelligence analysts, National Intelligence Officers, operations officers, collection managers, signals intelligence collectors, imagery analysts, nuclear experts with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ambassadors, former United Nations inspectors, Department of Defense weapons experts, State Department officials, and National Security Council staff members.

(U) The Committee held four preliminary hearings on aspects of U.S. intelligence on Iraq: the Iraq-Niger connection, the CIA and State Department Inspectors General report on the review of the Iraq-Niger issue, the history and continuity of weapons of mass destruction assessments pertaining to Iraq, and Iraq prewar intelligence.

(U) These efforts have enabled the Committee to develop a full understanding of the quantity and quality of intelligence reporting on Iraq's WMD programs, Iraq's ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein's threat to stability and security in the region, and his violations of human rights including the actual use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people. The Committee has also gained an understanding of how intelligence analysts throughout the IC used that intelligence to develop their assessments on these issues, how those assessments were disseminated to policymakers, whether those assessments were reasonable, objective, independent of political consideration, and whether any influence was brought to bear to shape their analysis to support policy objectives.

A. Understanding Intelligence Analysis

(U) Over a period of one year, Committee staff, many of whom are former intelligence analysts, reviewed over a decade of Intelligence Community (IC) assessments and the intelligence that underlay them. In all cases our staff endeavored, to the greatest extent possible, to disregard post-war discoveries concerning Iraq until after completing the analysis of the prewar intelligence material in order to replicate the same analytical environment IC analysts experienced prior to the war. The Committee's review surfaced strengths and weaknesses throughout the intelligence process. These are identified in the Report's findings and conclusions.

(U) Intelligence analysis is not a perfect science and we should not expect perfection from our IC analysts. It is entirely possible for an analyst to perform meticulous and skillful analysis and be completely wrong. Likewise, it is also possible to perform careless and unskilled analysis and be completely right. While intelligence collection is not an analytical function, it is the foundation upon which all good analysis is built. Problems with collection priorities and management will be discussed in detail throughout the report.

(U) The Committee, therefore, believes that it is important to understand the role of analysts and how they learn and apply their craft. With that background, the Committee hopes the reader can fully appreciate the content of this report.

1. Developing Professional Intelligence Analysts

(U) In order to give context to the Committee's review of the Intelligence Community's (IC) prewar analyses, Committee staff spoke with senior CIA officers at the Sherman Kent School for Intelligence Analysis at the CIA. The CIA relies on the Kent School to teach new analysts the trade craft of analysis. Committee staff members also drew on their own experiences working in the IC's analytic community.

(U) Kent School officials provided a briefing, slides, and a copy of the school's brochure to explain the school's approach and how analytic trade craft is presented to new CIA analysts. The training also address how the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) views the analytic process and the DI's structure.

(U) The CIA's Directorate of Intelligence requires its new analysts to complete a training program called the Career Analyst Program, or CAP. The CAP includes eleven weeks of classroom instruction and a five week interim assignment. The participants receive two weeks of training on analysis, three weeks on DI writing and one week each on briefing, teamwork, and the business of intelligence. (These are the core analytic trade craft areas.) The CAP also devotes time to task-force exercises and visits to U.S. military commands and other agencies to help the students develop a broader perspective on the role of intelligence analysis in policymaking. For the interim assignment, analysts consult with their "home offices" to choose an assignment that is relevant to the account they will cover as a DI analyst. They can work in other intelligence agencies, a policy office or in a law enforcement agency for their interim assignment.

(U) According to the school's brochure, "The CAP emphasizes the Directorate's goal: to produce analysis that is rigorous, well-reasoned, and appropriately caveated. The analytic thinking courses' focus on questioning key assumptions and considering possible explanations and outcomes. Analysts learn to be aware of psychological, cultural, and informational factors that affect their analytic judgments." Kent School officials stated that this training involves a very hands-on approach and many small exercises that help the analysts learn by doing. Instructors give the students a number of short classroom assignments, many of which are done in groups. Students receive extensive feedback from the instructors.

(U) The same is true for the development of the analysts' writing skills. The long brochure states, "DI writing style emphasizes the bottom line up front, precise and concise language, and a clear articulation of our judgments and our confidence in them." The analysts practice writing each of the types of products that the DI produces including situation reports and short and long papers. They also participate in a final four-day course on writing for the President and senior policymakers. The Kent School officials stated that many of these assignments use case studies, such as the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the bombing of Khobar Towers, the break-up of Yugoslavia and the September 11 attacks.

(U) Kent School officials outlined the key analytic goals as:

• providing timely, credible, and relevant intelligence analysis for the consumer;

• warning and identifying opportunities;

• maintaining analytic integrity and objectivity; and

• using all source intelligence.

They also described the analytic process as 1) dealing with facts and assertions, 2) testing assumptions and logic, 3) developing findings, 4) interpreting information, 5) developing scenarios (to include both high probability/low impact and low probability/high impact), 6) determining indicators, and 7) discussing options to determine opportunities, identifying vulnerabilities and revealing potential outcomes.

(U) By using case studies and providing the CAP participants with the intelligence cables used by analysts to build their assessments, the instructors are able to help the new analysts develop their ability to weigh information and become accustomed to the format of the reporting and source descriptions. They also learn to task collectors, structure data for presentations, and recognize indicators of activities. They also learn to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the various "INTs" -- human intelligence (HUMINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), imagery intelligence (IMINT), and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT).

(U) The Kent School also incorporates a module which alerts new analysts to the pitfalls of assumptions and biases in their own analysis and in the work of others. Recognizing one's own bias is extremely difficult, however. Therefore, it is critical to develop a workforce of analysts that are comfortable questioning each other. While it is stressed in the initial training provided by the CAP, it appears to be the lesson that analysts neglect first.

(U) In her February 11, 2004 address to the Directorate of Intelligence, the Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) stated:

I want to focus on the danger of inherited assumptions. That may be the single most important aspect of our trade craft that needs to be examined. That is something I speak about to every new CAP class: How do we ensure that we are not passing along assumptions that haven't been sufficiently questioned or examined?


2. An Analyst's Daily Taskings

(U) In terms of day-to-day work, intelligence analysts review raw reporting, draft assessments, and disseminate those assessments to policy makers. Each written assessment may be drafted by one or several analysts who have reviewed raw reporting over a period of time. Intelligence collected by the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency (NSA), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and in some cases, State Department diplomatic reporting, is reviewed daily by intelligence analysts using computer software that searches the various agencies' databases and produces a daily electronic read file for each analyst that is specific to their area of responsibility. In many instances, analysts from regional and functional offices, which cover issues that span across regions, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and humanitarian issues, will read the same material and draw conclusions relative to their interests and responsibilities.

(U) Each IC agency that has an all-source analysis capability or responsibility will have one or more analysts reviewing intelligence reporting on the same issues. In an ideal situation, these analysts will be in regular contact over secure communications to discuss new information, to share ideas and to brainstorm about how the information can be presented to policymakers to best satisfy their requirements, however, this exchange does not always occur. The analysts are responsible for sifting through large amounts of information and drawing connections or reaching conclusions about the implications of the information at their disposal. Depending on the product, the analysis may be coordinated with other IC members, but in many instances, each agency produces its own finished products which are subject to review and editing by its own internal management.

3. The Finished Product

(U) Analysts create their products for intelligence consumers, including policy makers and warfighters, to name two of many. While DIA products are generally intended for the Secretary of Defense, CIA products for the White House, and the State Department's Bureau Intelligence & Research products for the Secretary of State, most products are available to policy makers at each of these agencies regardless of the author's organization. The vast majority of intelligence products are available to the Congress as well.

(U) It is important to note that in many cases the manager responsible for approving the final product may not, and often does not, review the raw intelligence upon which the assessment is based. Kent School officials who have worked as branch chiefs or division managers stated, however, that products are reviewed more carefully when the drafter is a relatively new analyst. When the drafter is a more senior, well-established analyst, the product will often be edited, but not substantively reviewed before it goes up the chain to the policymaker. If the intelligence product was not coordinated with other intelligence agencies, it is entirely possible that one analyst's views may be presented to high-level officials including the President of the United States without having been reviewed by other analysts with the same depth of knowledge. This is a dynamic we found on a number of occasions in the course of this review.

B. Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities

(U) The Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) related sections of the report recount the Committee's efforts to evaluate the quantity and quality of the intelligence underlying prewar assessments. Each section contains its own set of conclusions. There is also a separate section on the issue of objectivity which addresses whether analysts were pressured to reach specific conclusions to support a particular policy objective. This report does not address the question of accuracy regarding WMD. When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) completes its work in Iraq, we will then be able to evaluate to the maximum extent possible the accuracy of the IC's judgments prior to the war.

(U) The Committee focused its evaluation ofthe Intelligence Community's WMD analysis primarily on the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This document was selected for several reasons:

• First, according to the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) are the IC's most authoritative written judgments concerning national security issues. The process by which the IC produces NIEs - including the one on Iraqi WMD -- has been honed over nearly 30 years. According to the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) webpage, it is designed to provide policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches with the "best, unvarnished, and unbiased information - regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy."

• Second, the 2002 NIE addressed all of Iraq's WMD programs and was a coordinated community judgment in which all agency views were represented and dissenting opinions were noted.

• Third, the 2002 NIE was comprehensive, encompassing more than ten years of source reporting and analysis. The intelligence documentation provided to the Committee to support the assessments in the 2002 NIE also included the documents which were the basis for the previous decade of analytical products on Iraq's WMD programs.

• Fourth, the 2002 NIE presented some new IC assessments, some of which shifted in significant ways from previous judgments regarding Iraq's WMD programs.

• Finally, the 2002 NIE was requested by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Members so that policymakers could benefit from the IC's coordinated judgment on Iraq's WMD programs while they debated authorizing military action against Iraq.

(U) Since June 2003, Committee staff has worked through a decade of intelligence assessments on Iraqi WMD programs and the intelligence source reporting used by IC analysts to make those assessments -- over 20,000 pages of documents. Committee staff interviewed over 160 people, including intelligence analysts from every agency involved in preparing WMD assessments on Iraq, ambassadors, operations officers, collection managers, nuclear experts with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), former United Nations (UN) inspectors, Department of Defense (DoD) weapons experts, State Department officials, and National Security Council (NSC) staff members.

(U) These efforts have enabled Committee staff to develop a full understanding of the body of intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities and an understanding of how intelligence analysts throughout the IC used that body of intelligence reporting to develop their assessments, particularly those in the 2002 NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

1. What is an NIE?

(U) A National Intelligence Estimate is the IC's most authoritative written judgment concerning a specific national security issue. The Estimates are intended to provide policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information - regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to any particular policy objective.

(U) A 2003 NIC paper on the NIE process stated that an NIE is " ... the most authoritative written means by which the Director of Central Intelligence conveys to the President and other senior leaders the judgments of the entire Intelligence Community regarding national security issues." Sherman Kent, [1] a former Chairman of the Board of National Estimates, described the purpose and importance of NIEs in an essay in 1976, which noted that the NIE

... was and is the Director's estimate, and its findings are his. Although many experts from perhaps all intelligence components of the community participated in the production of the papers in the NIE series, and although the intelligence chiefs themselves formally passed on the final text, they could not bend its findings to suit their own judgments contrary to the will of the DCI. They could try to win him to their sides by full and free discussions, but they could not outvote him and force him to join them, nor could they make him dissent from them ... they could of their own accord concur with his findings or, not being able to, they could dissent and make their alternative views known in footnotes to his text.


(U) NIEs and the formal process by which they are produced, were established in the 1950s. An NIE can be requested by a variety of individuals, including members of the executive branch, members of Congress, and military commanders. After an NIE has been requested and authorized, the next step is the preparation of a document which has come to be called the Terms of Reference (TOR). According to a 1994 NIC paper describing NIE drafting guidelines, the TOR is an outline of the "issues and key questions to be covered in the Estimate." Sherman Kent describes the TOR as a "statement of precisely what was wanted."

(U) An officer of the NIC, typically the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) with responsibility for the substantive issue being examined in the NIE, is given responsibility for managing the NIE from its initial drafting, through the coordination process with the national intelligence agencies, to final approval. The officer presiding over the drafting of the NIE can draw on the staff of the NIC as well as the national intelligence agencies to write the draft.

(U) The 1994 NIE drafting guidelines state that an NIE can be drafted by an IC analyst, a member of the NIC staff, a deputy NIO, or an outside expert. After the draft has been reviewed within the NIC staff, it is then sent to the national intelligence agencies where each agency's appropriate subject matter experts review the draft and prepare their comments. Agency comments are then carried forward to the first interagency coordination session. At this and any successive coordination sessions, the goal is to produce a draft that, without unnecessary hedging or ambiguity, reflects the collective judgment of the IC. In the event any of the agency representatives find a part of the NIE with which they do not concur, they are free to argue their case before their colleagues in order to sway them. If they fail to convince their colleagues, they are free to draft a dissenting footnote. Once the agency representatives arrive at a consensus paper, with or without footnotes, this final draft is usually submitted to IC peers and to a panel of IC experts for their review. A summary of the outside experts' views is included in the NIE. The NIC front office reviews the final draft prior to forwarding it to the National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB) principals for their approval. The NFIB is composed of senior representatives of the IC organizations involved in the collection, processing and analysis of intelligence [2] and is chaired by the DCI. The senior representatives of the military intelligence services may also attend as members of the NFIB when matters under their purview are considered and may attend other NFIB sessions as observers. The NFIB typically approves the NIE the same day it is presented.

(U) The 1994 NIE drafting guidelines described three rough time frames for the production of an NIE: a "fast track" of two to three weeks, a "normal track" of four to eight weeks, and a "long track" of two months or more. The Vice Chairman of the NIC told Committee staff that an NIE prepared within 60 days would be considered very fast, and that typically NIE's take three to six months. Sherman Kent noted in his essay that prior to 1976, NIE's had historically taken up to six to eight months to produce, but under conditions of urgency the time line has been considerably shortened. For example, during the Suez crisis of 1956, the Soviets sent a threatening note to Britain and France, who, along with the Israelis, had begun an attack on Egypt. The acting DCI convened the heads of the national intelligence agencies to develop an NIE to provide the IC's appraisal of Soviet intentions. There were no TORs and a draft was produced in about 30 minutes. The draft was immediately presented to the heads of the IC, who discussed and cleared the NIE within a few hours. The NIOs told Committee staff that ideally they would like about three months to produce an NIE.

2. The 2002 NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction

(U) In an unclassified letter dated September 9, 2002, Senator Richard Durbin, a member of the SSCI, wrote to the DCI expressing concern that the IC had not drafted an NIE on the status of Iraq's WMD program, and requested that the DCI "direct the production" of such an NIE -- expressing the belief that "policymakers in both the executive branch and the Congress will benefit from the production of a coordinated, consensus document produced by all relevant components of the Intelligence Community" on this topic. Senator Durbin also requested that the DCI "produce an unclassified summary of this NIE" so "the American public can better understand this important issue."

(U) On September 10, 2002, Senator Bob Graham, then SSCI Chairman, sent a second letter to the DCI requesting the production of an NIE "on the status of Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, the status of the Iraqi military forces, including their readiness and willingness to fight, the effects a U.S.-led attack on Iraq would have on its neighbors, and Saddam Hussein's likely response to a U.S. military campaign designed to effect regime change in Iraq."

(U) On September 13, 2002, Senator Diane Feinstein, a member of the SSCI, wrote to President Bush to request his assistance in ensuring that the DCI prepare, on an immediate basis, an NIE "assessing the nature, magnitude and immediacy of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq." Senator Feinstein added, "there has not been a formal rigorous Intelligence Community assessment, such as a National Intelligence Estimate, addressing the issues relating to Iraq, and I deeply believe that such an estimate is vital to Congressional decision making, and most specifically, any resolution which may come before the Senate."

(U) On September 17,2002, Senator Carl Levin, a member of the SSCI and then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote to the DCI stating that it was "imperative" for the IC to prepare an NIE on Iraq "including the central question of the current state of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs." Senator Levin asked that the NIE address a number of issues including Iraq's WMD holdings, development facilities, acquisition activities, denial and deception activities, deployment, doctrine for employment, means of delivery, the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would use WMD against the U.S., our allies, or our interests, the likelihood that Iraq would comply with UN resolutions; and Iraq's terrorist activities.

(U) By the morning of September 12, 2002, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs had received official guidance from the DCI to begin work on the NIE. The work of assembling and coordinating the NIE was divided primarily between four NIO's: the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs was responsible for the nuclear and ballistic missile portions as well as overall management ofthe entire NIE, the NIO for Conventional Military Issues was responsible for the chemical warfare (CW) and unmanned aerial vehicle (UA V) portions, and the NIO for Science and Technology was responsible for the biological weapons (BW) portion. The NIO for Near East South Asia (NESA) was also involved in issues regarding regional reactions, interfacing with the NIO for Conventional Military Issues on the doctrine issues, and some terrorism issues, specifically whether Iraq might use terrorists to deliver WMD.

(U) Because of the short time period to prepare the NIE, the NIOs began by drawing language from existing agency and interagency papers. The NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs disseminated a draft to the IC agencies for review on September 23, 2002 and held an all-day coordination meeting with IC analysts on September 25, 2002. The NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs disseminated a second draft which incorporated the analysts' changes and comments on September 26,2002. Due to the compressed schedule of this NIE, the NIC did not submit the draft for peer review or to a panel of outside experts. The Vice Chairman of the NIC told Committee staff that because preparation for this NIE involved four NIOs, there was a "virtual peer review," and said that he did not believe that outside experts would have had substantially different views from the NIE, noting that "I think all you could have called in is an amen chorus on this thing, because there was nobody out there with different views." The NIE was approved by a meeting of the full NFIB on October 1, 2002 and printed that day.

(U) The scope note of the NIE said that it "was requested by the Director of Central Intelligence to address the status of and outlook for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs" and built on the work and judgments of twelve previous IC products. The NIE contained four sections on specific WMD programs including:

1) Saddam's Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons;

2) Chemical Warfare Program -- Rebuilt and Expanding;

3) Biological Warfare Program -- Larger Than Before; and

4) Delivery Systems -- Iraq Increasing Its Options.

(U) Committee staff examined each of these sections in detail, including the intelligence source reporting underlying the assessments. Committee staff also reviewed previous IC products and assessments from individual IC agencies that discussed Iraq's WMD programs to understand the progression of analysis from the time United Nations inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 until just before the war with Iraq in 2003. The nuclear, biological, chemical and delivery sections of this report discuss the assessments made in those products and the intelligence source reporting the IC analysts used to make their judgments.

3. Overall Conclusions -- Weapons of Mass Destruction

(U) Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

(U) The major key judgments in the NIE, particularly that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UA V) "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents," and that "all key aspects - research & development (R&D), production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War," either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting provided to the Committee. The assessments regarding Iraq's continued development of prohibited ballistic missiles were reasonable and did accurately describe the underlying intelligence.

(U) The assessment that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program" was not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee. The intelligence reporting did show that Iraq was procuring dual-use equipment that had potential nuclear applications, but all of the equipment had conventional military or industrial applications. In addition, none of the intelligence reporting indicated that the equipment was being procured for suspect nuclear facilities. Intelligence reporting also showed that former Iraqi nuclear scientists continued to work at former nuclear facilities and organizations, but the reporting did not show that this cadre of nuclear personnel had recently been regrouped or enhanced as stated in the NIE, nor did it suggest that they were engaged in work related to a nuclear weapons program.

(U) The statement in the key judgments of the NIE that "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons" overstated both what was known and what intelligence analysts judged about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons holdings. The intelligence reporting did support the conclusion that chemical and biological weapons were within Iraq's technological capability, that Iraq was trying to procure dual-use materials that could have been used to produce these weapons, and that uncertainties existed about whether Iraq had fully destroyed its pre-Gulf War stocks of weapons and precursors. Iraq's efforts to deceive and evade United Nations weapons inspectors and its inability or unwillingness to fully account for pre-Gulf War chemical and biological weapons and precursors could have led analysts to the reasonable conclusion that Iraq may have retained those materials, but intelligence analysts did not have enough information to state with certainty that Iraq "has" these weapons.

([DELETE]) Similarly, the assessment that "all key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War" was not supported by the underlying intelligence provided to the Committee. Intelligence showed that Iraq was renovating or expanding facilities that had been associated with Iraq's past BW program and was engaged in research that had BW applications, but few reports suggested specifically that the activity was related to BW. Intelligence reports did indicate that Iraq may have had a mobile biological weapons program, but most of the reporting was from a single human intelligence (HUMINT) source to whom the Intelligence Community (IC) never had direct access. It was reasonable for intelligence analysts to be concerned about the potential weapons applications of Iraq's dual use activities and capabilities. The intelligence reporting did not substantiate an assessment that all aspects of Iraq's BW program "are" larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War, however.

([DELETE]) The key judgment in the NIE that Iraq was developing a UAV "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents" also overstated what the intelligence reporting indicated about the mission of Iraq's small UAVs. Numerous intelligence reports confirmed that was developing a small UAV program but [DELETE] none of the reports provided to the Committee said that Iraq intended to use the small UAVs to deliver chemical or biological weapons. The Air Force footnote, which stated that biological weapons delivery was a possible mission for the small UAVs, though other missions were more likely, more accurately reflected the body of intelligence reporting.

(U) The failure of the IC to accurately analyze and describe the intelligence in the NIE was the result of a combination of systemic weaknesses, primarily in analytic trade craft, compounded by a lack of information sharing, poor management, and inadequate intelligence collection. Many of these weaknesses, which are described in detail below, have not yet been fully addressed, despite having been identified previously by other inquiry panels, including the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2002 (2002), The Intelligence Community's Performance on the Indian Nuclear Tests (The Jeremiah Report, 1998), and the Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (The Rumsfeld Commission, 1998). The Committee found no evidence that the IC's mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities was the result of political pressure.

(U) Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

(U) One of the key failures in analytic trade craft of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIB) was the failure of the Intelligence Community (IC) to explain the details of the reporting and the uncertainties of both the reliability of some key sources and of intelligence judgments. Intelligence analysts are not only charged with interpreting and assessing the intelligence reporting, but with clearly conveying to policymakers the difference between what intelligence analysts know, what they don't know, what they think, and to make sure that policymakers understand the difference. This articulation of the IC's responsibility to policymakers is widely attributed to Colin Powell when he was serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the effective communication of judgments has been accepted as a primary analytic function for decades. For example, in 1964, Sherman Kent, considered the founder of intelligence analysis as a profession, wrote about the importance of using appropriate words of estimative probability to "set forth the community's findings in such a way as to make clear to the reader what is certain knowledge and what is reasoned judgment, and within this large realm of judgment what varying degrees of certitude lie behind each key statement." [3]

(U) At the time the IC drafted and coordinated the NIB on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in September 2002, most of what intelligence analysts actually "knew" about Iraq's weapons programs pre-dated the 1991 Gulf War, leaving them with very little direct knowledge about the current state of those programs. Analysts knew that Iraq had active nuclear, chemical, biological, and delivery programs before 1991, and had previously lied to, and was still not forthcoming with, UN weapons inspectors about those programs. The analysts also knew that the United Nations was not satisfied with Iraq's efforts to account for its destruction of all of its pre-Gulf War weapons, precursors, and equipment. Additionally, the analysts knew that Iraq was trying to import dual-use materials and equipment and had rebuilt or was continuing to use facilities that had been associated with Iraq's pre-Gulf War weapons programs, and knew that WMD were likely within Iraq's technological capabilities.

(U) The IC did not know whether Iraq had retained its pre-Gulf War weapons, whether Iraq was intending to use those dual-use materials and facilities for weapons or for legitimate purposes, or even if Iraq's attempts to obtain many of the dual-use goods it had been trying to procure were successful. The IC thought that Iraq had retained its pre-Gulf War weapons and that Iraq was using dual-use materials and facilities to manufacture weapons. While this was a reasonable assessment, considering Iraq's past behavior, statements in the 2002 NIB that Iraq "has chemical and biological weapons," "Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort," and "is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," did not accurately portray the uncertainty of the information. The NIE failed in that it portrayed what intelligence analysts thought and assessed as what they knew and failed to explain the large gaps in the information on which the assessments were based.

([DELETE]) In the cases in the NIE where the IC did express uncertainty about its assessments concerning Iraq's WMD capabilities, those explanations suggested, in some cases, that Iraq's capabilities were even greater than the NIE judged. For example, the key judgments of the NIE said "we judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf War starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. [DELETE] " While this did explain that key information on Iraq's programs was lacking, it suggested that Iraq's weapons programs were probably bigger and more advanced than the IC had judged and did not explain that [DELETE] analysts did not have enough information to determine whether Iraq was hiding activity or whether Iraq's weapons programs may have been dormant.

(U) Accurately and clearly describing the gaps in intelligence knowledge is not only important for policymakers to fully understand the basis for and gaps in analytic assessments, but is essential for policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches to make informed decisions about how and where to allocate Intelligence Community resources to fill those gaps.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Mon May 09, 2016 11:49 pm

Part 2 of 2

(U) Conclusion 3. The Intelligence Community (IC) suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. This "group think" dynamic led Intelligence Community analysts, collectors and managers to both interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD program as well as ignore or minimize evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programs. This presumption was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not utilized.

(U) The Intelligence Community (IC) has long struggled with the need for analysts to overcome analytic biases, that is, to resist the tendency to see what they would expect to see in the intelligence reporting. In the case of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities, the Committee found that intelligence analysts, in many cases, based their analysis more on their expectations than on an objective evaluation of the information in the intelligence reporting. Analysts expected to see evidence that Iraq had retained prohibited weapons and that Iraq would resume prohibited WMD activities once United Nations' (UN) inspections ended. This bias that pervaded both the IC's analytic and collection communities represents "group think," a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis in the 1970's to describe a process in which a group can make bad or irrational decisions as each member of the group attempts to conform their opinions to what they believe to be the consensus of the group. IC personnel involved in the Iraq WMD issue demonstrated several aspects of group think: examining few alternatives, selective gathering of information, pressure to conform within the group or withhold criticism, and collective rationalization.

(U) The roots of the IC's bias stretch back to Iraq's pre-1991 efforts to build WMD and its efforts to hide those programs. The fact that Iraq had repeatedly lied about its pre-1991 WMD programs, its continued deceptive behavior, and its failure to fully cooperate with UN inspectors left the IC with a predisposition to believe the Iraqis were continuing to lie about their WMD efforts. This was compounded by the fact that Iraq's pre-1991 progress on its nuclear weapons program had surprised the IC. The role this knowledge played in analysts' thinking is evident in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate's (NIE) introduction which said, "revelations after the Gulf War starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. The revelations also underscore the extent to which limited information fostered underestimates by the Intelligence Community of Saddam's capabilities at that time." This bias was likely further reinforced by the IC's failure to detect the September 11th terrorist plot and the criticism that the Community had not done all it could to "connect the dots."

(U) The IC had long assessed that Iraq maintained its ambitions to obtain WMD, and would seek to resume full WMD efforts once UN sanctions and inspections ended. Accordingly, after UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, IC analysts began to look for evidence that Iraq was expanding WMD programs. Analysts interpreted ambiguous data as indicative of the active and expanded WMD effort they expected to see. The presumption that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to restart its WMD efforts essentially became a hypothesis in search of evidence.

([DELETE]) The IC's bias was compounded by the fact that prior to 1998, the IC had become heavily dependent on UN information on the state of Iraq's WMD programs. When the IC lost this important information, analysts were forced to rely on less reliable and less detailed sources. For example, [DELETE] reporting during UN inspections often described the [DELETE]. These reports provided IC analysts with much of the insight [DELETE]. Intelligence reporting after inspectors departed relied on less direct sources of information such as satellite imagery of activity at suspect facilities, fragmentary and ambiguous reports of Iraqi dual-use procurement efforts, and reporting of suspicious or prohibited activity from human sources who were no longer in the country. These indirect sources left the IC with few ways to determine the exact nature of suspicious Iraqi activity. The expectation, however, that Iraq would take advantage of the departure of inspectors to resume and expand its WMD programs led analysts to downplay or ignore the increased uncertainty that came with these less detailed and less reliable sources.

([DELETE]) The Committee found that the IC had a tendency to accept information which supported the presumption that Iraq had active and expanded WMD programs more readily than information which contradicted it. This was evident in analysts' assessments of Iraq's attempts to procure dual-use materials and activities at dual-use facilities. Dual-use materials and facilities are those which could be used in a WMD program, but which also have conventional military or legitimate civilian applications. The IC properly noted the potential threat embodied in these dual-use capabilities, should they be turned toward WMD purposes, and did an effective job of analyzing [DELETE] Iraq's attempts to purchase dual-use equipment and materials to show how they could advance Iraq's WMD capability. But, the IC fell short by accepting most reporting of dual-use material imports or capabilities as intended for WMD programs. Information that contradicted the IC's presumption that Iraq had WMD programs, such as indications in the intelligence reporting that the dual-use materials were intended for conventional or civilian programs, was often ignored. The IC's bias that Iraq had active WMD programs led analysts to presume, in the absence of evidence, that if Iraq could do something to advance its WMD capabilities, it would.

([DELETE]) Another example of the IC's tendency to reject information that contradicted the presumption that Iraq had active and expanded WMD programs was the return of UN inspectors to Iraq in November 2002. [DELETE] When these inspections did not find evidence of active Iraqi WMD programs and, in fact, even refuted some aspects of the IC's nuclear and biological assessments, many analysts did not regard this information as significant. For example, the 2002 NIE cited [DELETE] Iraq's Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine institute as [DELETE] reasons the IC believed the facility was a "fixed dual-use BW agent production" facility. When UN inspectors visited Amiriyah after their return to Iraq in November 2002, however they did not find any evidence of BW work at the facility, [DELETE]. Analysts discounted the UN's findings as the result of the inspectors relative inexperience in the face of Iraqi denial and deception. Similarly, when International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors returned to Iraq in late 2002, one of their key lines of work was to investigate Iraq's claims that aluminum tubes it was trying to procure were intended for artillery rockets. The IAEA found that Iraq's claims that the aluminum tubes were intended for artillery rockets was completely consistent with the evidence on the ground in Iraq. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) responded to the IAEA's analysis by producing intelligence reports which rejected the IAEA's conclusions. Without giving many details of the IAEA's findings, CIA's analysis suggested that the IAEA was being fooled by Iraq, and reiterated CIA's assessment that the tubes were to be used in uranium centrifuges.

(U) Intelligence analysts' presumption that all dual-use activity was intended for WMD programs recurs throughout the 2002 NIE. Analysts believed that the fact that Iraq often attempted to obtain dual-use materials surreptitiously, through front companies and other illicit means in violation of UN sanctions, indicated that Iraq intended to use those materials for WMD. Analysts argued that Iraq would have no reason to hide itself as the end user of these materials if they were intended for legitimate purposes. However, analysts ignored the fact that Iraq typically used front companies and evaded UN sanctions for imports of purely legitimate goods. Analysts who monitored Iraq's compliance with the Oil for Food Program noted several reasons that Iraq wanted to avoid legitimate channels for imports including 1) the UN often denied materials needed for legitimate purposes because the materials had WMD applications, 2) using the UN's bureaucratic process was more cumbersome and time consuming than using illicit channels, and 3) transactions using front companies were less transparent, making corruption and profit taking easier for Iraqi managers and officials.

(U) Likewise, analysts were predisposed to identify as suspect any activity by scientists and officials involved in Iraq's pre-1991 WMD programs. While the IC should not have ignored the activity of these people, IC analysts failed to fully consider the possibility that Iraq, having spent significant national resources developing their capabilities, might have been seeking non-WMD purposes to fully employ the idle expertise left over from closed WMD programs.

([DELETE]) The presumption that Iraq had active WMD programs affected intelligence collectors as well. None of the guidance given to human intelligence collectors suggested that collection be focused on determining whether Iraq had WMD. Instead, the requirements assumed that Iraq had WMD, and focused on uncovering those activities and collecting against the extent of Iraq's WMD production and the locations of hidden stocks of weapons. A former manager in the CIA's Iraq WMD Task Force also told Committee staff that, in retrospect, he believes that the CIA tended to discount human intelligence (HUMINT) sources that denied the existence of Iraqi WMD programs as just repeating the Iraqi party line. In fact, numerous interviews with intelligence analysts and documents provided to the Committee indicate that analysts and collectors assumed that sources who denied the existence or continuation of WMD programs and stocks were either lying or not knowledgeable about Iraq's programs, while those sources who reported ongoing WMD activities were seen as having provided valuable information.

([DELETE]) The presumption that Iraq had active WMD programs was so strong that formalized IC mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and "group think," such as "red teams," "devil's advocacy," and other types of alternative or competitive analysis, were not utilized. The Committee found no evidence that IC analysts, collectors, or managers made any effort to question the fundamental assumptions that Iraq had active and expanded WMD programs, nor did they give serious consideration to other possible explanations for Iraq's failure to satisfy its WMD accounting discrepancies, other than that it was hiding and preserving WMD. The fact that no one in the IC saw a need for such tools is indicative of the strength of the bias that Iraq had active and expanded WMD programs. The Committee does not regard the [DELETE] analysis on Iraq's aluminum tubes performed by CIA contractors as an attempt to challenge assumptions, but rather as an example of the collective rationalization that is indicative of "group think." The contractors were only provided with information by CIA, did not question agencies about their analysis, were not briefed by other agencies about their analysis, and performed their analysis of a complex intelligence issue in only one day.

(U) The IC's failure to find unambiguous intelligence reporting of Iraqi WMD activities should have encouraged analysts to question their presumption that Iraq had WMD. Instead, analysts rationalized the lack of evidence as the result of "vigorous" Iraqi denial and deception (D&D) efforts to hide the WMD programs that analysts were certain existed. The 2002 NIE's introduction stated that "we judge that we are only seeing a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts owing to Baghdad's vigorous D&D efforts." The intelligence provided to the Committee showed that Iraq was making efforts to hide some activity, but the reporting was not clear about what activity was being hidden or why it was being hidden. Although the IC lacked unambiguous reporting of either active WMD programs or a vigorous D&D effort to hide WMD programs, the assumptions that Iraq was engaged in both were tied together into a self-reinforcing premise that explained away the lack of strong evidence of either.

(U) Conclusion 4. In a few significant instances, the analysis in the National Intelligence Estimate suffers from a "layering" effect whereby assessments were built based on previous judgments without carrying forward the uncertainties of the underlying judgments.

(U) The Committee defines "layering" as the process of building an intelligence assessment primarily using previous judgments without substantial new intelligence reporting. While this process is a legitimate and often useful analytic tool in making logical connections between intelligence reports and in understanding complex analytic problems, the process can lose its legitimacy when the cumulative uncertainties of the underlying assessments are not factored into or conveyed through the new assessments.

(U) In discussions with the Committee about his experience running the Iraq Survey Group, Dr. David Kay suggested that the IC's mind set before Operation Iraqi Freedom concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs was a train that seemed "to always be going in the same direction." The IC drew on very few pieces of new evidence to reach large conclusions in which new pieces of evidence would accrete to the previous conclusion and pieces that did not fit tended to be thrown aside.

(U) One example of this layering effect occurred in the IC's analysis of Iraq's chemical weapons program. The NIE assessed that Iraq had renewed production of chemical weapons agents and stockpiled as much as 500 metric tons of chemical agent, much of it added in the last year. These assessments were largely based on another assessment, that Iraq may have been engaged in chemical weapons transshipment activity in the spring of 2002. This assessment was largely based on yet another assessment, that the presence of a specific tanker truck was a possible indicator that chemical or biological weapons related activities were occurring. The IC did not make it clear in its latter assessments that its judgments were based on layer upon layer of previous analytic judgments. This gave the reader of the NIE the impression that Iraq's chemical weapons program was advancing and growing, but did not convey that the assessment was based on very little direct or credible intelligence reporting.

([DELETE]) Similarly, the IC based its judgment that "all key aspects - research & development (R&D), production, and weaponization -- of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War" primarily on its assessment that Iraq had mobile biological production vans. While this assessment was based on direct intelligence that indicated Iraq had mobile biological production units, the reporting was largely from a single source to whom the Intelligence Community did not have direct access. The Committee believes that the IC's expectation that Iraq would move to mobile biological weapons production, focused their attention on reporting that supported that contention and led them to disregard information that contradicted it. This exemplifies Dr. Kay's concerns that the IC made large new conclusions based on only a few pieces of new evidence that were joined to previous conclusions and that pieces that did not fulfill its expectations tended to be thrown aside.

(U) These are just two, of many, examples of this layering effect the Committee found in the IC's analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Committee recognizes the importance of analysts' ability to perform this type of analytic extrapolation, particularly in trying to "connect the dots" of sometimes seemingly disparate pieces of intelligence. Incorporating and accurately explaining the cumulative underlying uncertainties inherent in that process is equally important, however.

(U) Conclusion 5. In each instance where the Committee found an analytic or collection failure, it resulted in part from a failure of Intelligence Community managers throughout their leadership chains to adequately supervise the work of their analysts and collectors. They did not encourage analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments, accurately characterize the intelligence reporting, or counsel analysts who lost their objectivity.

(U) This report describes a variety of serious analytical and collection failures in the Intelligence Community's (IC) work on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. While not in any way diminishing the responsibility of the analysts and collectors that were directly involved, the Committee believes that blame for these failures can not be laid at their feet alone. In each instance, the analysts' and collectors' chains of command in their respective agencies, from immediate supervisors up to the National Intelligence Council and the Director of Central Intelligence, all share responsibility for not encouraging analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments or accurately characterize the intelligence reporting. They failed to adequately question and challenge analysts about their assessments, and, most importantly, to recognize when analysts had lost their objectivity and take corrective action. It seems likely that these failures of management and leadership resulted at least in part as a result of the fact that the Intelligence Community's chain of command shared with its analysts and collectors the same "group think" presumption that Iraq had active and expanded weapons of mass destruction programs.

(U) Conclusion 6. The Committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of the Intelligence Community's human intelligence collection efforts against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities, in particular that the Community had no sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998. Most, if not all, of these problems stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and will not be solved by additional funding and personnel.

(U) The Committee's review into the prewar intelligence concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs has entailed an unprecedented outside examination of a broad range of the Intelligence Community's (IC) human intelligence (HUMINT) operations. The Committee found significant short-comings in almost every aspect of these operations.

([DELETE]) From 1991 to 1998, the IC relied too heavily on United Nations (UN) inspectors to collect information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and did not develop a sufficient unilateral HUMINT collection effort targeting Iraq to supplement UN-collected information and to take its place upon the departure of the UN inspectors. While the UN inspection process provided a valuable source of information, the IC should have used the time when inspectors were in Iraq to plan for the possibility that inspectors would leave and to develop sources who could continue to report after inspectors left.

([DELETE]) Because the United States lacked an official presence inside Iraq, the Intelligence Community depended too heavily on defectors and foreign government services to obtain HUMINT information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. While these sources had the potential to provide some valuable information, they had a limited ability to provide the kind of detailed intelligence about current Iraqi weapons of mass destruction efforts sought by U.S. policymakers. Moreover, because the Intelligence Community did not have direct access to many of these sources, their credibility was difficult to assess and was often left to the foreign government services to judge. Intelligence Community HUMINT efforts against a closed society like Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom were hobbled by the Intelligence Community's dependence on having an official U.S. presence in-country to mount clandestine HUMINT collection efforts.

(U) When UN inspectors departed Iraq, the placement of HUMINT agents and the development of unilateral sources inside Iraq were not top priorities for the Intelligence Community. The Intelligence Community did not have a single HUMINT source collecting against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq after 1998. The Intelligence Community appears to have decided that the difficulty and risks inherent in developing sources or inserting operations officers into Iraq outweighed the potential benefits. The Committee found no evidence that a lack of resources significantly prevented the Intelligence Community from developing sources or inserting operations officers into Iraq.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]. When Committee staff asked why the CIA had not considered placing a CIA officer in Iraq years before Operation Iraqi Freedom to investigate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, a CIA officer said, "because it's hard to sustain ... it takes a rare officer who can go in ... and survive scrutiny [DELETE] for a long time." The Committee agrees that such operations are difficult and dangerous, but they should be within the norm of the CIA's activities and capabilities. Senior CIA officials have repeatedly told the Committee that a significant increase in funding and personnel will be required to enable to the CIA to penetrate difficult HUMINT targets similar to prewar Iraq. The Committee believes, however, that if an officer willing and able to take such an assignment really is "rare" at the CIA, the problem is less a question of resources than a need for dramatic changes in a risk averse corporate culture.

(U) Problems with the Intelligence Community's HUMINT efforts were also evident in the Intelligence Community's handling of Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger. The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available. Given the nature of rapidly evolving global threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology, the Intelligence Community must develop means to quickly respond to fleeting collection opportunities outside the Community's established operating areas. The Committee also found other problems with the Intelligence Community's follow-up on the Iraq-Niger uranium issue, including a half-hearted investigation of the reported storage of uranium in a warehouse in Benin, and a failure, to this day, to call a telephone number, provided by the Navy, of an individual who claimed to have information about Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger.

([DELETE]) The Committee also found that the Defense RUMINT Service (DRS) demonstrated serious lapses in its handling of the RUMINT source code named CURVE BALL, who was the principle source behind the Intelligence Community's assessments that Iraq had a mobile biological weapons program. The DHS had primary responsibility for handling the Intelligence Community's interaction with the [DELETE] debriefers that were handling CURVE BALL, but the DHS officers that were involved in CURVE BALL's case limited themselves to a largely administrative role, translating and passing along reports [DELETE] analysts do not have the benefit of the regular interaction with sources or, in this case, CURVE BALL's debriefers, that could have allowed them to make judgments about the reliability of source reporting.

(U) Another significant problem found by the Committee is the fact that the CIA continues to excessively compartment sensitive HUMINT reporting and fails to share important information about HUMINT reporting and sources with Intelligence Community analysts who have a need to know. In the years before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the CIA protected its Iraq weapons of mass destruction sources so well that some of the information they provided was kept from the majority of analysts with a legitimate need to know. The biological weapons and delivery sections of this report discuss at length the CIA's failure to share important information about source reporting on Iraq's alleged mobile biological weapons program and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program that left analysts and policymakers with an incomplete and, at times, misleading picture of these issues.

(U) The process by which the Intelligence Community calculates the benefits and risks of sharing sensitive human intelligence is skewed too heavily toward withholding information. This issue has been raised repeatedly with the Intelligence Community, particularly after the lack of information sharing was found to have played a key role in the intelligence failures of 9/11. The Committee believes that the Intelligence Community must reconsider whether the risks of expanding access to cleared analysts are truly greater than the risks of keeping information so tightly compartmented that the analysts who need it to make informed judgments are kept in the dark.

(U) Conclusion 7. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in several significant instances, abused its unique position in the Intelligence Community, particularly in terms of information sharing, to the detriment of the Intelligence Community's prewar analysis concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

(U) The Intelligence Community is not a level playing field when it comes to the competition of ideas in intelligence analysis. The Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI' s) responsibility, established by the National Security Act of 1947, to coordinate the nation's intelligence activities and correlate, evaluate, and disseminate intelligence that affects national security, provides the CIA with a unique position in the Intelligence Community. The fact that the DCI is the head of the CIA and head of the Intelligence Community, the principal intelligence advisor to the President, and is responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods, provides the CIA with unique access to policymakers and unique control of intelligence reporting. This arrangement was intended to coordinate the disparate elements of the Intelligence Community in order to provide the most accurate and objective analysis to policymakers. The Committee found that in practice, however, in the case of the Intelligence Community's analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, this arrangement actually undermined the provision of accurate and objective analysis by hampering intelligence sharing and allowing CIA analysts to control the presentation of information to policymakers, and exclude analysis from other agencies.

(U) The Committee found in a number of cases that significant reportable intelligence was sequestered in CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) cables, distribution of sensitive intelligence reports was excessively restricted, and CIA analysts were often provided with "sensitive" information that was not made available to analysts who worked the same issues at other all-source analysis agencies. These restrictions, in several cases, kept information from analysts that was essential to their ability to make fully informed judgments. Analysts cannot be expected to formulate and present their best analysis to policymakers while having only partial knowledge of an issue.

([DELETE]) For example, important information concerning the reliability of two of the main sources on Iraq's alleged mobile biological weapons program was not available to most Iraq biological weapons analysts outside the CIA. Some analysts at other agencies were aware of some of the credibility concerns about the sources, but the CIA's DO did not disseminate cables throughout the Intelligence Community that would have provided this information to all Iraq biological weapons analysts. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) The CIA also failed to share important information about Iraq's UAV software procurement efforts with other intelligence analysts. The CIA did share sensitive information that indicated Iraq [DELETE] was trying to obtain mapping software that could only be used for mapping in the U.S. This suggested to many analysts that Iraq may have been intending to use the software to target the U.S. The CIA failed to pass on additional information, until well after the coordination and publication of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), [DELETE]. This information was essential for analysts to make fully informed judgments about Iraq's intentions to target the U.S.

(U) In some cases CIA analysts were not open to fully considering information and opinions from other intelligence analysts or creating a level playing field in which outside analysts fully participated in meetings or analytic efforts. This problem was particularly evident in the case of the CIA's analysis of Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes during which the Committee believes the agency lost objectivity and in several cases took action that improperly excluded useful expertise from the intelligence debate. For example, the CIA performed testing of the tubes without inviting experts from the Department of Energy (DOE) to participate. A CIA analyst told Committee staff that the DOE was not invited "because we funded it. It was our testing. We were trying to prove some things that we wanted to prove with the testing. It wasn't a joint effort." The Committee believes that such an effort should never have been intended to prove what the CIA wanted to prove, but should have been a Community effort to get to the truth about Iraq's intended use for the tubes. By excluding DOE analysts, the Intelligence Community's nuclear experts, the CIA was not able to take advantage of their potentially valuable analytic insights. In another instance, an independent Department of Defense (DOD) rocket expert told the Committee that he did not think the CIA analysts came to him for an objective opinion, but were trying "to encourage us to come up with [the] answer" that the tubes were not intended to be used for a rocket program.

(U) The Committee also found that while the DCI was supposed to function as both the head of the CIA and the head of the Intelligence Community, in many instances he only acted as head of the CIA. For example, the DCI told the Committee that he was not aware that there were dissenting opinions within the Intelligence Community on whether Iraq intended use the aluminum tubes for a nuclear program until the NIE was drafted in September 2002, despite the fact that intelligence agencies had been fervently debating the issue since the spring of 2001. While the DCI, as the President's principal intelligence advisor, should provide policymakers, in particular the President, with the best analysis available from throughout the Intelligence Community, the DCI told Committee staff that he does not even expect to learn of dissenting opinions "until the issue gets joined" through interagency coordination of an NIE. This means that contentious debate about significant national security issues can go on at the analytic level for months, or years, without the DCI or senior policymakers being informed of any opinions other than those of CIA analysts. In addition, the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs) are prepared by CIA analysts and are presented by CIA briefers who mayor may not include an explanation of alternative views from other intelligence agencies. Other Intelligence Community agencies essentially must rely on the analysts who disagree with their positions to accurately convey their analysis to the nation's most senior policymakers.

(U) These factors worked together to allow CIA analysts and officials to provide the agency's intelligence analysis to senior policymakers without having to explain dissenting views or defend their analysis from potential challenges from other Intelligence Community agencies. The Committee believes that policymakers at all levels of government and in both the executive and legislative branches would benefit from understanding the full range of analytic opinions directly from the agencies who hold those views, or from truly impartial representatives of the entire Intelligence Community.

C. Iraq's Ties to Terrorism

(U) The terrorism related sections of the report recount the Committee's efforts to evaluate the quantity and quality of the intelligence underlying prewar assessments. Each section contains it own set of conclusions. There is also a separate section on the issue of objectivity and whether analysts were pressured to reach specific conclusions to support a particular policy objective. Unlike the WMD sections of the report, in some instances, the issue of accuracy has been addressed as post-war reporting has become available.

(U) Because there was no National Intelligence Estimate specifically focused on Iraq's ties to terrorism, the Committee focused its work primarily the January 2003 Intelligence Report entitled Iraqi Support for Terrorism. This intelligence assessment was drafted by the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Counterterrorist Center (CTC). (The CTC includes analysts from across the Intelligence Community.) Iraqi Support for Terrorism was first published for a limited executive audience in September 2002 under the same title. There were a few changes made to the January 2003 version of the document including the addition of new information that had been collected following the September publication. The Committee chose to evaluate it as the IC's most comprehensive product on the subject because the January 2003 paper was the most current version and was disseminated to a much wider audience.

(U) To complete this section of the report, the Committee's staff interviewed a total of sixty-two individuals and reviewed more than 1,000 documents provided by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). To gain an in-depth understanding of the Intelligence Community (IC) and CTC collection posture, Committee staff received a briefing from the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Collection (ADCI/C) and met with two former heads of the DCI's Counterterrorist Center (CTC). Committee staff interviewed analysts from the CTC, DIA, and FBI who were responsible for assessing Iraq's links to al-Qaida. Committee staff also met with National Security Agency (NSA) employees who collected and analyzed signals intelligence (SIGINT) related to Iraq's links to terrorism. To address analytical objectivity and allegations concerning the politicization of the intelligence process, Committee staff received a briefing from the CIA Ombudsman for Politicization and interviewed IC analysts who interacted with, inter alia, personnel from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSDP).

(U) In addition to reviewing activities specifically relating to Iraq's links to terrorism, the Committee staff participated in a briefing to the Committee by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and in a Committee hearing with the former Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. On each occasion, the Committee raised the issue of Iraq's links to terrorism.

(U) Intelligence from the 1960s and 1970s first established the link between Iraq and terrorism, resulting in Iraq's inclusion in the State Department's 1979 list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The State Department removed Iraq from the list in 1982. [4] Iraq returned to the list in 1990 based upon intelligence information linking the regime to acts of terrorism conducted by the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and its support for Palestinian terrorists. The first intelligence reports suggesting links between Iraq and al-Qaida emerged in the mid-1990s. The IC continues to receive reporting on these links from detainees and document exploitation.

(U) While the nature of the intelligence reporting produced or obtained by the IC has not changed dramatically in the past decade, there has been a significant shift in the way IC analysts evaluate reporting regarding terrorism, particularly in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. CIA officials interviewed by Committee staff indicated that, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the trade craft of terrorism analysis shifted and analysts now feel obligated to make more conclusive assessments regardless of the quality of the available intelligence. In this new analytic environment analysts cannot set aside intelligence reports because the information does not fit within the context of their prior knowledge or because the report has not been corroborated. The CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI), describing the unique nature of terrorism analysis, said, " ... terrorism analysis is just fundamentally different on some issues." She commented further that:

Sometimes it is the walk-in who has the best information about the impending attack. What we teach people in trade craft is that you want to get a report. It's preferable that that report come from a fully-vetted source whose information is from a long-established reporting record, has direct access and you've been able to corroborate it somehow. That's what you would ideally like and that's what you ideally teach analysts to look for. But with terrorism you can't dismiss the walk-in.


The Deputy Director of the CTC's Office of Terrorism Analysis noted that this is the most difficult issue he has encountered in his eighteen years of intelligence analysis. He also stated that:

On the other hand, I would also say that we've encouraged and developed a sense of trade craft specifically on terrorism that says push the envelope because the implications are so high and because we have to acknowledge up front that, unlike in some other cases, some other lines of analysis, that we have to accept that often our information is going to be fragmentary and, if we wait too long to reach conclusions, we might make a mistake.


(U) The focus of the Committee's terrorism review, Iraqi Support for Terrorism, addressed four main issues:

• terrorist activities conducted by the IIS;

• Iraqi support for terrorist activities conducted by regional terrorist groups;

• Iraqi contacts with al-Qaida; and,

• potential Iraqi use of terrorism in the event of a war with the United States.

(U) Committee staff evaluated each of these and other issues including the intelligence source reporting underlying the assessments. The terrorism related sections of this report discuss the assessments and the intelligence reporting in detail.

1. Overall Conclusions -- Terrorism

(U) Conclusion 8. Intelligence Community analysts lack a consistent post-September 11 approach to analyzing and reporting on terrorist threats.

(U) Though analysts have been wrong on major issues in the past, no previous intelligence failure has been so costly as the September 11 attacks. As the Deputy Director of Intelligence (DDI) explained during an interview with Committee staff, terrorist threat analysts now use a different type of trade craft than generally employed by political, leadership or regional analysts. Threat analysts are encouraged to "push the envelope" and look at various possible threat scenarios that can be drawn from limited and often fragmentary information. As a result, analysts can no longer dismiss a threat as incredible because they cannot corroborate it. They cannot dismiss what may appear to be the rantings of a walk-in until additional vetting shows those stories to be fabricated.

(U) To compensate for the fragmentary nature of the reporting on Iraq's potential links to al-Qaida, Intelligence Community (IC) analysts included as much detail as they could about the nature of the sources and went to great lengths to describe their analytic approach to the problem. For example, where information was limited to a single or untested source or to a foreign government service, a source description was provided. As discussed in more detail in the body of this report, a "Scope Note" was incorporated in each product to describe the analytic approach the drafters had taken to address the issue. In Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship, the Scope Note explained that the authors had purposefully taken an aggressive approach to interpreting the available data. In both the September 2002 and January 2003 versions of Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the Scope Note did not describe an analytic approach, but rather it highlighted the gaps in information and described the analysts' understanding of the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship as "evolving."

(U) Though the Committee understands the need for different analytical approaches and expressions of competing viewpoints, the IC should have considered that their readership would not necessarily understand the nuance between the first "purposely aggressive" approach and a return, in Iraqi Support for Terrorism, to a more traditional analysis of the reporting concerning Iraq's links to al-Qaida. A consistent approach in both assessments which carefully explained the intelligence reports and then provided a spectrum of possible conclusions would have been more useful and would have assisted policymakers in their public characterizations of the intelligence.

(U) Conclusion 9. Source protection policies within the Intelligence Community direct or encourage reports officers to exclude relevant detail about the nature of their sources. As a result, analysts community-wide are unable to make fully informed judgments about the information they receive, relying instead on nonspecific source lines to reach their assessments. Moreover, relevant operational data is nearly always withheld from analysts, putting them at a further analytical disadvantage.

(U) A significant portion of the intelligence reporting that was used to evaluate whether Iraq's interactions with al-Qaida operatives constituted a relationship was stripped of details prior to being made available to analysts community-wide. Source information and operational detail was provided only to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts. This lack of information sharing limited the level of discussion and debate that should have taken place across the Community on this critical issue. While in the case of Iraq's links to terrorism, the final analysis has proven, thus far, to have been accurate and not affected by a lack of relevant source or operational detail, we cannot rely on this system in the future. Until changes are made concerning how and when source information is made available to analysts, we run the risk of missing critical data that might provide early warning.

(U) The absence of source and operational detail affects not only analysts, but policymakers as well. The Committee found that policymakers took an active role by personally examining individual intelligence reports for themselves. If this trend continues, it is even more important that such relevant detail be provided.

([DELETE]) Conclusion 10. The Intelligence Community relies too heavily on foreign government services and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests.

([DELETE]) Due to the lack of unilateral sources on Iraq's links to terrorist groups like al-Qaida [DELETE], the Intelligence Community (IC) relied too heavily on foreign government service reporting and sources to whom it did not have direct access to determine the relationship between Iraq and [DELETE] terrorist groups. While much of this reporting was credible, the IC left itself open to possible manipulation by foreign governments and other parties interested in influencing U.S. policy. The Intelligence Community's collectors must develop and recruit unilateral sources with direct access to terrorist groups to confirm, complement or confront foreign government service reporting on these critical targets.

(U) Conclusion 11. Several of the allegations of pressure on Intelligence Community (IC) analysts involved repeated questioning. The Committee believes that IC analysts should expect difficult and repeated questions regarding threat information. Just as the post 9/11 environment lowered the Intelligence Community's reporting threshold, it has also affected the intensity with which policymakers will review and question threat information.

(U) A number of the individuals interviewed by the Committee in conducting its review stated that Administration officials questioned analysts repeatedly on the potential for cooperation between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida. Though these allegations appeared repeatedly in the press and in other public reporting on the lead-up to the war, no analyst questioned by the Committee stated that the questions were unreasonable, or that they were encouraged by the questioning to alter their conclusions regarding Iraq's links to al-Qaida.

(U) In some cases, those interviewed stated that the questions had forced them to go back and review the intelligence reporting, and that during this exercise they came across information they had overlooked in initial readings. The Committee found that this process -- the policymakers probing questions -- actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) products. The review revealed that the CIA analysts who prepared Iraqi Support for Terrorism made careful, measured assessments which did not overstate or mischaracterize the intelligence reporting upon which it was based.

(U) The Committee also found that CIA analysts are trained to expect questions from policymakers, and to tailor their analysis into a product that is useful to them. In an Occasional Paper on improving CIA analytic performance, written by a Research Fellow at the Sherman Kent Center, the fellow states:

If the mission of intelligence analysis is to inform policymaking -- to help the U.S. government anticipate threats and seize opportunities -- then customization of analysis is the essence of the professional practice, not a defilement of it (i.e., politicization). [b]In effect there is no such thing as an unprofessional policymaker question for intelligence to address so long as the answer reflects professional analytic trade craft (e.g., tough-minded weighing of evidence and open-minded consideration of alternatives). (Emphasis added)[/b]

(U) The same Research Fellow commented on strategic warning stating, "Key to the warning challenge is that the substantive uncertainty surrounding threats to U.S. interests requires analysts, and policymakers, to make judgments that are inherently vulnerable to error." This vulnerability has never been so apparent as in the failure to detect and deter the attacks on September 11, 2001. While analysts cannot dismiss a threat because at first glance it seems unreasonable or it cannot be corroborated by other credible reporting, policymakers have the ultimate responsibility for making decisions based on this same fragmentary, inconclusive reporting. If policymakers did not respond to analysts' caveated judgments with pointed, probing questions, and did not require them to produce the most complete assessments possible, they would not be doing their jobs.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Mon May 09, 2016 11:55 pm

Part 1 of 2

II. NIGER

A. The Original Niger Reporting


([DELETE]) Reporting on a possible uranium yellowcake [5] sales agreement between Niger and Iraq first came to the attention of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) on October 15,2001. The Central Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) issued an intelligence report [DELETE] from a foreign government service indicating that Niger planned to ship several tons of uranium to Iraq [DELETE]. The intelligence report said the uranium sales agreement had been in negotiation between the two countries since at least early 1999, and was approved by the State Court of Niger in late 2000. According to the cable, Nigerien President Mamadou Tandja gave his stamp of approval for the agreement and communicated his decision to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The report also indicated that in October 2000 Nigerien Minister of Foreign Affairs Nassirou Sabo informed one of his ambassadors in Europe that Niger had concluded an accord to several tons of uranium to Iraq. [DELETE]

(U) At the time, all IC analysts interviewed by Committee staff considered this initial report to be very limited and lacking needed detail. CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Department of Energy (DOE) analysts considered the reporting to be "possible" while the Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) regarded the report as "highly suspect," primarily because INR analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction and did not believe Niger would be able to transfer uranium to Iraq because a French consortium maintained control of the Nigerien uranium industry.

(U) Only the CIA wrote a finished intelligence product on the report (Senior Executive Intelligence Brief [SEIB], Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts, October 18, 2001). Regarding the Niger reporting the SEIB said:

According to a foreign government service, Niger as of early this year planned to send several tons of uranium to Iraq under an agreement concluded late last year. Iraq and Niger had been negotiating the shipment since at least early 1999, but the state court of Niger only this year approved it, according to the service.


- There is no corroboration from other sources that such an agreement was reached or that uranium was transferred.

- United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 687 prohibits Iraq from purchasing uranium, although the transfer would not require the application of safeguards.


In view of the origin, the uranium probably is in the form of yellowcake and will need further processing to be used in an uranium enrichment plant. Iraq has no known facilities for processing or enriching the material.

- The quantity of yellowcake to be transferred could support the enrichment of enough uranium for at least one nuclear weapon.


([DELETE]) On November 20,2001, U.S. Embassy Niamey disseminated a cable on a recent meeting between the ambassador and the Director General of Niger's French-led consortium. The Director General said "there was no possibility" that the government of Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines.

([DELETE]) Reporting on the uranium transaction did not surface again until February 5, 2002 when the CIA's DO issued a second intelligence report [DELETE] which again cited the source as a "[foreign] government service." Although not identified in the report, this source was also from the foreign service. The second report provided more details about the previously reported Iraq-Niger uranium agreement and provided what was said to be "verbatim text" of the accord.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]. Subsequently, the governments of Niger and Iraq signed an agreement regarding the sale of uranium during meetings held July 5-6, 2000. The report indicated that 500 tons of uranium per year [DELETE]

([DELETE]) IC analysts at the CIA and the DIA were more impressed with the detail and substance of the second report. One analyst noted that the report provided much more information than they had seen previously in similar reporting about alleged uranium transactions to other countries. INR analysts continued to doubt the accuracy of the reporting, again because they thought Niger would be unwilling and unable to sell uranium to Iraq and because they thought Iraq would be unlikely to risk such a transaction when they were "bound to be caught." Because of these doubts, an INR asked the CIA whether the source of the report could submit to a polygraph. [DELETE]. A CIA analyst also inquired about the source and says he was told by the CIA's DO that the report was from a "very credible source."

([DELETE]) Several analysts interviewed by Committee staff also pointed out that information in the second intelligence report matched [DELETE] reporting from 1999 which showed that an Algerian businessman, Baraka, was arranging a trip for the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, Wissam al-Zahawi, to visit Niger and other African countries in 1999. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Based on information from the CIA report from the foreign service, on February 12,2002, the DIA wrote a finished intelligence product titled Niamey signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad (NMJIC [National Military Joint Intelligence Center] Executive Highlight, Vol 028-02, Februaryl2, 2002). The product outlined the details in the DO intelligence report, namely, that Niger had agreed to deliver 500 tons of yellowcake uranium to Iraq [DELETE]. The piece concluded that "Iraq probably is searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program." The product did not include any judgments about the credibility of the reporting.

([DELETE]) After reading the DIA report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA's analysis of the issue. In response, the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) published a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR021402-05), an intelligence assessment with limited distribution, which said, "information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated." The piece discussed the details of the DO intelligence report and indicated that "some of the information in the report contradicts reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Niamey. U.S. diplomats say the French Government-led consortium that operates Niger's two uranium mines maintains complete control over uranium mining and yellowcake production." The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service [DELETE].

B. Former Ambassador

([DELETE]) Officials from the CIA's DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed to obtain additional information. [DELETE] who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.

([DELETE]) Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable [DELETE] requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

([DELETE]) The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf [DELETE]. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region [DELETE]. Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about [DELETE] during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.

(U) On February 18, 2002, the embassy in Niger disseminated a cable which reported that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal "provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales. The names of GON [government of Niger] officials cited in the report track closely with those we know to be in those, or closely-related positions. However, the purported 4,000-ton annual production listed is fully 1,000 tons more than the mining companies claim to have produced in 2001." The report indicated that the ambassador had met with the Nigerien Foreign Minister to ask for an unequivocal assurance that Niger had stuck to its commitment not to sell uranium to rogue states. The cable also noted that in September 2001 the Nigerien Prime Minister had told embassy personnel that there were buyers like Iraq who would pay more for Niger's uranium than France, but the Prime Minister added, "of course Niger cannot sell to them." The cable concluded that despite previous assurances from Nigerien officials that no uranium would be sold to rogue nations, "we should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some scheme could be, or has been, underway to supply Iraq with yellowcake from here." The cable also suggested raising the issue with the French, who control the uranium mines in Niger, despite France's solid assurances that no uranium could be diverted to rogue states.

(U) On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue." The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

(U) The INR analyst's meeting notes and electronic mail (e-mail) from other participants indicate that INR explained its skepticism that the alleged uranium contract could possibly be carried out due to the fact that it would be very difficult to hide such a large shipment of yellowcake and because "the French appear to have control of the uranium mining, milling and transport process, and would seem to have little interest in selling uranium to the Iraqis." The notes also indicate that INR believed that the embassy in Niger had good contacts and would be able to get to the truth on the uranium issue, suggesting a visit from the former ambassador would be redundant. Other meeting participants argued that the trip would do little to clarify the story on the alleged uranium deal because the Nigeriens would be unlikely to admit to a uranium sales agreement with Iraq, even if one had been negotiated. An e-mail from a WINPAC analyst to CPD following the meeting noted "it appears that the results from this source will be suspect at best, and not believable under most scenarios." CPD concluded that with no other options, sending the former ambassador to Niger was worth a try.

(U) The INR analyst's notes also indicate that specific details of the classified report on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal were discussed at the meeting, as well as whether analysts believed it was plausible that Niger would be capable of delivering such a large quantity of uranium to Iraq. The CIA has told Committee staff that the former ambassador did not have a "formal" security clearance but had been given an "operational clearance" up to the Secret level for the purposes of his potential visit to Niger.

([DELETE]) On February 20, 2002, CPD provided the former ambassador with talking points for his use with contacts in Niger. The talking points were general, asking officials if Niger had been approached, conducted discussions, or entered into any agreements concerning uranium transfers with any "countries of concern" [DELETE]. The talking points also focused on whether any uranium might be missing from Niger or might have been transferred and asked how Niger accounts for all of its uranium each year. The talking points did not refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that there was any such deal being reported in intelligence channels. DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. The former ambassador left for Niger on February 21, 2002.

(U) On February 24, 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Niamey disseminated a cable (NIAMEY 000262) describing a meeting between the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, Deputy Commander, European Command, General Carlton Fulford, Niger's President, Mamadou Tandja and Foreign Minister Aichatou Mindaoudou. General Fulford had previously scheduled a routine refueling stop and brief meeting with Nigerien officials at the request of Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff that she routinely encouraged visitors to Western Africa to make refueling stops in Niger. She said "when you are assigned to a place like Niger, which is not exactly the center of the universe ... you take everything you can get. And I worked very hard to make Niger the best refueling stop in Africa." When the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting surfaced in early February, Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick decided to ask General Fulford to use the previously scheduled meeting to raise the uranium issue with Nigerien officials. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick prepared talking points for General Fulford to use during his visit and the CIA coordinated on the talking points.

([DELETE]) At the meeting, Nigerien President Tandja assured the ambassador and General Fulford that Niger's goal was to keep its uranium "in safe hands." He [DELETE]. In the comment section of the cable, the embassy noted that in the past, "previous Nigerien governments have suggested that the best way the [U.S. government] could keep Niger's uranium from the wrong hands" was for the U.S. to purchase it. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff that during her meetings with Nigerien officials, she never asked whether the officials had been approached by any countries to purchase uranium. She said, "we raised the issue in more general terms rather than specifics."

(U) On February 26, 2002, the former ambassador arrived in Niger. He told Committee staff that he first met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick to discuss his upcoming meetings. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick asked him not to meet with current Nigerien officials because she believed it might complicate her continuing diplomatic efforts with them on the uranium issue. The former ambassador agreed to restrict his meetings to former officials and the private sector.

([DELETE]) The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick [DELETE], Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S. officials he thought there was "nothing to the story." Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador saying "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on."

(U) On March 1, 2002, INR published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely. The INR analyst who drafted the assessment told Committee staff that he had been told that the piece was in response to interest from the Vice President's office in the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. The assessment reiterated INR's view that France controlled the uranium industry and "would take action to block a sale of the kind alleged in a CIA report of questionable credibility from a foreign government service." The assessment added that "some officials may have conspired for individual gain to arrange a uranium sale," but considered President Tandja's government unlikely to risk relations with the U.S. and other key aid donors. In a written response to a question from Committee staff on this matter, the Department of State said the assessment was distributed through the routine distribution process in which intelligence documents are delivered to the White House situation room, but State did not provide the assessment directly to the Vice President in a special delivery.

([DELETE]) In early March 2002, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger uranium issue. In response, on March 5, 2002, WINPAC analysts sent an analytic update to the briefer which noted that the government of Niger said it was making all efforts to ensure that its uranium would be used for only peaceful purposes. The update said the foreign government service that provided the original report "was unable to provide new information, but continues to assess that its source is reliable." The update also noted that the CIA would "be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5."

(U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes.

(U) The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002. The report did not identify the former ambassador by name or as a former ambassador, but described him as "a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report also indicted that the "subsources of the following information knew their remarks could reach the U.S. government and may have intended to influence as well as inform." DO officials told Committee staff that this type of description was routine and was done in order to protect the former ambassador as the source of the information, which they had told him they would do. DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the "high priority of the issue." The report was widely distributed in routine channels.

([DELETE]) The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996- 1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [DELETE] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

([DELETE]) The intelligence report also said that Niger's former Minister for Energy and Mines [DELETE], Mai Manga, stated that there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid- 1980s. He knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium. He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran. Mai Manga also described how the French mining consortium controls Nigerien uranium mining and keeps the uranium very tightly controlled from the time it is mined until the time it is loaded onto ships in Benin for transport overseas. Mai Manga believed it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a special shipment of uranium to a pariah state given these controls.

(U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations." The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

([DELETE]) When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [DELETE] intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from [DELETE] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report [DELETE].

(U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12,2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong. '" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

(U) The former ambassador told Committee staff that he had no direct knowledge of how the information he provided was handled by the CIA, but, based on his previous government experience, he believed that the report would have been distributed to the White House and that the Vice President received a direct response to his question about the possible uranium deal. He said,

Whether or not there was a specific response to the specific question the Vice President asked I don't know for a fact, other than to know, having checked with my own memory when I was in the White House at the National Security Council ... any time an official who is senior enough to ask that question, that official was senior enough to have a very specific response. The question then becomes whether the response came back as a telephone call, a non-paper - in other words, talking points - or orally briefed, or a specific cable in addition to the more general report that is circulated."


([DELETE]) The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, [DELETE]. The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. [DELETE] The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

(U) IC analysts had a fairly consistent response to the intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip in that no one believed it added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story. An INR analyst said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR's position, but said that the "report could be read in different ways." He said the report was credible, but did not give it a lot of attention because he was busy with other things.

(U) DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.

(U) Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.

( [DELETE]) On March 25, 2002, the DO issued a third and final intelligence report from the same "[foreign] government service." The report said that the 2000 agreement by Niger to provide uranium to Iraq specified that 500 tons of uranium would be delivered in [DELETE].

([DELETE]) As in the two previous reports, the government service was not identified as the foreign government service. The foreign government service did not provide the DO with information about its source and the DO, to date, remains uncertain as to how the foreign government service collected the information in the three intelligence reports. There were no obvious inconsistencies in the names of officials mentioned or the dates of the transactions in any of the three reports. Of the seven names mentioned in the reporting, two were former high ranking officials who were the individuals in the positions described in the reports at the time described and five were lower ranking officials. Of the five lower ranking, two were not the individuals in the positions described in the reports, however, these do not appear to be names or positions with which intelligence analysts would have been familiar. For example, an INR analyst who had recently returned from a position as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Niger told Committee staff that he did not notice any inconsistencies with the names of the officials mentioned. The only mistake in any of the reports regarding dates, is that one date, July 7, 2000, is said to be a Wednesday in the report, but was actually a Friday.

C. Continuing Analysis

([DELETE]) Throughout the time the Niger reports were being disseminated, the [DELETE] CIA Iraq nuclear analyst said he had discussed the issue with his INR colleague and was aware that INR disagreed with the CIA's position. He said they discussed Niger's uranium production rates and whether Niger could have been diverting any yellowcake. He said that he and his INR counterpart essentially "agreed to disagree" about whether Niger could supply uranium to Iraq. The CIA analyst said he assessed at the time that the intelligence showed both that Iraq may have been trying to procure uranium in Africa and that it was possible Niger could supply it. He said his assessment was bolstered by several other intelligence reports on Iraqi interest in uranium from other countries in Africa. [6]

(U) On May 10,2002, the CIA's Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis (NESA) in the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) prepared a Principals Committee briefing book updating the status of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The document noted that a "foreign government service says Iraq was trying to acquire 500 tons of uranium from Niger."

(U) On June 24, 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Niamey published a cable, Niger's Uranium: GON Signs IAEA Accord, But Keeps Looking for New Buyers as Price Falls. The cable reported that, following prolonged lobbying, on June 10, 2002, the government of Niger signed a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The cable indicated that the agreement would help ensure that Niger's uranium production is only used for "peaceful purposes."

(U) On July 22, 2002, the DOE published an intelligence product (Daily Intelligence Highlight, Nuclear Reconstitution Efforts Underway?) which highlighted the intelligence on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal as one of three indications that Iraq might be reconstituting its nuclear program. The report added that there was "no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq," and suggested that the "amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program."

(U) On August 1,2002 CIA NESA published a paper on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities which did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information.

(U) In September 2002, the DIA published an intelligence assessment (Defense Intelligence Assessment, Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Program) which outlined Iraq's recent efforts to rebuild its nuclear program. The report focused on a variety of issues related to Iraq's nuclear efforts, including procurement efforts, nuclear facilities, consolidation of scientists and uranium acquisition. On the latter issue, the assessment said "Iraq has been vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake." The report described the intelligence on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal and several other intelligence reports on Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The assessment said that "DIA cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources."

(U) In a written response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 11,2002, National Security Council (NBC) staff contacted the CIA to clear language for possible use in a statement for use by the President. The language cleared by the CIA said, "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. And we also know this: within the past few years, Iraq has resumed efforts to obtain large quantities of a type of uranium oxide known as yellowcake, which is an essential ingredient of this process. The regime was caught trying to purchase 500 metric tons of this material. It takes about 10 tons to produce enough enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon." The text was identical to the text proposed by the White House except that the CIA had suggested adding "up to" before 500 metric tons. The President never used the approved language publicly.

D. The British White Paper

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE] On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a White Paper on Iraq's WMD stating, "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

[DELETE]

[DELETE]

(U) In a response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 24, 2002, NSC staff contacted the CIA to clear another statement for use by the President. The statement said, "we also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa. Yellowcake is an essential ingredient of the process to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The CIA cleared the language, but suggested that "of the process" be changed to "in the process." The President did not use the cleared language publicly.

(U) Some time in September a member of the NSC staff discussed the Niger uranium issue with a CIA analyst. The CIA analyst told Committee staff that during coordination of a speech (he was not sure which one) with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested that the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind." In a written response to a question about this matter from the Committee, the NSC staff member said that the CIA analyst did not suggest that he remove text regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The NSC staff member said the analyst suggested that Saddam's meeting with his "nuclear mujahedin" was more compelling evidence of Iraq's effort to resurrect the Iraqi nuclear program than attempts to acquire yellowcake, but said the analyst never suggested that the yellowcake text be removed. He said he had no recollection of telling a CIA analyst that replacing the uranium reference would leave the British "flapping in the wind" and said such a statement would have been illogical since the President never presented in anyone speech every detail of intelligence gathered on Iraq either by the U.S. or by the U.K.

E. The National Intelligence Estimate

([DELETE]) At the same time the [DELETE], the IC was preparing the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. In mid-September 2002, in both hearings and in letters, Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) requested that the CIA publish an NIE on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Committee Members expressed concerns that they would be expected to vote on an Iraq Resolution shortly and had no NIE on which to base their vote.

(U) On September 12,2002, the DCI officially directed the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Strategic and Nuclear Programs to begin to draft an NIE. The National Intelligence Council (NIC) staff drew the discussion of nuclear reconstitution for the draft NIE largely from an August 2002 CIA assessment and a September 2002 DIA assessment, Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Weapons Programs. The NIO sent a draft of the entire NIE to IC analysts on September 23,2002 for coordination and comments and held an interagency coordination meeting on September 25,2002 to discuss the draft and work out any changes.

(U) Regarding uranium from Africa, the language of the NIE said:

Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.

• A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

• Reports indicate Iraq has also sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.


(U) At the NIE coordination meeting, the only analyst who voiced disagreement with the uranium section was an INR analyst. Several analysts from other agencies told Committee staff that they did not recall even discussing the uranium reporting at the meeting. All of the analysts said that the bulk of the time at the meeting was spent debating other issues such as the aluminum tubes, time lines for weapons designs, and procurement of magnets and other dual use items. CIA, DIA and DOE analysts all said that at the time the NIE was written, they agreed with the NIE assessment that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa. Some analysts said, in retrospect, the language should have been more qualified than it was, but they generally agreed with the text.

(U) The uranium text was included only in the body of the NIE, not in the key judgments section because the interagency consensus was that Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium were not key to the argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. According to the NIO, the key judgments were drawn from a CIA paper which only highlighted the acquisition of aluminum tubes as the reason Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The NIO said that at the NIE coordination meeting, analysts added other reasons they believed Iraq was reconstituting, such as acquiring magnets, machine tools, and balancing machines, and reestablishing Iraq's nuclear scientists cadre. When someone, the NIO was not sure who, [7] suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said that he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone else at the coordination meeting who disagreed with the uranium text, but also did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments."

(U) Because INR disagreed with much of the nuclear section of the NIE, it decided to convey its alternative views in text boxes, rather than object to every point throughout the NIE. INR prepared two separate boxes, one for the key judgments section and a two page box for the body of the nuclear section, which included a sentence which stated that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

(U) While formatting the final version of the NIE, the NIC staff decided to separate the entire aluminum tubes discussion into a separate annex that laid out each agency's position. When this formatting change was made, a text box INR had previously submitted for the body of the NIE was split into a text box on reconstitution and a text box on the aluminum tubes. Both the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs and the INR's senior WMD analyst told Committee staff that INR's dissent on the uranium reporting was inadvertently separated from the reconstitution section and included in the aluminum tubes box in the annex of the NIE. The NIC staff disseminated a draft of the NIE in which those changes were made on September 26, 2002 for coordination. An e-mail on September 30, 2002 indicates that INR made some further edits to their text boxes, but did not change the placement of their dissent on the uranium reporting. INR analysts told Committee staff they did not notice that the uranium dissent was included in the aluminum tube section.

([DELETE]) On October 1, 2002, in preparation for an SSCI hearing on the NIE the following day, a CIA NESA analyst prepared responses to questions anticipated from SSCI Members. The [DELETE] WINPAC Iraq nuclear analyst sent the NESA comments for inclusion [DELETE]

(U) On October 1, 2002, the NIC published the NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The language on Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa appeared as it did in the draft version and INR's position that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious" was included in a text box, separated by about 60 pages from the discussion of the uranium issue.

(U) On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSC!. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British white paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We've looked at those reports and we don't think they are very credible. It doesn't diminish our conviction that he's going for nuclear weapons, but I think they reached a little bit on that one point. Otherwise I think it's very solid."

(U) On October 4, 2002, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified before the SSCI. When asked by Senator Fred Thompson if there was disagreement with the British white paper, the NIO said that "they put more emphasis on the uranium acquisition in Africa than we would." He added, "there is some information on attempts and, as we said, maybe not to this committee, but in the last couple of weeks, there's a question about some of those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries. In one case the mine is completely flooded and how would they get the material. For us it's more the concern that they have uranium in-country now. It's under inspection. It's under control of the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency - but they only inspect it once a year." The NIO told Committee staff that he was speaking as an IC representative and was representing INR's known view on the issue. He said at the time of his remarks, he did not believe that the CIA had any problem with the credibility of the reporting, but said the CIA may have believed that the uranium information should not be included in an unclassified white paper.

(U) Also, on October 4, 2002, CIA published an unclassified White Paper, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. The NIO for NESA started work on the white paper in the spring of 2002, well before efforts began on the classified NIE. A CIA NESA analyst drafted the body of the White Paper and did not include text on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa.

(U) In October 2002, CIA's NESA published a classified Iraq handbook as a repository of reference material that policymakers, intelligence officers, and military personnel could easily access. In the section on Iraq's nuclear program NESA wrote, "Iraq may be trying to acquire 500 tons of uranium -- enough for 50 nuclear devices after processing -- from Niger."

F. The Cincinnati Speech

(U) On October 4, 2002, the NSC sent a draft of a speech they were preparing for the President to deliver in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was draft six of the speech and contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa -- an essential ingredient in the enrichment process."

(U) The CIA's former Associate Deputy Director for Intelligence (ADDI) for Strategic Programs, told Committee staff he was tasked by the Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI) to handle coordination of the speech within the CIA. On October 5, 2002, the ADDI brought together representatives for each of the areas of Iraq that the speech covered and asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst -- he could not remember who -- raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq.

([DELETE]) Both WINPAC Iraq nuclear analysts who had followed the Iraq-Niger uranium issue told Committee staff they were not involved in coordinating the Cincinnati speech and did not participate in the speech coordination session on October 5, 2002. The WINPAC Deputy Director for Analysis also told Committee staff he did not recall being involved in the Cincinnati speech, but later clarified his remarks to the Committee in writing saying that he remembered participating in the speech, but did not recall commenting on the section of the speech dealing with the Niger information. Committee staff asked the CIA to identify who might have attended the Cincinnati speech coordination meeting and raised concerns with the ADDI about the and facts of the Niger reporting. The CIA told Committee staff that the NESA Iraq analyst, [DELETE] believes he may have been the one who attended the meeting and raised concerns about the Niger reporting with the ADDI.

(U) Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy National Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

([DELETE]) Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

([DELETE]) The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16,2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.

([DELETE]) Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (l) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one ofthe two issues where we differed with the British."

(U) On October 7, 2002, President Bush delivered the speech in Cincinnati without the uranium reference. On the same day, the CIA prepared comments on a draft White House paper, A Grave and Gathering Danger. The comments suggested a change to the draft language saying "better to generalize the first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process." The original text from the White House had said "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." The White House did not publish the paper.

G. The Niger Documents

([DELETE]) On October 9,2002, an Italian journalist from the magazine Panorama provided U.S. Embassy Rome with copies of documents [8] pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. The journalist had acquired the documents from a source who had requested 15,000 Euros in return for their publication, and wanted the embassy to authenticate the documents. officers provided copies of the documents to the CIA's [DELETE] because the embassy, which did collect the information, was sending copies of the documents back to State Department headquarters.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Also on October 11,2002, the U.S. Embassy in Rome reported to State Department headquarters that it had acquired photocopies of documents on a purported uranium deal between Iraq and Niger from an Italian journalist. The cable said that the embassy had passed the documents to the CIA's [DELETE]. The embassy faxed the documents to the State Department's Bureau of Nonproliferation (NP) on October 15, 2002, which passed a copy of the documents to INR.

(U) Immediately after receiving the documents, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst e-mailed IC colleagues offering to provide the documents at a previously planned meeting of the Nuclear Interdiction Action Group (NIAG) the following day. The analyst, apparently already suspicious of the validity of the documents noted in his e-mail, "you'll note that it bears a funky Emb. of Niger stamp (to make it look official, I guess)."

(U) The INR Iraq nuclear analyst told Committee staff that the thing that stood out immediately about the documents was that a companion document -- a document included with the Niger documents that did not relate to uranium -- mentioned some type of military campaign against major world powers. The members of the alleged military campaign included both Iraq and Iran, and was, according to the documents, being orchestrated through the Nigerien Embassy in Rome, which all struck the analyst as "completely implausible." Because the stamp on this document matched the stamp on the uranium document, the analyst thought that all of the documents were likely suspect. The analyst was unaware at the time of any formatting problems with the documents or inconsistencies with the names or dates.

(U) On October 16, 2002, INR made copies of the documents available at the NIAG meeting for attendees, including representatives from the CIA, DIA, DOE and NSA. Because the analyst who offered to provide the documents was on leave, the office's senior analyst provided the documents. She cannot recall how she made the documents available, but analysts from several agencies, including the DIA, NSA and DOE, did pick up copies at that meeting. None of the four CIA representatives recall picking up the documents, however, during the CIA Inspector General's investigation of this issue, copies of the documents were found in the DO's CPD vault. It appears that a CPD representative did pick up the documents at the NIAG meeting, but after returning to the office, filed them without any further distribution.

([DELETE]) The CIA told the Committee its analysts did not seek to obtain copies of the documents because they believed that the foreign government service reporting was verbatim text and did not think it would advance the story on the alleged uranium deal. One analyst noted that, at the time, the CIA was preparing its case [DELETE] on reconstitution and since the uranium reporting was not significant to their argument, getting the documents was not a priority.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) On November 22, 2002, during a meeting with State Department officials, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director for Nonproliferation said that France had information on an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger. He said that France had determined that no uranium had been shipped, but France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger.

([DELETE]) On November 25, 2002, The Naval [DELETE] issued a very brief report (Alleged Storage of Uranium Destined for Iraq [DELETE] that a large quantity of uranium from Niger was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin. The uranium was reportedly sold to Iraq by Niger's President. The report provided the name and telephone numbers for the individual, a West African businessman, who was responsible for coordinating the alleged uranium transaction and indicated that he was willing to provide information about the transaction. CIA's DO told Committee staff that the businessman has never been contacted and the DO has not made an effort to determine whether this individual had any useful information. The DO told Committee staff that they saw no reason to contact him and noted that "no one even thought to do that." The Defense Humint Service (DHS) and the Navy also told Committee staff that they did not try to contact the businessman. The Navy told the Committee that because they were not further tasked regarding their report, they did not pursue the matter further. The DHS told Committee staff that because the DHS examined the warehouse on December 17, 2002 and saw only what appeared to be bales of cotton in the warehouse, they did not see a reason to contact the businessman. The report on the DHS's findings was not published until February 10, 2003. (See page 68)

(U) On December 17,2002, WINPAC analysts produced a paper, us. Analysis of Iraq's Declaration, 7 December 2002. The paper reviewed Iraq's "Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Disclosure" to the UN of its WMD programs and made only two points regarding the nuclear program -- one noted Iraq's failure to explain its procurement of aluminum tubes the IC assessed could be used in a nuclear program, and the other noted that the declaration "does not acknowledge efforts to procure uranium from Niger, one of the points addressed in the U.K. Dossier." An e-mail from the INR Iraq nuclear analyst to a DOE analyst on December 23,2002 indicated that the analyst was surprised that INR's well known alternative views on both the aluminum tubes and the uranium information were not included in the points before they were transmitted to the NSC. The DOE analyst commented in an e-mail response to INR that, "it is most disturbing that WINPAC is essentially directing foreign policy in this matter. There are some very strong points to be made in respect to Iraq's arrogant non-compliance with UN sanctions. However, when individuals attempt to convert those "strong statements" into the "knock out" punch, the Administration will ultimately look foolish -- i.e. the tubes and Niger!"
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Mon May 09, 2016 11:55 pm

Part 2 of 2

H. The Fact Sheet

(U) On December 18, 2002, the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs (P A) asked the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security to help develop a response to Iraq's December 7,2002 declaration to the UN. PA also contacted the State Department Bureau of Nonproliferation (NP) directly. The fact sheet was to be published after Ambassador John Negroponte delivered a speech to the UNSC the following morning, and after the Secretary of State held a press conference shortly thereafter.

(U) Later the same day, an NP special assistant prepared a draft of the fact sheet based on an existing copy of Negroponte's speech and sent the draft to the Director of WIN PAC at the CIA for coordination. In a phone conversation with an NP special assistant, the WINPAC Director made a few edits, but did not change the reference to Iraq's procurement of uranium from Niger. The suggested edits were outlined in a State Department e-mail and show no comments regarding the Niger uranium information.

(U) Separately, the NSC staff coordinated the Negroponte speech directly with the WINPAC Director and he recommended that "Niger" be replaced with "Africa" in the speech.

([DELETE]) At 11:28 a.m. on the morning of December 19, 2002, NP e-mailed its draft fact sheet to several offices in the State Department, including INR's Office of Analysis for Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues (SPM). NP sent the e-mail to the senior analyst in the office and did not indicate that there was a response deadline for comments. At 12:20 p.m. the senior analyst passed the fact sheet to three other analysts to solicit comments. At 1:12 p.m. the [DELETE] Iraq nuclear analyst in SPM sent comments to NP requesting that the word "reported" be added before "efforts" in the sentence, "the declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger." The e-mail added "as you know, INR assesses this reporting as dubious. Policymakers are entitled to leave out the word 'reported,' but the INR/SPM would not sign off on such a move." The INR's comments did not reach NP before the fact sheet had already been forwarded to the Office of Public Affairs. NP did not try to retrieve the document from PA to make the INR's recommended change.

(U) At about the same time, the action officer for Iraq in the State Department's Office of United Nations Political Affairs (IO/UNP) responded to NP that the draft fact sheet needed to be vetted with WINPAC because some items in the Negroponte speech had been changed. NP, aware that the fact sheet had already been cleared with WINPAC but unaware that WINPAC had told the NSC the prior evening to change the "Niger" reference to "Africa," told IO/UNP that the fact sheet was consistent with the speech. Later that afternoon, IO/UNP responded to NP's email, saying "didn't we pull 'from Niger' from Negroponte's comments at IC request?" By that time, the fact sheet had already been posted to the State Department web page. The fact sheet said Iraq's declaration, "ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

(U) According to the State Department Inspector General, shortly after the fact sheet was posted, NP drafted a cable to all embassies which included the fact sheet, Ambassador Negroponte's speech, and Secretary Powell's public remarks. By this time, aware that the Niger reference in the Negroponte speech had been changed, NP changed the text of the fact sheet that was included in the cable to "abroad" instead of "Niger." None of the text was ever changed to qualify the uranium information as "reported" as recommended by INR.

(U) On December 24, 2002, the Nigerien Prime Minister declared publicly that Niger had not sold uranium to Iraq and had not been approached since he took office in 2000. Niger's President and Minister of Mines also denied the sale. These comments were passed in a State Department cable on December 27, 2002, which noted that the remarks were in response to questions from local press after the State Department released its fact sheet noting Iraq's declaration to the UNSC "ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

([DELETE]) On January 6, 2003, [DELETE], the head of IAEA/INVO, Jacques Baute, requested information on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal mentioned in the Department of State's fact sheet. [DELETE].

(U) On January 13, 2003, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst sent an e-mail to several IC analysts outlining his reasoning why, "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." He indicated that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so ridiculous that it was "clearly a forgery." Because this document had the same alleged stamps for the Nigerien Embassy in Rome as the uranium documents, the analyst concluded "that the uranium purchase agreement probably is a forgery." When the CIA analyst received the e-mail, he realized that WINPAC did not have copies of the documents and requested copies from INR. CIA received copies of the foreign language documents on January 16, 2003.

(U) Two CIA Iraq WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that after looking at the documents, they did notice some inconsistencies. One of the analysts told Committee staff, "it was not immediately apparent, it was not jumping out at us that the documents were forgeries." The CIA then sent the documents to the State Department for translation.

([DELETE]) On January 15, 2003, thirteen days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC provided comments on a White House paper, A Grave and Gathering Danger, saying "better to generalize first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process." WINPAC had submitted identical language when it commented on the same paper in October. The paper was never published.

([DELETE]) On January 17, 2003, eleven days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC published a current intelligence paper (Request for Evidence of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program Other Than the Aluminum Tube Procurement Effort, SPWRO11703-01) in response to a request from the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff for information, other than the aluminum tubes, that showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Regarding uranium acquisition, the paper said, "fragmentary reporting on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from various countries in Africa in the past several years is another sign of reconstitution. Iraq has no legitimate use for uranium." The information on uranium acquisition attempts was one [DELETE] streams of intelligence provided to show Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

(U) WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that, even though they were still in the process of analyzing the documents, their analytic position had not changed, so they believed it would have been premature to publish concerns about the documents without having investigated those concerns for themselves. One analyst said that if he were presenting CIA's best evidence on reconstitution he would not have included the uranium information, but when asked what else we had besides the tubes, he "ratcheted" down the threshold of what was appropriate to include. He also indicated that the reference in the paper about efforts to acquire uranium from Africa were broader than the alleged Niger contract in that it included the reports on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

(U) Other WINPAC analysts told Committee staff that by January, they had come to believe that if Iraq was in fact attempting to acquire uranium from Africa, it would bolster their argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program because Iraq had no other use for uranium. Most of the other elements of the reconstitution case, the tubes, magnets, machine tools and balancing machines, were all dual-use materials, while for Iraq, uranium had only one potential use -- a nuclear weapons program.

(U) On January 20, 2003, the President submitted a report to Congress on Iraq's noncompliance with UNSC resolutions. The report stated that Iraq had failed to include in its declaration "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." The CIA and the White House have told Committee staff that the IC did not coordinate on this draft. In a written response to a question from Committee staff, the Department of State said that their usual role was to prepare the pre-decisional drafts of this periodic report. Their draft, which was provided to the NSC on December 9,2002, did not include the language contained in the final draft on Iraq's failure to declare "attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it. The CIA Inspector General told Committee staff the text for the report had been drawn from WINPAC' s assessment of Iraq's UNSC declaration.

(U) On January 24, 2003, in response to a request from the NSC for additional details regarding IC input to "the case for Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction," the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs faxed a packet of background information to the NSC. The fax contained the information from the October 2002 NIE on Iraq's vigorous attempts to procure uranium ore and yellowcake from Niger and other countries in Africa. The information was used to prepare for Secretary Powell's presentation of intelligence to the UN in February 2003.

([DELETE]) On January 24, 2003, in response to a question for the Office of the Secretary of Defense/International Security Affairs for information on Nigerien uranium sales to Iraq, the DIA provided a background paper which described the original CIA Niger reporting and the November 25 Navy report on alleged storage of uranium destined for Iraq. The paper concluded that "DIA cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore or yellowcake from Niger. However, sufficient time has elapsed since the commencement of the recent alleged uranium agreement, that we cannot discount that Iraq may have received an unknown quantity." The report made no mention of the foreign language documents on the alleged uranium deal and did not indicate that there were any concerns about the quality of those documents.

(U) On January 26,2003, Secretary of State Powell addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He said, "why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?"

([DELETE]) On January 27, 2003, a CIA intelligence report [DELETE] indicated that foreign government service reported that the uranium sodium compound in storage at the warehouse in Cotonou, Benin was destined for France, not Iraq. The same report said that separate foreign government service had information on Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Niger, dating from 1999, but had no further information. The foreign government service also indicated that Niger had been looking to sell an old stock of uranium for years to the highest bidder. According to the foreign government service, other countries had expressed interest.

1. The State of the Union

(U) On January 27, 2003, the DCI was provided with a hardcopy draft of the State of the Union address at an NSC meeting. When he returned to the CIA, he passed the draft to an executive assistant to deliver to the office of the DDI. No one in the office of the DDI recalls who the point of contact for the speech was, or if a point of contact was ever named. No one recalled receiving parts of the speech for coordination and because the speech was hand carried, no electronic versions of the speech exist at the CIA. The DCI testified at a July 16,2003 hearing that he never read the State of the Union speech.

(U) In late January, the Director of WIN PAC discussed, over the phone, the portion of the State of the Union draft pertaining to uranium with his NSC counterpart, the Special Assistant to the President for Nonproliferation. Neither individual can recall who initiated the phone call. Both the WINPAC Director and NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that the WINPAC Director's concerns about using the uranium information pertained only to revealing sources and methods and not to any concerns about the credibility of the uranium reporting. The WINPAC Director said because the Niger information was specifically and directly tied to a foreign government service, his concern was about releasing classified information in an unclassified speech. He told Committee staff that this had been the CIA's longstanding position and was the reason the CIA wanted the reference removed from the British white paper. Both the WINPAC Director and NSC Special Assistant agreed that the discussion was brief, cordial, and that they mutually agreed that citing the British information, which was already unclassified, was preferable to citing U.S. classified intelligence.

(U) The WINPAC Director and the NSC Special Assistant disagreed, however, about the content of their conversation in some important respects. First, when the WINPAC Director first spoke to Committee staff and testified at a Committee hearing, he said that he had told the NSC Special Assistant to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech because of concerns about sources and methods. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that there never was a discussion about removing "Niger" and "500 tons" from the State of the Union and said that the drafts of the speech show that neither "Niger" nor "500 tons" were ever in any of the drafts at all. He believed that the WINPAC Director had confused the State of the Union conversation with a conversation they had previously had in preparation for the Negroponte speech in which they did discuss removing "Niger" from the speech because of the WINPAC Director's concerns about revealing sources and methods.

(U) A few days after his testimony before the Committee, the WINP AC Director found the draft text of the State of the Union in WINPAC's files and noticed that it did not say "500 tons of uranium from Niger." In a follow up interview with Committee staff, he said that he still recalls the conversation the way he described it to the Committee originally, however, he believes that he may have confused the two conversations because the documentation he found does not support his version of events. The draft text of the State of the Union he found said, "we know that he [Saddam Hussein] has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa." The White House also told the Committee that the text they sent to the CIA in January said, "we also know that he has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa."

(U) Second, the WINPAC Director also told the Committee that the NSC Special Assistant came up with the idea to source the uranium information to the British during their conversation when he was attempting to come up with an unclassified way to use the uranium reporting. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that the reference to the British came from the White House speech writers who were working to come up with publicly usable sources for all of the intelligence information in the speech. Because the speech writers obtained information regarding Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Africa from both the intelligence underlying the NIE and the British white paper, the speech writers sought to attribute the State of the Union reference to one of those sources. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff the discussion with the WINPAC Director was focused on which of the two sources would be better to use and that the WINPAC Director preferred sourcing the information to the British paper because it was unclassified. Both the WINPAC Director and NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that there was never a discussion about the credibility of the information.

(U) Finally, the two disagreed about the WINPAC Director's account that he had told the NSC Special Assistant that the CIA had urged the British to remove the uranium reference from their white paper, also because of concerns about sources and methods. The NSC Special Assistant told Committee staff that the WINPAC Director did not tell him the CIA had asked the British to remove the reference from their white paper.

(U) The CIA has told the Committee in a written response that the agency did not coordinate with any other NSC directorates on the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa.

(U) On January 28, 2003, the President noted in his State of the Union address that " ... the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech. CIA Iraq nuclear analysts and the Director of WIN PAC told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, and they continued to hold that belief until the IAEA reported that the documents were forgeries.

J. Secretary Powell's UN Speech

(U) Beginning in late January the CIA, State Department, White House and NSC officials began to work together to draft, coordinate and clear language to be used in an upcoming U.S. policy speech to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In the early stages of the process, it was unclear exactly who would be delivering the speech.

(U) At the White House's request, the initial input for the speech came from the CIA. The CIA sent the input to the White House which reworked it and added additional material. In the final days of January and during the weekend of February 2,2003, the Secretary of State and officials from the State Department, White House and the CIA, met at CIA headquarters to work through the issues the Secretary would address and to provide substantive clearance for the text. Several CIA analysts told Committee staff, and Secretary Powell has said publicly, that the Secretary did not want to use any information in the speech which was not supported by IC analysts.

(U) According to the CIA's former ADDI for Intelligence for Strategic Programs, who was the point person for coordinating the speech, the CIA removed some of the information that the White House had added to the speech, gathered from finished and raw intelligence, because the information was single source and uncorroborated. All of the individuals interviewed by Committee staff who were involved in drafting and coordinating the speech, said that they never saw any drafts that referenced Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The ADDI told Committee staff that a White House staffer and the Secretary asked about the uranium information, but after discussing the issue with a WINPAC analyst, did not want to include the information in the speech. Committee staff spoke to the WINPAC analyst, but he remembered discussing the issue with a State Department staffer, not a White House staffer. Committee staff interviewed the State Department staffer who said that he did ask about the uranium reporting. He said he asked the analysts if they had any new information on the reporting and, when they said they did not, he dropped the issue.

([DELETE]) On February 3, 2003, the CIA sent a cable to [DELETE] requesting information from the foreign government service, on its January 27, 2003 report which [DELETE] had information on a Iraq-Niger uranium deal from 1999. The cable said, "the issue of Iraqi uranium procurement continues to resonate with senior policymakers and may be part of SecState' s speech to the UN Security Council on 5 Feb 2003 if [a foreign government service] is able to provide a contract for the 1999 uranium deal, confirm that the information was not from another foreign government service, [DELETE]." The same day, CIA [DELETE] responded that the foreign government service does not have a copy of the contract, the information was of "national origin," [DELETE].

([DELETE]) On February 4, 2003, the U.S. Government passed electronic copies of the Iraq-Niger documents to [DELETE] the IAEA. Because the Director of the IAEA's INVO was in New York at the time, the U.S. Government also provided the documents to him in New York. Included with the documents were the U.S. Government talking points which stated, "[DELETE] of reporting suggest Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program." The [DELETE] of reporting mentioned refer to the original CIA intelligence reports from the foreign government service and the CIA intelligence report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger. [DELETE]

(U) On February 5, 2003, Secretary Powell briefed the UN. His speech did not mention Iraqi uranium procurement efforts.

(U) On February 7, 2003, the State Department's Office of Language Services, Translating Division, completed the translation of the Iraq-Niger uranium documents. The State Department passed the translated documents to the CIA. Some signs that the documents were forgeries were not conveyed in the translation process.

([DELETE]) On February 10,2003, the U.S. Defense Attache in Abidjan (the capital of the African country, Ivory Coast) reported that its reports officer examined two warehouses in Benin suspected of storing uranium on route to Iraq on December 17,2002. The visit was conducted almost a month after a Navy report indicated uranium destined for Iraq was transiting through the warehouses. (See page 59) The report indicated that the warehouses appeared to contain only bales of cotton. A CIA operations cable on the inspection noted, however, it was not possible to determine if the cotton bales concealed the uranium shipment and that no radiation detection equipment had been used during the inspection. The DIA told Committee staff that this report was not published sooner because of a coup in Ivory Coast and a civil war and unrest in Liberia, a country for which the Defense Attache in Abidjan had temporary responsibility, occupied the office with other responsibilities.

([DELETE]) On February 11, 2003, a CIA senior Africa analyst sent an intelligence assessment to other CIA offices for coordination. [DELETE]. On the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting, the assessment said, "extensive documentary evidence contains several questionable details and could be fraudulent," [DELETE]. The assessment was never published because it was deemed by CIA managers to be policy prescriptive in that it was suggesting a course of diplomatic contact with the Nigerien leader.

([DELETE]) On February 27,2003, the CIA responded to a letter from Senator Carl Levin, dated January 29,2003, which asked the CIA to detail "what the U.S. IC knows about Saddam Hussein seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The CIA's response was almost identical to the U.S. Government points passed to the IAEA/INVO in early February, saying "[DELETE]of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger." The response says the CIA believes the government of Niger's assurances that it did not contract with Iraq but says, "nonetheless, we question, [DELETE], whether Baghdad may have been probing Niger for access to yellowcake in the 1999 time frame." The CIA's response made no mention of any concerns about the validity of the documents and left out the sentence, "we cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims," that had been included in the U.S. Government IAEA/INVO points.

([DELETE]) On March 3, 2003, the IAEA/INVO provided [DELETE] U.S. Mission in Vienna with an analysis of the Niger uranium documents the U.S. had provided the previous month. The IAEA/INVO concluded that the documents were forgeries and did not substantiate any assessment that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. Their assessment was based on analysis of the documents and interviews with Iraqi officials. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) On March 4, 2003, the U.S. Government learned that the French had based their initial assessment that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger on the same documents that the U.S. had provided to the INVO. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) On March 8, 2003, the DIA provided an info memo (TS-99-177-03) to the Secretary of Defense in response to a March 8, 2003 Washington Post article, "Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake." The memo said, "we believe the IAEA is dismissing attempted Iraqi yellowcake purchases, largely based upon a single set of unverified documents concerning a contract between Niger and Iraq for the supply of 'pure uranium.' The [memo added that the] USG ha[d] not shared other [information] with the IAEA that suggested a Nigerien uranium deal with Iraq." The other intelligence referenced in the memo is the CIA intelligence report on the former ambassador's trip, which described the Nigerien Prime Minister's belief that an Iraqi delegation was interested in uranium, the Navy report from November 2002 which said uranium destined for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin, and a fax from late 2001 found in the possession of a Somali businessman which described arrangements for shipping unidentified commodities in an amount that appeared similar to the amount in the Iraq-Niger yellowcake deal. The fax, however, did not mention uranium, Iraq, or Niger.

([DELETE]) On March 11, 2003, the CIA [DELETE] assessment with limited distribution, "we do not dispute the IAEA Director General's conclusion -- last Friday before the UN Security Council -- that documents on Iraq's agreement to buy uranium from Niger are not authentic." The assessment said, "[U.S. Government] on several occasions has cautioned IAEA inspectors that available information on this issue was fragmentary and unconfirmed and early last month told them, 'We could not confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program.'" The assessment did not say whether the CIA had changed its position that Iraq may have attempted to acquire uranium yellowcake from Africa.

([DELETE]) On March 11, 2003, WINPAC drafted a current intelligence piece (SPWR031103-04) for the Secretary of Defense titled Iraq's Reported Interest in Buying Uranium From Niger and Whether Associated Documents are Authentic. The piece said "we do not dispute the IAEA Director General's conclusions ... that documents on Iraq's agreement to buy uranium from Niger are not authentic." The piece also noted that the

[U.S. Government] ... has cautioned IAEA inspectors that available information on this issue was fragmentary and unconfirmed and early last month told them, "we could not confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program."

A centerpiece of the British White Paper last fall was U.K. concern over Iraqi interest in uranium. Given the fragmentary nature of the reporting, [DELETE].


(U) The piece never addressed whether the CIA had changed its previous assessment that Iraq may have been trying to obtain uranium from Africa.

([DELETE]) On April 5, 2003, the NIC issued a Sense of the Community Memorandum (SOCM), (Niger: No Recent Uranium Sales to Iraq, NIC SOCM 2001-12.) The SOCM said, "we judge it highly unlikely that Niamey has sold uranium yellowcake to Baghdad in recent years. The IC agrees with the IAEA assessment that key documents purported showing a recent Iraq-Niger sales accord are a fabrication. We judge that other reports from 2002 - one alleging warehousing of yellowcake for shipment to Iraq, a second alleging a 1999 visit by an Iraqi delegation to Niamey -- do not constitute credible evidence of a recent or impending sale." The SOCM added, "the current government of Niger [DELETE] and probably would report such an approach by the Iraqis, especially because a sale would violate UN resolution 687." The SOCM did not say whether the IC continued to judge that Iraq had been "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa, as indicated in the October 2002 NIE. To date, the IC has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa.

([DELETE]) On June 12,2003, the DIA sent an information memorandum to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in response to questions about Iraq's nuclear program. The memo said, "while the Intelligence Committee agrees that documents the IAEA reviewed were likely 'fake,' other unconfirmed reporting suggested that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium and yellowcake from African nations after 1998." The other reporting mentioned was the Navy report from November 2002, which said uranium destined for Iraq was being stored in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin.

(U) On June 17,2003, nearly five months after the President delivered the State of the Union address, the CIA produced a memorandum for the DCI which said, "since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." This memorandum was not distributed outside the CIA and the Committee has not been provided with any intelligence products in which the CIA published its corrected assessment on Iraq's pursuit of uranium from Niger outside of the agency.

K. Niger Conclusions

(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents [9] on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 15. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and Intelligence Community analysts.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 17. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) dissent on the uranium reporting was accidentally included in the aluminum tube section of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), due in part to the speed with which the NIE was drafted and coordinated.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 18. When documents regarding the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting became available to the Intelligence Community in October 2002, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts and operations officers should have made an effort to obtain copies. As a result of not obtaining the documents, CIA Iraq nuclear analysts continued to report on Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from Africa and continued to approve the use of such language in Administration publications and speeches.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 19. Even after obtaining the forged documents and being alerted by a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst about problems with them, analysts at both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not examine them carefully enough to see the obvious problems with the documents. Both agencies continued to publish assessments that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa. In addition, CIA continued to approve the use of similar language in Administration publications and speeches, including the State of the Union.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 20. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) comments and assessments about the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting were inconsistent and, at times contradictory. These inconsistencies were based in part on a misunderstanding of a CIA Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) Iraq analyst's assessment of the reporting. The CIA should have had a mechanism in place to ensure that agency assessments and information passed to policymakers were consistent.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 22. The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) should have taken the time to read the State of the Union speech and fact check it himself. Had he done so, he would have been able to alert the National Security Council (NSC) if he still had concerns about the use of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting in a Presidential speech.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 23. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Humint Service (DHS), or the Navy should have followed up with a West African businessman, mentioned in a Navy report, who indicated he was willing to provide information about an alleged uranium transaction between Niger and Iraq in November 2002.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 24. In responding to a letter from Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Intelligence Community in February 2003, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) should not have said that "[DELETE] of reporting suggest Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger," without indicating that State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) believed the reporting was based on forged documents, or that the CIA was reviewing the Niger reporting.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 25. The Niger reporting was never in any of the drafts of Secretary Powell's United Nations (UN) speech and the Committee has not uncovered any information that showed anyone tried to insert the information into the speech.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 26. To date, the Intelligence Community has not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa as stated in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Likewise, neither the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) nor the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which both published assessments on possible Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium, have ever published assessments outside of their agencies which correct their previous positions.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Tue May 10, 2016 2:10 am

Part 1 of 3

III. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

A. Background


(U) Prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Intelligence Community (IC) prepared several Community papers on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, and, more specifically, Iraq's nuclear weapons program. In October 1998, the IC published a National Intelligence Council (NIC) Memorandum, Current Iraqi WMD Capabilities. In December 2000, the IC published an Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), Iraq: Steadily Pursuing WMD Capabilities (lCA 2000-007HCX). The assessment was prepared at the request of the National Security Council (NSC) for a broad update on Iraqi efforts to rebuild WMD and delivery system programs in the absence of weapons inspectors, as well as a review of what remains of the WMD arsenal and outstanding disarmament issues that were the focus of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).

(U) On Iraq's nuclear program, the IC also produced a Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee (JAEIC) report in October 1997, Reconstitution of Iraq 's Nuclear Weapons Program: An Update (JAEIC 97-004) and a JAEIC report in June 1999, Reconstitution of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program: Post Desert Fox (JAEIC 99-003.)

(U) All of the assessments in these Community papers on Iraq's nuclear program were consistent in assessing that:

• The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UNSCOM had destroyed portions of, and neutralized the remainder of Iraq's nuclear infrastructure but that Iraq retained the foundation for future nuclear reconstitution.

• Iraq continued low-level clandestine theoretical research and training of personnel, and was attempting to procure dual-use technologies and materials that could be used to reconstitute its nuclear program.

• If Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year.

• It would take five to seven years for Iraq -- with foreign assistance -- to produce enough weapons-grade fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

• Iraq did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

(U) In December 2001, the IC produced an National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015. In the Iraq section of the NIE, the IC noted, "Recent Iraqi procurements, however, suggest possible preparation for a renewed uranium enrichment program." Possible preparations for a renewed uranium enrichment program represented a slight shift in the IC's assessment, but the assessment remained consistent with previous IC position that "Iraq did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program." This judgment did not change until the 2002 NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, when, for the first time, the IC assessed that "Baghdad began reconstituting its nuclear program shortly after the departure of UNSCOM inspectors in December 1998." Viewing this as a possibly significant shift, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff focused their work on the analysis of Iraq's nuclear program in the 2002 NIE and the analysis from individual agencies leading up to that judgment in the period following the 2000 ICA.

B. Nuclear Reconstitution

(U) The assessment that Iraq began reconstituting its nuclear program shortly after inspectors left in 1998 was based on the longstanding IC view that, in the 1990s, because of sanctions and United Nations (UN) inspections, Saddam Hussein had reorganized his nuclear program to recommence work once sanctions were lifted. After inspectors left Iraq, intelligence analysts became concerned that Iraq might use the opportunity to restart its nuclear program. In the 2002 NIE, the IC judged that Saddam Hussein had most likely shifted his strategy from waiting for sanctions to end to waiting for inspections to end. IC analysts told Committee staff the assessment was an analytical judgment based on Hussein's clearly established desire to acquire nuclear weapons and the fact that Hussein probably realized that sanctions were not going to be lifted soon. The IC did not have direct intelligence reporting to show that Saddam Hussein had decided to shift his strategy from waiting for sanctions to end to waiting for inspections to end.

(U) At the time of the 2002 NIE, the IC continued to hold its longstanding view that once reconstitution had begun, it would take five to seven years, with foreign assistance, for Iraq to produce enough weapons-grade fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Although the NIE said that reconstitution had begun shortly after inspectors departed Iraq in 1998, the NIE concluded that Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, nine to eleven years after the IC assessed that reconstitution had begun. The National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Strategic and Nuclear Programs told Committee staff that although most IC analysts believed that Iraq had started reconstitution "efforts" in 1999 by starting to put the nuclear program back together, they did not assess that full reconstitution, in which the "five to seven year clock" would start running, had occurred at that point. He said the IC assessed that, "The five to seven year clock started in 2002 -- in other words, the time of the Estimate."

(U) The reasons the IC believed that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program were described in the key judgments, and in more detail in the body of the NIE. The key judgments said:

• Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors -- as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools -- provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (The Department of Energy [DOE] agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.)

• Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway.

(U) Although the DOE's Office of Intelligence and the Department of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) both assessed that the aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking were probably not intended for a nuclear program, only INR disagreed with the assessment that Iraq had begun reconstituting its nuclear program. In addition to a text box explaining INR's alternative view in the body of the NIE, INR also published a text box in the key judgments explaining its analysis on reconstitution:

The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.


(U) Committee staff interviewed analysts from every all-source intelligence agency involved in the nuclear section of the NIE including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), the DOE, and INR to hear each agency's argument on nuclear reconstitution and the aluminum tubes. Committee staff also interviewed experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to learn about their work to investigate Iraq's nuclear program.

(U) The following sections recount the Committee's examination of the intelligence supporting the six reasons the IC assessed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program as outlined in the NIE: Iraq's procurement of 1) aluminum tubes, 2) magnets, 3) high-speed balancing machines, and 4) machine tools, and Iraq's 5) efforts to re-establish and enhance it's cadre of weapons personnel, and 6) activity at several suspect nuclear sites. The report focuses first on the intense debate in the IC about the intended use of aluminum tubes Iraq was attempting to procure in late 2000 to 2002 and then addresses the other reasons outlined in the NIE that contributed to the assessment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The Committee's examination of the intelligence did not stop with the NIE, however. Information that became available to the IC through IAEA inspections prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom is included because analysts could have updated or altered their assessments based on that information if they believed the information warranted a change.

1. Aluminum Tubes

Most agencies assess that Iraq's aggressive pursuit of high-strength aluminum tubes provides compelling evidence that Saddam is attempting to reconstitute a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.) (October 2002 NIE)


(U) In 2001, the IC became aware that Iraq was attempting to procure 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes manufactured from 7075-T6 aluminum, with an outer diameter of81 mm, and inner diameter of 74.4 mm, a wall thickness of3.3 mm and a length of900 mm. The tubes were to be anodized using chromic acid and were to be shipped, wrapped in wax paper and separated from each other. Seven-thousand series aluminum alloy is extremely hard and strong and when formed into a tube of more than 75 mm in diameter, is a controlled item under the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Annex III of UNSCR 687 and 707 which Iraq is prohibited from importing because it could have nuclear applications.

([DELETE]) Soon after receiving the initial intelligence report, the CIA assessed that the tubes were probably intended for an Iraqi uranium enrichment centrifuge program. [10] Although coordinated with other WINPAC analysts, the CIA's initial analysis was based largely on the work of a centrifuge analyst in the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control (WINPAC). This analyst had [DELETE]. The CIA published its first assessment on the aluminum tubes on April 10, 2001 [11], noting that they "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program." (Senior Executive Intelligence Brief [SEIB] 01-083CHX) The assessment did not provide any details outlining why the CIA assessed that the tubes were probably intended for a centrifuge program, but noted, "using aluminum tubes in a centrifuge effort would be inefficient and a step backward from the specialty steel machines Iraq was poised to mass-produce at the onset of the Gulf War. Iraq successfully used outdated enrichment technologies, such as its electromagnetic isotope separation effort, before the war."

(U) One day after the CIA published its assessment, the DOE published their oWfl analysis of the aluminum tube procurement. The DOE paper provided a more detailed analysis of the aluminum tubes and their applicability to a uranium centrifuge enrichment program. The assessment said:

Based on the reported specifications, the tubes could be used to manufacture gas centrifuge rotor cylinders for uranium enrichment. However, our analysis indicates that the specified tube diameter, which is half that of the centrifuge machine Iraq successfully tested in 1990, is only marginally large enough for practical centrifuge applications, and other specifications are not consistent with a gas centrifuge end use. Moreover, the quantity being sought suggests preparations for large-scale production of centrifuge machines, for which we have not seen related procurement efforts - and the tubes' specifications suggest a centrifuge design quite different from any Iraq is known to have. Thus, we assess that this procurement activity more likely supports a different application. Regardless of end use, the delivery of aluminum tubes with the reported specifications to Iraq would be prohibited under Annex III of UNSCR 687 and 707.

(U) DOE's assessment concluded that:

While the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production. For example, the tube specifications and quantity appear to be generally consistent with their use as launch tubes for man-held anti-armor rockets or as tactical rocket casings. Also, the manner in which the procurement is being handled (multiple procurement agents, quotes obtained from multiple suppliers in diverse locations, and price haggling) seems to better match our expectations for a conventional Iraqi military buy than a major purchase for a clandestine weapons-of-mass destruction program. However, we have not identified an Iraq-specific, military, or other noncentrifuge application that precisely matches the tube specifications. (Daily Intelligence Highlight, Iraq: High-Strength Aluminum Tube Procurement)


([DELETE]) By the next month, the DOE had done further research on the tubes and had identified a noncentrifuge end use that did match the tube specifications. On May 9, 2001, DOE published another Daily Intelligence Highlight, [DELETE]/Iraq: Aluminum Alloy Tube Purchase, which said, "The Intelligence Community's original analysis of these tubes focused on their possible use in developing gas centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Further investigation reveals, however, Iraq has purchased similar aluminum tubes previously to manufacture chambers (tubes) for a multiple rocket launcher." The assessment noted that the IAEA had learned that tubes found at the Nasser metal fabrication facility in that were 800 mm in length, 81 mm in diameter and had a wall thickness of 3.3 mm, [DELETE]. The DOE assessment noted that Nasser officials said the tubes were used for manufacturing the chambers of 81-mm rockets and that the high-strength tubes had previously been purchased in large quantities. Iraq had 160,000 tubes on hand in 1989 and 66,737 in 1996.

([DELETE]) On June 14, 2001, the CIA produced a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR) which said that China [DELETE]. The assessment noted that the tubes are, "controlled items under the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Chinese export laws, are suitable for uranium enrichment gas centrifuge rotors and, while less likely, could be used as rocket bodies for multiple rocket launchers." This CIA assessment also did not provide any further details outlining why the CIA assessed the tubes were more likely to be used for centrifuge rotors.

([DELETE]) Although China [DELETE], a shipment of about 2,000 tubes had already been sent [DELETE]. In [DELETE] June, 2001, the tubes arrived [DELETE] authorities, [DELETE], seized the tubes. [DELETE] several sample tubes [DELETE]. A [DELETE] intelligence assessment disseminated on July 2, 2001 said [DELETE] personnel had inspected the tubes [DELETE] and said, "The tubes are constructed from high-strength aluminum (7075-T6) and are manufactured to the tight tolerances necessary for gas centrifuges. The dimensions of the tubes match those of a publicly available gas centrifuge design from the 1950s, known as the Zippe centrifuge." [12] The assessment concluded that "the specifications for the tubes far exceed any known conventional weapons application, including rocket motor casings for 81-mm multiple rocket launchers."

([DELETE]) From July 2001 to July 2002, the CIA produced at least nine additional intelligence [DELETE] discussing Iraq's aluminum tube procurement efforts. None of these assessments provided any additional information to support the CIA's analysis that the tubes were probably intended for Iraq's nuclear program, other than what was stated in the July 2001 assessment; the tubes matched the 1950s Zippe centrifuge design and the tubes' specifications far exceeded those for any known conventional weapons application. Most of the assessments were disseminated in limited channels, only to high-level policymakers and were not available to intelligence analysts from other agencies. In a written response to a question from the Committee, the CIA said these products were limited in their distribution because they were intended for the President, drafted in response to specific policymaker questions, or were very narrow in scope.

([DELETE]) On August 2, 2001, the DIA produced an internal background paper outlining the brewing debate within the IC about the intended and likely end use for the aluminum tubes. The paper briefly discussed the assessments from both the CIA and the DOE on the intended purpose of the tubes and noted that "DIA analysts found the CIA WINP AC presentation to be very compelling." The paper pointed to WINPAC research which indicated that "The tubes have specifications very similar to the gas centrifuge rotor described in the German scientist, Gernot Zippe's publications: the material was 7075-T6 aluminum with an outer diameter of 74.2-81.9- mm, an inner diameter of 68.6-76.3-mm, a wall thickness of2.8-mm,13 a length of279.4-381- mm and a tolerance of 0.1-mm."

([DELETE]) On August 17, 2001, DOE published a Technical Intelligence Note (TIN), Iraq's Gas Centrifuge Program: Is Reconstitution Underway? (TIN000064) which contained an extensive eight page analysis of whether the aluminum tubes were intended for a rocket or a centrifuge program. The assessment [DELETE] noted that the Iraqis had declared to the IAEA that the Nasser State Establishment obtained and used large numbers of high-strength aluminum tubes to manufacture 81-mm rockets dating back to at least 1989. The tubes were declared to be made o f7075-T6 aluminum with an 81 mm outer diameter, 74.4 mm inner diameter, and 900 mm length -- the same specifications of the tubes Iraq was trying to acquire in 2001. The assessment also noted that the IAEA [DELETE] found large numbers of the tubes stored in various locations around the site. As mentioned in an earlier DOE assessment, the IAEA [DELETE] Iraq did, in fact, have an 81 mm-rocket in its arsenal that was produced at the Nasser State Establishment.

(U) Regarding the tubes' utility in a gas centrifuge program, the DOE assessed that the tubes could have been used to manufacture centrifuge rotors, but were not well suited for that purpose. The DOE assessed that 7075-T6 aluminum "provides performance roughly half that of the materials Iraq previously pursued." Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had pursued rotors made from maraging steel and carbon fiber composites, which both offer better uranium separative capacity. If Iraq were to pursue a rotor of 7075-T6 aluminum instead, it would need twice as many rotors, as well as twice as many other centrifuge components, such as end caps, bearings, and outer casings.

([DELETE]) According to the DOE assessment, the tube diameter was smaller than that of any known deployed centrifuge machine and was about half the diameter of Iraq's pre-Gulf War prototype machine. DOE noted that a small diameter would have presented "various design and operational problems that veteran engineers of Iraq's prior program should readily understand." In addition, "the tubes are too thick for favorable use as rotor tubes, exceeding the nominal I-mm thickness of known aluminum rotor tubes by more than a factor of three .... Additionally, various tolerances specified in contract documents ... are looser than the expected precision call-outs for an aluminum rotor tube by factors of two to five." The DOE also noted that the anodized surface, requested by Iraq in its tube procurements, " ... is not consistent with a gas centrifuge application. [DELETE]

(U) According to the DOE's assessment, "A centrifuge machine using 81-mm aluminum rotors is different from any known centrifuge machine deployed in a production environment. ... In our judgment, Iraq would need to undertake its development program all over again and address each aspect of centrifuge engineering anew at the reduced diameter and using the different rotor material." DOE concluded that " ... a gas centrifuge application is credible but unlikely and a rocket production application is the more likely end-use for these tubes."

([DELETE]) In November 2001, the DIA published a Military Intelligence Digest (MID) supplement [DELETE] Iraq: Procuring Possible Nuclear-Related Gas Centrifuge Equipment. The MID was prepared by a DIA Iraq nuclear analyst and an analyst from the NGIC, the IC agency responsible for conventional ground weapons systems assessments. The MID assessed that "Although alternative uses for the tubes are possible, such as rocket motor cases or rocket launch tubes, the specifications are consistent with earlier Iraqi gas centrifuge rotor designs." In a box titled "Conventional Military Uses Unlikely for Aluminum Tubes" the paper said, "Although 7075-T6 aluminum could be an acceptable metal for small rocket motor bodies, the 3.3-mm wall thickness and overall weight would make these particular tubes poor choices for rocket motor bodies. The thickness is roughly twice that of known small rocket motor bodies, [14] and ... the 0.1-mm metal thickness tolerance along the 900-mm length is excessive for both rocket motor bodies and rocket launch tubes."

(U) On August 1, 2002, the CIA published its first detailed paper explaining its assessment that the aluminum tubes were destined for Iraq's nuclear program. An intelligence assessment, Iraq: Expanding WMD Capabilities Pose Growing Threat, provided a one page outline of the CIA's assessment that the tubes' materials, exceedingly stringent tolerances, high cost, and the secrecy surrounding procurement attempts, indicated that the tubes were destined for Iraq's gas centrifuge program.

(U) In September 2002, DIA published an assessment of Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Weapons Program, which included an assessment of the tubes potential use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge enrichment program. The assessment noted that "Alternative uses for the tubes, such as rocket motor cases or launch tubes, are possible. However, this is less likely because the specifications are consistent with late-1980s Iraqi gas centrifuge rotor designs."

(U) In September 2002, the CIA published an even more extensive analysis of the tubes in a second intelligence assessment, Iraq's Hunt for Aluminum Tubes: Evidence of a Renewed Uranium Enrichment Program. This assessment also discussed Iraqi efforts to hide the tube procurement attempts, the materials, high cost, tight tolerances, dimensions and the anodized coating of the tubes, and CIA's assessment that the tubes "matched" known centrifuge rotor dimensions. The assessment also included a box outlining NGIC's analysis that the tubes were unlikely to be intended for a conventional rocket program. The CIA's analysis in these papers will be discussed in more detail below because, according to NIC and CIA officials, this assessment was used as the basis for the draft text of the majority position of the aluminum tube section of the October 2002 NIE on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.

([DELETE]) Contributing to the CIA's analysis for the extensive September intelligence assessment was an analysis performed by an individual from [DELETE] who were working under contract with the CIA at the time to provide broad-based technical advice [DELETE]. The CIA WINPAC analyst, [DELETE], requested in September 2002 that they perform an analysis of the tubes. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) The contractors told Committee staff that the CIA provided them with a stack of intelligence data and analysis on the Iraqi aluminum tube procurements on September 16, 2002. All of the information was provided by the CIA and the contractors told Committee staff that they did not discuss the data with any agencies other than the CIA. They were provided with NGIC's analysis of the tubes, but said they were not briefed by nor did they ask to speak to NGIC or DOE analysts. One contractor said, "This was internal to the agency." One of the contractors said before joining [DELETE] he had been given a tutorial on 81-mm rockets by a DOE analyst, but said that the conversation was "pretty meaningless to me because the rest of the issue had not bubbled up at that point." A DOE analyst told Committee staff that he also discussed the issue with the contractor in May of 200 1. The contractor produced a paper on September 17, 2002, one day after receiving the information, that said the team concluded, "that the tubes are consistent with design requirements of gas centrifuge rotors, but due to the high-strength material and excessively tight tolerances, the tubes seem inconsistent with design requirements of rocket motor casings." The report referenced NGIC's analysis that the material and quantity of the tubes were inconsistent with rocket motor applications. The report said that while the dimensions "possibly" were suitable for rockets, the tolerances were too stringent and the pressure test requirements were too high.

([DELETE]) A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, " ... the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments." The [DELETE] contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16, 2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA's analysis.

(U) Although the IC had been debating this issue for almost a year and a half, the DCI testified at a Committee hearing that he was unaware of the debate until mid-September of 2002.

a. The National Intelligence Estimate

(U) In September 2002, Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) requested that the IC produce an NIE on Iraq's WMD programs. Because of the time constraints required to finish the estimate, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs used existing Community papers to build the text for the various sections. The National Intelligence Council staff drew the portion of the nuclear section on nuclear reconstitution largely from an August 2002 CIA assessment and a September 2002 DIA assessment, Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Weapons Programs. The majority analysis of the aluminum tubes in the NIE was drawn from the CIA's September intelligence assessment, Iraq's Hunt for Aluminum Tubes: Evidence of a Renewed Uranium Enrichment Program.

(U) In late September 2002, when the NIE drafts had been completed and circulated to analysts to review, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs brought IC analysts together for a coordination meeting on the NIE draft so that the analysts could raise and discuss pertinent issues about the draft text and refine and complete the draft. At the meeting on September 25,2002, both the CIA and the DIA supported the NIE assessment that the aluminum tubes were intended for Iraq's nuclear program and were evidence that Iraq was starting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. The DOE's Office of Intelligence and State Department's INR believed that the tubes were intended for a conventional rocket program and probably not a nuclear use. The DOE did agree, however, that for other reasons addressed later in this report, that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Both the DOE and INR included extensive text boxes in the NIE outlining their analysis of the tubes. The NGIC, the IC agency responsible for conventional ground weapons systems, did not attend the NIE coordination meeting, although the agency's analysis was cited in the NIE in support of the assessment that the tubes were highly unlikely to be intended for a rocket program. NGIC was represented at the coordination meeting by DIA.

([DELETE]) The IC assessment that the tubes were intended for Iraq's nuclear weapons program centered on several factors outlined in the NIE and outlined previously in the CIA's analysis of the tubes:

(1) Saddam Hussein had a personal interest in the procurement of the aluminum tubes, suggesting that the acquisition efforts had a high national priority.

(2) The composition, dimensions, and extremely tight manufacturing tolerances of the tubes far exceed the requirements for non nuclear applications but make them suitable for use as rotors in gas centrifuges.

(3) Iraqi agents agreed to pay up to [DELETE] for each 7075-T6 aluminum tube. Their willingness to pay such costs suggests the tubes are intended for a special project of national interest.

(4) Iraq has insisted that the tubes be shipped through such intermediary countries as [DELETE] in an attempt to conceal the ultimate end user; such activity is consistent with Iraq's prewar nuclear procurement strategy but are more robust than post-war denial and deception (D&D) efforts.

(5) Procurement agents have shown unusual persistence in seeking numerous foreign sources for the tubes, often breaking with Iraq's traditionally cautious approach to potential vendors.

(6) An aluminum tube built to the Iraqi specifications for the tubes seized [DELETE] was successfully spun in a laboratory setting to 60,000 rpm (1000Hz). This test was performed without balancing the tube; a critical step required for full speed operation, but still provided a rough indication that the tube is suitable as a centrifuge rotor. [15]

(7) The dimensions of the tubes [DELETE] are similar to those used in the Zippe and Beams-type gas centrifuges. The inner diameter of the seized tubes -- 74.4 mm -- nearly matches the tube size used by Zippe and is described in detail in his unclassified report on centrifuge development. The length and wall thickness of the seized tubes are similar to Iraq's prewar Beams design.

(8) Iraq performed internal pressure tests to induce a hoop-stress level similar to that obtained by an operating rotor.

(9) [DELETE]

(U) The NIE included discussion of some of these assessments in the main text and contained an annex with a more extensive discussion of the assessments and extensive dissenting opinions from both the DOE and INR. The following section outlines the intelligence and assessments provided by the intelligence agencies on the aluminum tubes.

(1) Saddam Hussein Had a Personal Interest in the Procurement of the Aluminum Tubes, Suggesting That the Acquisition Efforts Had a High National Priority


([DELETE]) The intelligence provided to the Committee in support of the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had a personal interest in the tubes was limited to one CIA human intelligence The source of the report was a "[foreign] government service, from a [DELETE]." The report provided very little detail, saying only that "As of late August 2002, Iraqi President Saddam Husayn was closely following the purchase and analysis of 114,0007075-T6 aluminum tubes by the Iraqi Organization for Military Industrialization (OMI)." The IC told the Committee that they had no other reporting to show Saddam Hussein had a personal interest in the tubes, but had information that the Iraqi deputy prime minister was also involved in the tube acquisition effort.

([DELETE]) It is not clear from either of these reports that the high-level interest from Saddam Hussein and his deputy prime minister suggests the tubes were intended for Iraq's nuclear program. The report on Saddam Hussein's interest in the tubes provides few details which would help corroborate the information or indicate why he was interested in the procurement. The report on the deputy prime minister also does not indicate why he is interested in the shipment. The deputy prime minister is also the minister of the Organization of Military Industrialization, suggesting that his interest in the tubes may be consistent with his ministerial responsibilities. Furthermore, because both reported instances of high-level interest in the tubes occurred after a previous shipment of the tubes had been seized [DELETE] in 2001 and the IAEA had become involved in the matter, it is possible that both Saddam Hussein and the deputy prime minister were interested in the shipments because of concerns that they too might be confiscated. In any case, it is not clear why these shipments were a high priority for Iraqi officials.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Tue May 10, 2016 2:11 am

Part 2 of 3

(2) The Composition, Dimensions, and Extremely Tight Manufacturing Tolerances of the Tubes Far Exceed the Requirements for non Nuclear Applications but Make Them Suitable for Use as Rotors in Gas Centrifuges


(U) All intelligence agencies agreed that the composition, dimensions, and tight manufacturing tolerances of the aluminum tubes made them capable of being used in a centrifuge program if the tubes were modified. The DOE assessed, however, that technical aspects of the tubes and their handling appeared inconsistent with a gas centrifuge application, and INR agreed with the DOE's analysis.

([DELETE]) The CIA and DIA were the all-source analysis agencies which supported the NIE assessment that the composition of the tubes, dimensions, and tight manufacturing tolerances far exceeded the requirements for conventional rocket applications. The NIE noted that Iraq consistently requested tubes composed of7075-T6 aluminum, although the material " ... is considerably more expensive than other more readily available materials." The NIE also noted that "Materials or tubes meeting conventional rocket requirements could be acquired at much lower prices or be produced indigenously." A separate box in the NIE contained NGIC analysis that the tubes were "highly unlikely to be intended for rocket motor cases," and that the "wall thickness and overall weight would make these particular tubes poor choices for rocket motor bodies." The NGIC analysis compared the Iraqi tubes to a U.S. rocket system that uses the same type of aluminum, 7075-T6, and found that the tubes Iraq was seeking were much more precisely manufactured than the U.S. system or any other U.S. or Russian system of which the NGIC was aware. The tone box said "most agencies agree with NGIC, the Department of Defense (DOD) experts on conventional military systems, that tubes with the specifications - materials and tolerances - -like those seized [DELETE] are highly unlikely to be used for rocket motor cases."

(U) The NIE's assessment that the composition and dimension of the tubes exceeded the requirements for conventional rocket applications is contrary to information obtained by the Committee indicating that the composition and dimensions of the Iraqi tubes were consistent with rockets manufactured in several countries, and, in fact, match exactly the tubes Iraq had imported years earlier for use in its rocket program which it had declared to the UN.

(U) Committee staff interviewed DOD design engineers who work on U.S. rocket systems, specifically the Mark-66 rocket, who said that the assessments in the NIE that 7075-T6 aluminum "is considerably more expensive than other more readily available materials" and that "materials or tubes meeting conventional rocket requirements could be acquired at much lower prices" are "not correct at all." They said that high-strength aluminum is "around the world the material of choice for low cost rocket systems, because it's widely available and can be easily manufactured," and has a high strength to weight ratio. They added that aluminum is "one of the cheapest materials [from which] to make rocket motor cases. Everything else is higher cost to manufacture, like steels."

(U) In addition, [DELETE] UNSCOM inspections indicated that Iraq had declared using 7075-T6 aluminum in their own rocket program as early as 1996. Information noting that tubes of "apparently similar dimensions were discovered during IAEA inspections" was included in a text box in the NIE explaining NGIC's analysis ofthe tubes. The text box said that the "Iraqis claimed to UN inspectors that the tubes were 7075-T6 aluminum and were used by Iraq for the Nasser 81 MRL."

(U) The IAEA told Committee staff that in 1996 they discovered over 66,000 tubes at Iraq's Nasser State Establishment, a military industrial complex which was involved in various rocket manufacturing programs. Iraq declared the Nasser tubes to the IAEA as 7075-T6 aluminum with an 81 mm outer diameter, 3.3 mm wall thickness, and 900 mm length, the same composition and dimensions of the tubes the Iraqis were trying to procure in 2001 and 2002. [16] The Iraqis indicated at the time that the tubes were intended for use in their Nasser 81 mm rocket program.

([DELETE]) The CIA WINPAC centrifuge analyst told Committee staff that the IAEA [DELETE] tested the tubes to determine their material properties, but the tests showed that none of the tubes tested were highstrength aluminum. The DOE and the IAEA told Committee staff, however, that the testing was not intended to show whether [DELETE] the 81-mm tubes Iraq had declared were made of 7075-T6 aluminum. The [DELETE] tests the IAEA had conducted were on other tubes found at Nasser to determine whether those tubes were made of proscribed materials. The IAEA never tested the 7075-T6 aluminum tubes in 1996, because they assessed that the Iraqis would not declare the tubes to be 7075-T6 aluminum and voluntarily submit them to IAEA control if they were not made from the restricted material. Since the controversy regarding the tubes erupted in the fall of 2002, the IAEA told Committee staff they did test the older Iraqi tubes and found that they were in fact, 7075-T6 aluminum as declared by the Iraqis. According to DOE, the U.S. Government learned of this fact in February 2003.

(U) The IAEA told Committee staff that the tubes that Iraq declared in 1996 were the same material and were the exact same dimensions as the tubes Iraq had been trying to procure in recent years. According to the IAEA, the Iraqis were working to reverse engineer an Italian air to ground rocket, the Medusa. The tubes used by the foreign government service in the Medusa rocket bodies are also of the same material, 7075-T6 aluminum, and dimensions as the tubes Iraq had been recently trying to procure.

([DELETE]) Finally, although the NGIC assessment cited in the NIE said "tubes with specifications -- materials and tolerances -- like those seized [DELETE] are highly unlikely to be intended for rocket motor cases," the NGIC told the Committee in a written response that "lightweight rockets, such as those originally developed for air-to-ground systems, typically use 7075-T6 aluminum for the motor casing because of its strength and weight." In addition, the response noted that [DELETE] review of the tubes and stated that "it is not unusual to use the aluminum alloy specified by Iraq for casings of unguided rockets." The Swiss produce their own version of the Italian Medusa rocket using 7075-T6 aluminum. Furthermore, U.S. and Russian rocket systems also use 7075-T6 aluminum and, according to the DOD rocket design engineers, thirteen other countries that manufacture the U.S. Mark-66 also use 7075-T6 aluminum in their rockets.

([DELETE]) The [DELETE] NGIC [DELETE] analyst on Iraq told Committee staff he was unaware at the time of his assessment of the materials or specifications of the Medusa rocket. He had not spoken with any DOE analysts about their analysis and had not read any DOE products. He learned of DOE's position on the tubes from discussions with the CIA and DIA, agencies that vigorously disagreed with DOE's assessment.

([DELETE]) In addition to the composition and dimensions, the NIE assessed that the tolerances Iraq was seeking for the aluminum tubes " ... far exceed the requirements for nonnuclear applications." This assessment was based on the CIA's analysis dating back to a July 2, 2001 CIA intelligence assessment and was supported by NGIC's analysis in both the November 2001 MID Supplement [DELETE], Iraq: Procuring Possible Nuclear-Related Gas Centrifuge Equipment, and the September 2002 CIA intelligence assessment, Iraq's Hunt for Aluminum Tubes: Evidence of a Renewed Uranium Enrichment Program, which assessed that the tolerances of the tubes Iraq was trying to procure were far tighter than any rockets of which NGIC was aware.

(U) When questioned about the assessment that Iraq's requested tolerances would have been unusually tight for rockets, the WINPAC centrifuge analyst told Committee staff that intelligence reporting showed that "almost every country [the Iraqis] approached has told them we cannot make tubes to these specifications," suggesting that the tolerances were so tight that manufacturers would not even try to make them. Because this statement contradicted information previously provided to the Committee which showed that Iraq was working with several companies to try to procure these tubes, the Committee requested intelligence to support the analyst's contention.

([DELETE]) The analyst provided six intelligence reports to the Committee, but only one of the six showed that any company from any country told the Iraqis that they could not make the tubes to the specifications requested. The report does not say which specifications the manufacturer could not meet so it is unclear whether this was due to the tolerances. [DELETE] These reports did indicate that the manufacturers did not always meet the requested tolerances, but in several cases Iraq accepted the tubes nonetheless. The reports did not show that "Almost every country [the Iraqis] approached told them we cannot make the tubes to these specifications. "

([DELETE]) Contractors from [DELETE] brought in by CIA to perform a [DELETE] analysis of the tubes, told Committee staff that Iraq was seeking tolerances far tighter than standard industrial tolerances for extruded [17] products. In addition, an NGIC assessment in November 2002 (NGIC-1143-78184-03) contained a chart with a side by side comparison between the tolerances of the tubes Iraq was seeking and two U.S. rocket systems, the Mark-40 and Mark-66 MRLs. The chart was intended to show that the tolerances "far exceed the tolerances of the Iraqi tubes." The chart below shows NGIC's comparison of tolerances (in parenthesis) of the tubes Iraq was trying to procure and the two U.S. multiple rocket launcher (MRL) systems.

Image
* Outside diameter tolerance is inferred from inner diameter and wall thickness.

(U) The DOE told Committee staff that the tolerances of the Iraqi tubes and the Mark-66 are very similar and that the NGIC chart is misleading because the U.S. Mark-66 specifications included 25 pages of detailed tolerances which are not shown on the chart and which were not requested by the Iraqis for their tubes. These 25 pages of tolerances show that the Mark-66 tubes are more precisely manufactured than the Iraqi tubes. In addition, DOE noted that many standard industrial items, such as bicycle seat posts or aluminum cans are of the same or better tolerances than the tubes sought by Iraq. DOE noted that even if the tolerances were tighter than those for most world wide rocket systems, the fact that Iraq may have requested tolerances that were tighter than necessary, does not indicate that the tubes were intended for a nuclear program. The DOE told Committee staff that over-specifying tolerances is quite common when poor or average engineers try to reverse engineer equipment as the Iraqis were attempting to do.

(U) The DOD rocket design engineers told Committee staff that based on their assessment of the tolerances Iraq requested, the tubes were "perfectly usable as rocket motor tubes, but were excessively tightly toleranced for the application." They added, "You could easily build rocket motors out of them. They would certainly be nice, straight-flying rockets. But it's unnecessary." When asked if they could think of a reason why a country might request tubes with such tight tolerances for a rocket program, one of the engineers said, "Sure. If a person is a relatively inexperienced engineer and they don't have 40 years of rocket manufacture like we have ... you would tend to err on the conservative side." Another engineer said, " If you were starting from scratch, you would tend to go for a straighter, more tightly-toleranced product."

(See page 118 for a description of the IAEA's findings regarding Iraq's rocket production efforts.)

(U) The DOD rocket engineers told Committee staff they had been approached by CIA analysts in January 2003 and were asked for their opinion on how the tubes Iraq was attempting to procure compared with tubes in the U.S. military. The engineers noted that the CIA provided them with the specifications for the wall thickness, straightness, and surface finish of the tubes to help make their assessment. The engineers told Committee staff they informed the CIA that tubes were more accurately made than those for the U.S. systems, but said that they were perfectly usable for rockets. One engineer said he told the CIA analysts, "There was nothing that would have prevented them from being used as rockets, that they were excessively tightly toleranced for the application, but that didn't preclude them from being used. They were just an expensive tube that could be incorporated into a rocket motor." One ofthe engineers also told Committee staff that he recommended that the CIA contact the foreign government service to get information on their rockets, because the tube diameter appeared similar to that of an Italian rocket system. The engineer said the CIA analysts told him that was not an option. A second engineer told Committee staff he had initially expected that the CIA was coming to them for an objective opinion but believed the CIA analyst "had an agenda" and was trying "to bias us, to encourage us to come up with [the] answer," that the tubes were not intended to be used for a rocket program.

([DELETE]) The WINPAC centrifuge analyst told Committee staff that he did not provide the DOD engineers with the wall thickness specification because it was classified at a level higher than that for which the engineers were cleared. He also said the engineers did not suggest he speak with the foreign government service. He told Committee staff that he had in fact tried to contact the foreign government service twice through [DELETE] but was not given any information on the Medusa rocket.

(U) IAEA inspections in early 2003, prior to the war with Iraq, supported the assessments of both the DOE and DOD engineers that Iraq may have over specified the tubes because of inexperience. The IAEA interviewed an engineer who worked on the Nasser rocket program and explained that the tight tolerances were the result of an Iraqi Ministry-level requirement to improve the rockets, without making significant changes to the rocket's original design. Because Iraq already had all of the other needed rocket parts, the tolerances were the one area in which the engineer said he could make improvements. All changes to the rockets had to be approved all the way up to the Minister in charge of the rocket's production, and the IAEA was able to follow the paper trail to document the approval process for the changes made to the tolerances. The IAEA said they were able to match the paper trail of requested changes to Iraq's procurement requests showing that each time a request to change tolerances went to the Ministry, a corresponding procurement request was sent to potential suppliers.

([DELETE]) [DELETE] The State Department disseminated an unclassified report on March 7, 2003 which provided text of IAEA Director General Mohammed El-Baradei's report to the UN Security Council. El-Baradei said "Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81 mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets." The cable added that the IAEA had developed "a coherent picture of attempted purchases and intended usage of the 81 mm aluminum tubes, as well as the rationale behind the changes in the tolerances."

([DELETE]) In addition, the DOE and the IAEA told Committee staff that the tolerances of the Iraqi tubes were not as tight as those Iraq [DELETE] as typically desired for high-speed rotating equipment. The IAEA told Committee staff that the specifications of diameter of Iraq's pre-Gulf War centrifuge drawings were [DELETE] while the tubes Iraq had tried to procure had tolerances of only [DELETE]. The IAEA said the difference between [DELETE] is a substantial difference for a centrifuge. The DOE noted that even Iraq's requirement for [DELETE] tolerance for eccentricity is lower than expected for high-speed rotating equipment such as a centrifuge. The DOE said they would expect to see tolerances in the 0.01 mm range if tubes are to be used as delivered. Even a[DELETE] would lead to significant balancing problems -- especially with a thick walled rotor like the Iraqi tubes. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Finally, the NIE cited Iraq's request that the tubes' inner surface be free of all defects as a superfluous specification and inconsistent with use in rocket applications. The NGIC said that in manufacturing rockets either a layer of insulating material is painted to the interior wall and the case is then filled with solid propellent, or a precast grain of solid propellant is loaded inside the tube cavity using thin metal spacers to separate the grain from the tube wall. In either case, minor surface imperfections would have no effect on the performance of the rocket. According to the IAEA, the finish of the Iraqi tubes that were intercepted [DELETE] was worse than the finish on the older tubes Iraq declared in 1996. In addition, any machining Iraq had to perform to change the wall thickness of the tubes would also change the interior surface of the tubes, making a request for a smooth finish unnecessary if the tubes were intended to be used in a thin walled centrifuge.

([DELETE]) (3) Iraqi Agents Agreed to Pay up to U.S. $17.50 Each for the 7075-T6 Aluminum Tube. Their Willingness to Pay Such Costs Suggests the Tubes Are Intended for a Special Project of National Interest


([DELETE]) A [DELETE] intelligence report does indicate, as the NIE notes, that Iraq may have agreed to a price of about U.S. $17.50 per tube in an attempt to procure aluminum tubes. Most reports showed, however, that Iraq had negotiated lower prices for the tubes, typically U.S. $15 to U.S. $16 per tube, and as low as U.S. $10 tube [DELETE]. The DOE told Committee staff that according to the IAEA [DELETE] Iraq paid between [DELETE] for each aluminum tube acquired in the 1980s. If inflation is taken into account, Iraq would be paying less today than in the 1980s for the same tubes. A DOE analyst also contacted a U.S. aluminum tube manufacturer to request a price quote for 7075-T6 aluminum tubes with similar dimensions to the Iraqi tubes. The analyst did not request specific tolerances which could have raised the price of the tubes. The U.S. manufacturer quoted a price of$19.27 per tube, higher than the price Iraq was able to negotiate.

(U) Furthermore, the NIE assessment about the cost of the tubes referenced the fact that Iraq was using 7075-T6 aluminum, which the NIE noted "is considerably more expensive than other, more readily available material." As noted previously, DOD rocket engineers told Committee staff that 7075-T6 aluminum is not more expensive that other suitable materials, suggesting that the use of7075-T6 aluminum did not increase the cost of the tubes.

([DELETE]) (4) Iraq Has Insisted That the Tubes Be Shipped Through Such Intermediary Countries [DELETE] in an Attempt to Conceal the Ultimate End User; Such Activity Is Consistent with Iraq's Prewar Nuclear Procurement Strategy but Are More Robust than Post-war D&D Efforts


(U) Several intelligence reports show clearly that Iraq did try to conceal itself as the ultimate end user of the aluminum tubes. Intelligence reporting on Iraqi procurement efforts shows, however, that Iraq has tried for years to conceal its identity as the end user for a range of materials that monitoring countries may suspect are for WMD programs. The DOE noted in the NIE that "Iraq's use of procurement agents and front companies to acquire the tubes is consistent with high-priority conventional military applications that would be subject to interdiction efforts." Certainly for items such as the high-strength aluminum tubes -- materials that Iraq is prohibited from importing under Annex III of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 and 707 - Iraq would have to conceal itself as the end user if it hoped to ever obtain a shipment of the tubes. CIA analysts who followed Iraq's compliance with the Oil For Food Program told Committee staff that Iraq used intermediaries or front companies for the procurement of many every day items that it was legally entitled to procure through legitimate channels, suggesting that Iraq's use of front companies provides little, if any, indication of the potential end use for the product being procured.

(5) Procurement Agents Have Shown Unusual Persistence in Seeking Numerous Foreign Sources for Tubes, Often Breaking with Iraq's Traditionally Cautious Approach to Potential Vendors


([DELETE]) The Committee was not provided with intelligence to show that Iraq's persistence in seeking aluminum tubes from numerous foreign sources was unusual. [DELETE]. This approach is consistent with how Iraq attempted to procure the aluminum tubes. The approach, however, [DELETE].

([DELETE]) [DELETE], no intelligence reporting showed that Iraq was trying to acquire the thousands of other components needed for a centrifuge. For example, if Iraq were attempting to use 64,000 tubes to make 32,000 centrifuge rotors, Iraq would also need 64,000 end caps (two for each rotor), 32,000 lower bearings, 32,000 upper bearings, and thousands of other parts. No reporting was provided to the Committee which showed attempts to procure these items.

([DELETE]) (6) An Aluminum Tube Built to the Iraqi Specifications for the Tubes Seized [DELETE] Was Successfully Spun in a Laboratory Setting to 60,000 revolutions per minute (Rpm) (1000hz). This Test Was Performed Without Balancing the Tube - a Critical Step Required for Full Speed Operation -- but Still Provided a Rough Indication That the Tube Is Suitable as a Centrifuge Rotor


([DELETE]) Subsequent to publication of the statement in the NIE that a tube was successfully spun to 60,000 rpm, a CIA [DELETE] continued testing of the aluminum tubes. The CIA reported [DELETE] in January that their testing had found that, after balancing, the Iraqi tubes were "successfully spun to 90,000 rpm."

([DELETE]) The original report, published January 28, 2003, describing the CIA [DELETE] spin tests of the Iraqi tubes described only five tests. Of the five tests described, four of the tests failed or were stopped due to unexplained "imbalance conditions" or problems with the test equipment. One test was said to have successfully spun a tube section at 90,000 rpm for two hours.

(U) Partly based on questions and comments from DOE analysts, the CIA issued a corrected version of the spin test report on May 5, 2003. In addition to correcting some information from the first report, the second report provided additional data, including the fact that 31 spin tests were performed on the Iraqi tubes. The corrected report showed that of the 31 tests only one tube sample was spun to 90,000 rpm with no apparent deformation, and the report was changed to show that the tube was spun for only 65 minutes, not two hours as originally indicated. Three more of the tests were run to speeds between 95,000 and 100,100 rpm, but excessive vibration caused deformities in the tube samples. The report said the spin tests confirmed that the tubes "have sufficient strength to be used to speeds of 90,000 revolutions per minute (RPM)." 90,000 rpm is consistent with the operating speed of the Zippe centrifuge for tubes with a 74.2 mm inner diameter.

(U) All intelligence agencies and the IAEA agreed, based on basic engineering calculations, that properly manufactured tubes of 7075-T6 aluminum could be used as a centrifuge rotor at speeds adequate for uranium separation. Consequently, DOE analysts initially believed that spin testing the tubes was unnecessary. DOE analysts told Committee staff, however, that the results of the CIA spin tests showed that the Iraqi tubes deformed at stresses considerably lower than expected. The DOE told Committee staff that ordinarily, spin tests are performed until the tube fails, not to the target speed of the tube. According to the DOE, in the case of CIA's spin tests, only a few of the tubes were appropriately run to failure and the failure speeds ranged from 96,000 rpm to 100,100 rpm. The DOE noted that the failure speed was just above the speed the tubes were expected to be run in an operating centrifuge - 90,000 rpm which provides an indication that the tubes were not strong enough to run consistently at that speed. The DOE told Committee staff that to ensure that the tubes would have sufficient strength to run in a centrifuge at 90,000 rpm, they would have to reach a speed of about 20 percent above 90,000 rpm before they failed. This is because the tubes in a centrifuge cascade would have to run at 90,000 rpm constantly, all day, every day for years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, not a few hours. As an example, a DOE analyst told Committee staff that "Running your car up to 6,500 rpm briefly does not prove that you can run your car at 6,500 rpm cross country. It just doesn't. Your car's not going to make it."

([DELETE]) The DOE wrote in an analysis of the CIA spin tests in May 2003 (TIN000127) that the CIA tests showed that "These specific tubes had structural imperfections that would have precluded their use in a centrifuge." The DOE said that "A centrifuge fabricated from this material, the standard 60 margin of safety, would have a top operating speed of only [DELETE], which is too slow to make a centrifuge capable of use in a centrifuge facility."

([DELETE]) The DOE has not had direct access to [DELETE] who conducted the spin tests and has had to rely on the CIA's released data for their analysis. The CIA did not ask for assistance or input from any other IC agency in conducting these spin tests and only asked the DOE [DELETE] for their assessment and assistance in the spring of 2003. The DOE analysts did not know the extent of CIA's spin test work until the CIA disseminated cables on the test results. When asked by Committee staff why the CIA did not consult with the DOE, the IC's nuclear experts, the WINPAC centrifuge analyst said, "Because we funded it. It was our testing. We were trying to prove some things that we wanted to prove with the testing. It wasn't a joint effort."

([DELETE]) (7) The Dimensions of the Tubes Seized [DELETE] Are Similar to Those Used in the Zippe and Beams-type Gas Centrifuge. The Inner Diameter of the Seized Tubes [DELETE] Nearly Matches the Tube Size Used by Zippe and Is Described in Detail in His Unclassified Report on Centrifuge Development. The Length and Wall Thickness of the Seized Tubes Are Similar to Iraq's Prewar Beams Design


([DELETE]) Although the information in the NIE suggested that the Iraqi tubes have similar measurements to some dimensions of both the Zippe and Beams centrifuge designs, the measurements of the tubes Iraq was seeking do not precisely match either design. The chart below is similar to one initially prepared by the WINP AC centrifuge analyst for use in CIA presentations and the CIA's September 2002 intelligence assessment on the aluminum tubes. This version was published in the October 2002 NIE.

Image
* The Zippe unclassified report discusses several centrifuge rotor designs but does not explicitly state the wall thickness of any of the rotors. Based on the limited documentation, we can infer that Zippe used rotors with wall thicknesses that range from 1 mm to approximately 2.8 mm. We know that more advanced Zippe designs used rotors with 1 mm thick walls. We do not know to what exact wall thickness was used in the early Zippe designs. The rotor wall thickness for the Beams centrifuge has also been specified as 6.35 mm.

([DELETE]) This chart is misleading in several respects. First, the chart does not show the dimensions of Iraq's version of the Zippe design, which had very different dimensions than the Zippe dimensions shown in the CIA chart. Iraq had worked on this design prior to the Gulf War, obtained substantial foreign assistance on this design, and had a full set of designs and drawings for this centrifuge. Second, according to DOE analysts and the IAEA, Zippe's centrifuge designs had wall thicknesses of 1 mm, not 2.8 mm as indicated in the chart. A DOE analyst told Committee staff that this was explained to the [DELETE], in July 2001 [DELETE] and was pointed out several more times by DOE analysts throughout the next year. In addition, DOE analysts contacted Gernot Zippe, the designer of the Zippe centrifuge, directly and he confirmed that the wall thickness of his centrifuge designs were not more than 1 mm. Finally, the CIA chart did not include the dimensions of the tubes Iraq had declared in 1996 as part of its Nasser 81 mm rocket program and did not include materials of the rotors for any of the tubes listed. The following chart would have provided a more accurate representation of known information at the time of the NIE.

Image
 
([DELETE]) As can be seen from the chart above, none of the specifications of the tubes seized [DELETE] match or are consistent with previous Iraqi centrifuge designs. The specifications appear similar to the Beams centrifuge rotors and the diameter specifications are similar to those of the Zippe design. Neither the CIA analysts nor the [DELETE] contractors could tell Committee staff, however, which design they believed Iraq would pursue, only that the tubes' specifications had similarities to both designs. One of [DELETE] contractors told Committee staff they did not have enough information to judge which design they might have intended the tubes to be used for, only that the specifications, tolerances and the packaging requirements indicated that they were suitable for both designs.

(U) The DOE analysts told Committee staff that they asked CIA analysts to explain which design they believed Iraq would pursue at the NIE coordination meeting, but the CIA WINPAC analyst suggested that the Iraqis are "tricky" and that they could not speculate on which design they might use.

(U) The DOE's analysis of which design the Iraqis were likely to pursue was based on analysis of Iraq's pre-Gulf War centrifuge work. According to the DOE, Iraq began its uranium centrifuge enrichment program in the late 1980s when they began to work, by themselves, on an oil type centrifuge, a derivative of a machine that was developed by Jesse Beams in the U.S. during the Manhattan Project. This centrifuge design is supported by oil bearings, rather than magnets. The Iraqis were able to make a rotor, but it had severe problems with vibrations and leaking seals, consumed excessive amounts of power and never operated close to its target operating speed. According to the DOE, neither the Iraqis nor anyone else, including the U.S., who has ever attempted to build a Beams centrifuge, has ever put these into a centrifuge cascade for uranium enrichment.

(U) The Iraqis abandoned the Beams design and in 1989 obtained assistance from German engineers who helped the Iraqis obtain Zippe type magnetic suspension centrifuge components and designs. The Iraqis attempted two versions of this centrifuge design, a maraging steel rotor and a carbon fiber rotor. Iraq was able to produce about 60 maraging steel rotors indigenously, only four of which passed dimensional inspection, but they never ran a centrifuge machine using these rotors. Because they were having problems making the maraging steel rotors, the German "consultants" recommended that the Iraqis try a carbon fiber rotor. Iraq covertly imported 30 pre-made carbon fiber rotors. Iraq built two machines with the carbon fiber rotors. One machine failed during the run-up, but the other machine operated. Iraq was continuing to work with the Germans to optimize that machine until the program was halted because of the Gulf War.

(U) The DOE analysts assessed that if Iraq were going to rebuild a centrifuge program, they would be most likely to pursue the carbon fiber rotor design because the Iraqis had the full set of diagrams outlining how to build the components and the machine, they had experience with this design, and it was industrially-proven. When Iraq began attempting to procure the aluminum tubes made of a material and with specifications that did not match the dimensions of Iraq's known design, however, DOE analysts examined the specifications of the tubes to determine how Iraq might be able to use them in another design.

([DELETE]) The DOE noted that no successful centrifuge cascade has ever been built using rotor tubes of the size and material Iraq was attempting to procure and that Iraq would encounter several problems attempting to design a centrifuge, from scratch, using these tubes because the walls were too thick and the diameter was too small. The DOE assessed that Iraq could modify the tubes for use in an uranium enrichment gas centrifuge, but doing so would require significant additional research and development. One analyst told Committee staff you could also "turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac, given enough time and energy and effort as well." In TIN000084 in December 2001, Iraq: Seeking Additional Aluminum Tubes, the DOE explained some of the problems Iraq would encounter using the tubes for a centrifuge cascade:

The wall thickness is three times greater than that for metal rotor designs used in high-speed centrifuges. This would increase the weight and the energy of the spinning rotor by a factor of three. A significant R&D effort would be required to compensate for the suspension problems introduced by the heavier rotor.

The design which the Iraqi tubes most resemble - that for a tube used by centrifuge pioneer Gemot Zippe for laboratory experiments in 1960 -- has never been tested at production levels. Because the centrifuge described by Zippe operated as only a single unit for a very short period of time, its use in a cascade with thousands of centrifuges would require a significant development effort. And again, the specifications of the Iraqi and Zippe tubes differ in some important ways: while the inner diameter [DELETE]of the Iraqi tubes is similar to the inner diameter (74.1) of Zippe's, the tube used by Zippe had only a 1 mm wall thickness and was only 332 mm long. Zippe noted that the low efficiency of his laboratory machine would prevent its practical use. If Iraq attempts to use these tubes in a Zippe centrifuge, the efficiency could be further reduced due to complications with the damping and suspensions systems as a result of thicker walled tubes.


(U) The DOE also noted that the inefficiency of centrifuge machines using these tubes is such that Iraq would need more than 12,000-16,000 centrifuges to produce 25 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) annually, enough for one weapon per year. The DOE said,

As a result, we judge it would take much longer than five to seven years [18] to fabricate even a small functional cascade capable of producing gram quantities of HEU. Beyond fabrication challenges, operating a series of cascades with this many centrifuges would require significant operational experience. To date, the only entities known to operate more than 10,000 centrifuges are Russia and the European enrichment consortium, Urenco. Maintaining such a plant with first generation machines would be extremely difficult. Additionally, this centrifuge and the Zippe centrifuge have extremely low stage separation efficiencies that would lead to a very large number of centrifuge stages with a corresponding increase in cascade piping and complexity. In short, we judge it unlikely that anyone could deploy an enrichment facility capable of producing weapons significant quantities of HEU based on these tubes.


([DELETE]) The DOE was so pessimistic about Iraq's ability to successfully use these tubes in a centrifuge, one analyst told Committee staff, that his initial assessment was that if Iraq was really trying to make centrifuges out of these tubes that "we should just give them the tubes." [DELETE]

(8) Iraq Performed Internal Pressure Tests to Induce a Hoop-stress Level Similar to That Obtained by an Operating Rotor


([DELETE]) The NIE stated that the pressure tests Iraq conducted on the tubes performed to a stress level similar to that obtained by an operating rotor. Other than in the DOE's alternative view text box, the NIE did not indicate that pressure testing is not a known method for testing centrifuge rotors. The CIA's [DELETE] contractors suggested in their report that although pressure tests are not a typical test for centrifuge components, they can substitute for other tests. The contractors believed the tests were too high for rocket motors.

([DELETE]) DOE analysts told Committee staff that the CIA [DELETE] contractors had not been provided with pertinent data on rocket systems that would have shown that the pressure inside rocket motor bodies is very high and these tests were not too high for rocket motors. The DOE also noted that materials intended for use in high-speed rotational equipment, such as centrifuges, are typically subjected to a battery of tests, such as spin testing, to determine ultimate tensile strength, yield strength, metallurgical flaws, and balance, but are not typically subjected to pressure tests. Solid-fuel rocket motors develop stresses from internal pressure and hydrostatic testing is typical for rocket motor cases.

([DELETE]) (9) [DELETE]


([DELETE]) [DELETE].

([DELETE]) [DELETE].

([DELETE]) [DELETE].

([DELETE]) [DELETE]. A CIA report from 2000 [DELETE] on al Raya indicated that Iraq had consolidated the most important materials science elements of the former Iraqi nuclear weapons program in al Raya and that the center "would likely play a very key role in a restarted nuclear weapons program." The IAEA told Committee staff [DELETE] however, that there was never any suspicion from the UN that al-Raya contained nuclear facilities or was engaged in prohibited activities, although the IAEA and UN did inspect the facility because of equipment used and stored there and because former nuclear officials worked there.

b. Other Assessments of the Tubes

([DELETE]) In its text box dissenting from the IC's position in the NIE, the DOE assessed that the anodized coating on the aluminum tubes and the quantity of tubes requested were inconsistent with their use for centrifuges.

(1) Anodized Coating

([DELETE]) Iraq's aluminum tube procurement requests included a requirement that the tubes be anodized. Although the NIE assessment on the tubes did not include a discussion of the anodized coating, the CIA's September 2002 intelligence assessment did address this issue. [DELETE]. The assessment added that "Iraq's prewar centrifuge effort used anodized molecular pumps indicating the Iraqis understand [DELETE]." CIA and DIA analysts told Committee staff that while anodization is not necessary for an aluminum centrifuge, intelligence reporting suggested that Iraqi officials thought it was necessary [DELETE]. The CIA provided the Committee with a HUMINT report distributed in November 2002, after the publication of the NIE, which indicated that Iraq may have believed they needed to anodize aluminum rotor tubes.

([DELETE]) The DOE alternative view text box in the NIE said that anodization is not necessary and can be problematic for centrifuges. "It is well established in open sources that bare aluminum is resistant to UF6 and anodization is unnecessary for corrosion resistance, either for the aluminum rotors or for the thousands of feet of aluminum piping in a centrifuge facility. Instead, anodization would likely introduce uncertainties into the design that would need to be resolved before a centrifuge could be operated." Some of these uncertainties are described in a [DELETE].

( [DELETE]) [DELETE]. DOE analysts told Committee staff that the CIA's claims about U.S. and European centrifuge programs using anodized surface coatings is misleading [DELETE]. The DOE analysts said that they asked Gernot Zippe personally if his rotor was anodized and he said, "no."

([DELETE]) The DOE also provided Committee staff with an assessment of the November 2002 CIA HUMINT report. The DOE assessment, and comments from DOE analysts, noted that the HUMINT report that Iraq anodized aluminum rotor tubes used in its early Beams-type centrifuge design is inconsistent with Iraqi disclosures to the IAEA and post-Gulf war reporting from this source which said Iraq used anodization in a gaseous diffusion nuclear program, not its centrifuge program.

([DELETE]) When Committee staff interviewed the [DELETE] contracted by the [DELETE]. In a second interview with the DOE, analysts told Committee staff that the model was anodized in order to protect it from corrosion, but the actual rotors used in Zippe's centrifuge design were not anodized.

([DELETE]) [DELETE], the DOE noted in the NIE that anodization is a standard practice in missile construction for environmental protection. In a written response to questions from Committee staff, the NGIC agreed that anodizing "provides components of military weapon systems with maximum corrosion resistance. The coating also provides a surface having better paint adhesion than uncoated aluminum." The IAEA told Committee staff that Iraq was anodizing the tubes because they were being stored outdoors and, therefore, required the coating as environmental protection. According to the IAEA, Iraq lost thousands of the tubes it procured in the early and mid-1990s due to the corrosive effects of being stored outdoors. The Iraqis believed an anodized coating would better protect the new tubes they were attempting to procure.

(2) Quantity of Tubes

([DELETE]) The DOE assessed that the quantity of tubes Iraq was trying to procure is inconsistent with the needs of a centrifuge program. Iraq was consistently seeking 60,000 tubes and in some cases over 100,000 tubes. The DOE assessed that ten to twenty thousand tubes would be sufficient to build enough centrifuge machines to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons annually. The fabrication of 60,000 centrifuges would take Iraq well over a decade even if it were able to produce 20 acceptable centrifuges per day, a large number considering Iraq's industrial capabilities.

([DELETE]) The CIA assessed that over-purchasing is typical of Iraqi buying habits and likely reflects Iraq's attempts at quality control, to ensure that at least 10,000 to 20,000 tubes were of sufficient quality for use in a centrifuge program. The CIA's [DELETE] contractors and CIA analysts also relied on the NGIC's assessment that 60,000 tubes were too few for Iraq's Nasser 81 MRL system. The NGIC assessed if Iraq were to use the Nasser 81 MRL in a conflict, they could expend 60,000 rockets in less than a week, meaning that Iraq would need many more tubes for an effective weapon system.

([DELETE]) The NGIC analyst told Committee staff, however, that he was unaware of other intelligence reports which showed that Iraq had attempted to procure over 100,000 tubes in some cases. The NGIC analyst was also unaware that Iraq had procured 160,000 tubes for the Nasser 81 program in 1989, and still had 66,000 tubes available in 1996, suggesting that it would take Iraq a long time to use even 60,000 tubes. The NGIC analyst also could not provide Committee staff with an assessment or estimate of Iraq's Nasser 81 rocket production rate. [DELETE], Iraq's rocket production rate was about 50 rockets per day, or about 10,000 a year. This would mean that it would take Iraq six years to produce rockets from all 60,000 tubes.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Tue May 10, 2016 2:11 am

Part 3 of 3

(3) IAEA Investigation of Tubes

(U) After publication of the NIE but before the war had begun in Iraq, the IAEA was able to investigate Iraq's claims that the aluminum tubes were intended for its Nasser 81 rocket program. The IAEA told Committee staff that, primarily because of U.S. concerns about the tubes, investigating the tubes became one of the key lines of work during inspections in Iraq.

(U) The IAEA was able to verify that Iraq was engaged in rocket production at the Nasser 81 facility, making propellant and warheads and painting the rockets. A random spot check showed that the Iraqis had 13,000 completed rockets in their inventory. These rockets were being produced from the older 7075-T6 aluminum tubes at Nasser. Many of the older tubes had corroded because they had been stored outside and the Iraqis told the IAEA that they were trying to procure more tubes because they were going to run out of unspoiled tubes in about twelve to eighteen months. The older Nasser tubes had not been anodized, and the Iraqis told the IAEA the new anodization requirement was intended to protect the new tubes from spoiling in the elements.

(U) The bottom line assessment of the IAEA was that the tubes Iraq was trying to procure were capable of being adapted for use in a uranium centrifuge, but that it would require significant research and development and technical skills which would require years of work, even for people who knew what they were doing. The IAEA officials said they could not totally disregard the scenario that the tubes could be used in a centrifuge, but there were many inconsistencies with that scenario, while the theory that the tubes were being used for rockets was completely consistent with the evidence in Iraq.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]. The CIA [DELETE] produced intelligence assessments which rejected the IAEA's conclusions, [DELETE]. Most of these assessments were distributed in limited channels, only to senior policymakers.

2. Procurement Attempts for Magnets, High-Speed Balancing Machines and Machine Tools

(U) Intelligence information provided to the Committee shows that Iraq was trying to procure magnets, balancing machines, and machine tools, all materials that have potential applications in a nuclear program. These materials, however, are all dual use and none of the intelligence provided said that the materials were intended for a nuclear end user.

([DELETE]) According to the NIE, the manager of one of the Iraqi companies negotiating the magnet procurement, along with a large number of personnel for the new production facility, worked in Iraq's pre-Gulf War centrifuge program. [DELETE] information indicated the magnets to be produced at the facility were intended for the al Rashid directorate, which was coordinating the Ababil-100 missile project and was directly responsible for the missile's solid propellant engine.

([DELETE]) The Committee was not provided with any information to show that a large number of personnel for the new magnet production facility worked in Iraq's pre-Gulf War centrifuge program as stated in the NIE. According to the intelligence provided to the Committee, [DELETE] 40-50 percent of the PhDs and senior engineers there worked in Iraqi's pre-Gulf War nuclear program, but in the electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) program, not the centrifuge program. The Committee found it reasonable to assess that these individuals worked in al-Tahadi because of their experience with magnets.

(U) In an interview, the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs and CIA analysts told Committee staff the reference to the centrifuge officials working at al-Tahadi was a mistake and it was, in fact, former EMIS officials. The NIO and the CIA analysts agreed that the officials were probably working at al-Tahadi because of their magnet expertise and agreed that there was no direct connection to an Iraqi centrifuge program, although they noted that Iraq potentially could use the magnets in support of a renewed centrifuge effort.

([DELETE]) The NIE also assessed that a front company, trying to procure high-speed balancing machines that can be used in centrifuge balancing work, was involved in trying to procure 7075-T6 aluminum tubes. [DELETE]. When questioned by Committee staff, CIA analysts noted that procurement companies are often involved in a variety of unrelated procurement efforts and the procurement efforts [DELETE] to obtain balancing machines and [DELETE] to obtain aluminum tubes, may be totally unrelated.

(U) The Committee was not provided with any other information to show that equipment procurements were related to a nuclear program.

3. Iraq's Efforts to Re-Establish and Enhance Its Cadre of Weapons Personnel as well as Activities at Several Suspect Nuclear Sites

(U) The following points were offered in the NIE in support of the key judgment that Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel and activity at several suspect nuclear sites further indicated that nuclear reconstitution was underway.

a. The IAEC is expanding the infrastructure: research laboratories, production facilities, and procurement networks, to produce nuclear weapons.

b. Many of Iraq's nuclear scientists recently have been reassigned to the IAEC.

c. Renewed regular contact between Saddam and the IAEC, as well as enhanced security, suggests the IAEC is again the focal point of Sad dam's nuclear program.

d. Activity at several suspect nuclear sites.

a. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission is Expanding the Infrastructure - Research Laboratories, Production Facilities, and Procurement Networks - to Produce Nuclear Weapons

([DELETE]) A [DELETE] HUMINT report provided to the Committee showed that in April 2002 Iraq completed construction of a new building for the IAEC. The report said the building was an alternative to the existing IAEC offices and was built for the "operation room" of the IAEC. The report noted also that the IAEC planned to open a new high-level polytechnic school that would offer PhDs in all branches of nuclear energy at another location. The Committee was not provided with any other intelligence to show that research laboratories, production facilities, and procurement networks were expanded.

(U) In an interview with the NIO and CIA analysts, Committee staff asked if there was any additional information to support such an assessment. The CIA analyst said there was nothing additional to show that Iraq was expanding research laboratories, production facilities, or procurement networks.

b. Many of Iraq's Nuclear Scientists Recently Have Been Reassigned to the IAEC

([DELETE]) The information provided to the Committee shows that nuclear scientists worked for the IAEC, but does not show that these scientists were recently reassigned to the IAEC as stated in the NIE. According to the intelligence provided, [DELETE] several personnel changes in the IAEC indicated the changes were the result of a decision from the President's office to replace government managers who had been in their positions for five years. This suggests that many of these individuals had been located within the IAEC since at least 1996, five years before the reported personnel changes and, also suggests that transfers within the IAEC were not related to specific interest in that program, but were due to a government wide directive to change management. The Committee requested additional intelligence to support the assessment that many scientists had recently been reassigned to the IAEC, but the additional documents provided did not show recent reassignments.

([DELETE]) Some of the reports provided by the IC that were intended to show that scientists had been reassigned to the IAEC, actually suggested that no work was being done on the nuclear In one report from September 2001, an IAEC employee complained that the Iraqi nuclear program had been stalled since the Gulf War. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Reporting from a foreign government service indicated that "As of late 1999, several groups from Iraq's nuclear establishment remained intact, although the majority of key nuclear scientists, but not engineers or technicians, either had retired, died, or left Iraq." The report also noted that "As of late 1999, it was unlikely that any nuclear weapons work was taking place." Other reporting indicated that employees of Iraq's pre-Gulf War program maintained a loose professional alliance through their work in engineering and design centers within Iraq's Military Industrialization Commission, [DELETE].

(U) In an interview with the NIO and CIA analysts, Committee staff asked if there was any additional information to support the assessment that "Many of Iraq's nuclear scientists recently have been reassigned to the IAEC." The CIA analyst told Committee staff that he could not find any additional information to support the assessment that scientists had recently been reassigned to the IAEC.

c. Renewed Regular Contact Between Saddam and the IAEC, as Well as Enhanced Security, Suggests the IAEC is Again the Focal Point of Sad dam 's Nuclear Program

([DELETE]) Several open source and other intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein did meet with IAEC officials and praised their work. Saddam met and praised the work of other military, industry and private sector personnel at some of these meetings as well, however. It is also unclear whether the IAEC officials who Saddam praised were actually engaged in nuclear work.

([DELETE]) One report shows that, in a televised speech, the Iraqi leader praised engineers from the Atomic Energy Agency, Ministry of Industry and Minerals, Oil Ministry and the private sector who were engaged in pharmaceutical research. Saddam Hussein praised the work of the creative mujahidin in the pharmaceutical industry and their work on producing medicines. It is this report which the NIE references in saying that "Saddam told the IAEC its responsibilities have been doubled because they "owe" it to their past relationship with him." This report does not, however, reference nuclear work and does not say that Saddam told the IAEC its responsibilities have been doubled. The translation of Saddam' s speech said,

The Atomic Energy Agency should come up with two things or two items at a time when others come up with one thing. This is because its personnel are basically Iraqis and because they owe this to me, at least between me and them. Although you are all Iraqis and we cannot discriminate between you, but because of the old relationship between me and them, your responsibility is doubled.


([DELETE]) Because of the difficulty in determining what Saddam Hussein meant in this speech, the Committee asked for a re-translation. The CIA was unable to provide a new translation [DELETE].

([DELETE]) A second report provided to the Committee dated September 2001 on this subject shows that Saddam Hussein did promise to present new plans to facilitate the IAEC's work, as described in the NIE. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Several intelligence reports also point to increased security efforts at the IAEC. [DELETE]. The report mentioned that Iraqi intelligence officials would travel with any IAEC official who traveled abroad. The report also indicated that the IAEC had launched an operation to evacuate files, computers, and other materials because of a "crisis" with the UN. The information in this report dated from February to May 1998, when UN inspections were ongoing in Iraq.

(DELETE]) [DELETE] suggesting that at the time of the report in April 2001, Iraq's atomic energy personnel had not begun reconstituting the nuclear program.

d. Activity at Several Suspect Nuclear Sites

(U) Several intelligence reports support the conclusion in the NIE that scientists had been consolidated into establishments previously associated with the nuclear program and that these facilities retained equipment that could be used in reconstituting a nuclear program at some point. The reports show, however, that the consolidation took place before 1998. This appears to be continuing activity indicative of plans to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear program at some point, but not new activity that would indicate recent or impending nuclear reconstitution.

(U) In addition to the scientific activity, intelligence reports support the conclusion that there was construction activity at al-Tahadi, a research and engineering facility engaged in a variety of high-voltage and magnetics work, but it is unclear that al-Tahadi was linked to nuclear work. Intelligence reports showed that several former scientists from Iraq's pre-Gulf War EMIS uranium enrichment program were working at al-Tahadi. There is no information to suggest they were currently engaged in nuclear work, however.

([DELETE]) The IC provided the Committee with two intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was trying to procure a permanent magnet production line during the mid-1999 to March 2001 time frame. [DELETE] that construction of a high-bay building was completed at al-Tahadi by November 2000 which could have been intended to house permanent magnet production facility. Reporting, however, indicated that the magnet procurements were likely affiliated with Iraq's missile program and one report specifically mentioned that the magnets were intended for the al Rashid directorate, which is involved in solid-propellent missile design and production. [DELETE] There was no intelligence provided to the Committee to suggest that Iraq had obtained the permanent magnet production capability.

(U) In an interview with the NIO and CIA analysts, Committee staff asked if there was any additional information to support the assessment that "There was activity at suspect nuclear sites." The CIA analyst told Committee staff that the only activity was continuing work of personnel at these suspect facilities, but no new activity was taking place.

C. Niger

(U) Although not listed as a reason the IC believed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, the NIE did discuss Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The NIE said:

Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.

• A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

• Reports indicate Iraq has also sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.


([DELETE]) The Committee has examined the Niger uranium issue in depth and reported the information and findings on the issue in a separate section of this report. The Committee notes, however, that there were a number of intelligence reports which indicated Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from several countries in Africa, including Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia. At the time the NIE was written the forged foreign language documents were not available to the IC, but there was intelligence reporting that indicated Iraq may have approached Niger either to procure uranium or for another unidentified purpose. The Committee did not find that the information showed Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" as indicated in the NIE, but it did indicate that Iraq may have been trying to acquire uranium. See the Niger section of this report for a detailed explanation of the treatment of the Niger uranium information by the IC prior to, during, and after the NIE process.

D. Explaining Uncertainties

(U) The NIE provided a "tone box" that listed the IC's "confidence levels for selected key judgements in this estimate." The NIE's key judgements were broken down into three categories of high, moderate and low confidence. Assessments related to Iraq's nuclear capabilities listed under the "High Confidence" heading were:

• "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

• "We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs."

(U) The only key judgment noted under the "Moderate Confidence" heading related to Iraq's nuclear capabilities said:

• "Iraq does not have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009. (See INR alternative view, page 84)"

(U) There were no assessments of Iraq's nuclear capabilities listed under the "Low Confidence" heading.

E. Intelligence Agencies' Analysis on Reconstitution Prior to Publication of the NIE

(U) The assessment that Iraq had begun reconstituting its nuclear program was a new Community assessment in 2002, but individual IC agencies began to change their assessments about the nuclear program more gradually, beginning in 2001, as new intelligence reports began to come into the IC.

([DELETE]) As mentioned previously, the CIA began assessing that the aluminum tubes "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program" as early as April 10, 2001 (SEIB - 1-083CHX) -- almost immediately after the detailed intelligence reports on Iraq's attempts to procure 60,000 aluminum tubes started coming to the IC. The April 2001 assessment also suggested that the tubes, and purchases of other dual use items, such as magnets and specialized balancing equipment, could revive Iraq's nuclear program. The CIA produced about a dozen more assessments of the aluminum tubes and their applicability in Iraq's nuclear program over the course of the next year.

(U) It is clear from the CIA's finished intelligence that the procurement of aluminum tubes and other dual use equipment was key to the CIA shifting its position on reconstitution of Iraq's nuclear program. The CIA wrote in January 2002, that "Procurement activities detected in the past year are consistent with Iraq attempting to jump-start a clandestine uranium enrichment program to produce fissile material needed to make a nuclear weapon, potentially by late this decade." (SPWROIII02-02) On March 12,2002, the CIA published a Senior Executive Memorandum which assessed that "Iraq currently may be trying to reconstitute its gas centrifuge enrichment program" and on the same day the CIA said "Iraq could develop enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by mid-to-late decade." (SPWR031202-07) In August 2002, the CIA published a paper titled Iraq: Expanding WMD Capabilities Pose Growing Threat in which it assessed that "Iraq's procurement of nuclear-related equipment and materials indicates it has begun reconstituting its uranium enrichment gas centrifuge program to produce fissile material for a nuclear device, a process that could be completed by late this decade." The same paper later noted, "Iraq's persistent interest in high-strength aluminum tubes indicates Baghdad has renewed an indigenous centrifuge uranium enrichment program." The CIA's nuclear analysts also told Committee staff that the aluminum tube procurement was the principal part of the agency's assessment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

(U) On April 11, 2001, almost immediately after the reports on Iraq's procurement efforts came to the IC, the DOE assessed that the aluminum tubes were likely not intended for Iraq's nuclear program. The DOE noted that "While the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production." The DOE continued to assess that the tubes were intended for the Nasser 81 rocket program in numerous assessments throughout the next year.

(U) Despite the DOE's assessment that the tubes were not intended for Iraq's nuclear program, DOE analysts did note other intelligence in their assessments that led them to believe Iraq may be reconstituting its nuclear program. On August 17, 2001, in an intelligence paper (TIN000064) the DOE assessed that "Iraq is engaged in activities, such as establishing a permanent magnet production capability, that could be preliminary steps intended, at least in part to support a gas centrifuge program restart. However, we cannot determine from information now available whether or when Iraq may have begun program reconstitution in earnest or if it intends to do so in the immediate future." On July 22, 2002, the DOE assessed that Iraq's efforts to procure magnets, Saddam's meetings with Iraq's nuclear scientists, and possible Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Niger suggest "that Saddam Hussein is seeking to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program."

(U) The DIA first assessed that the aluminum tubes could be part of Iraq's nuclear program on August 2, 2001. The background paper outlined the CIA's assessment that the tubes were suitable for an uranium enrichment program and also explained the DOE's assessment that the tube's thickness, length, and anodized finish made it more likely they were for other uses. The paper indicated that "DIA analysts found the CIA presentation to be very compelling." The DIA wrote little else on the procurements of aluminum tubes or other dual use items until it published a large defense intelligence assessment on "Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Weapon Program" in September 2002. This assessment became the basis for most of the nuclear section of the October 2002 NIE on Iraq 's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. [19] The DIA paper used the term "revitalized" rather than "reconstituted" to refer to Iraq's nuclear efforts saying "Iraq revitalized its nuclear weapon efforts after the departure of UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors in December 1998."

(U) INR did not publish intelligence papers on Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes or papers indicating its position on nuclear reconstitution until after publication of the NIE. A draft of an in-depth analysis paper on the aluminum tubes issue was provided to the NIC staff prior to the NIE, so the NIC would be aware ofINR's position. The finished paper was published on October 9, 2002.

F. Analysis of Iraq's Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Disclosure

(U) On December 17, 2002, CIA analysts produced a review of Iraq's WMD declaration to the UN titled, Us. Analysis o/Iraq's Declaration, 7 December 2002. On December 30, 2002, the points from the paper were worked into talking points for the National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology titled, Talking Points on US Analysis 0/ Iraq's Declaration. The two assessments reviewed Iraq's "Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Disclosure" to the UN of its WMD programs and made only two points regarding the nuclear program. The assessments said the declaration, "fails to acknowledge or explain procurement of high specification aluminum tubes we believe suitable for use in a gas centrifuge uranium effort. Fails to acknowledge efforts to procure uranium from Niger, as noted in the U.K. Dossier." The titles of both of these assessments said, "u.S. analysis," suggesting that they represented more than just CIA's position. Yet, known dissenting views from INR and the DOE regarding the purpose of the aluminum tubes were not included in the assessments. INR's view that the Niger reporting was "highly dubious" also was not included in the assessments.

(U) Information provided to the Committee indicates that the December 17, 2002 assessment was passed to the President without INR or the DOE having an opportunity to review or comment on the draft. An INR analyst sent an e-mail to CIA asking, "Do you happen to know offhand if INR will get to review and clear the draft 'detailed analysis' of the declaration before it's issued in its capacity as a 'U.S.' position? We were not invited to review or clear on the draft preliminary 'U.S.' assessment, which subsequently went to POTUS, et al." A CIA analyst responded to the INR analyst that all agencies had been invited to participate in the analysis. The INR sent another e-mail noting that INR and DOE analysts had been able to review the declaration and make comments, but had left CIA prior to the preparation of the talking points for the NSC. He said INR and DOE analysts did not even know that such points were being prepared or provided to the NSC, but said the CIA was well aware of their positions and should have included them in the points. Although the INR analyst's concerns were passed to the CIA on December 23,2002, their alternative views also were not included in the December 30, 2002 talking points.

(U) The INR analyst forwarded his e-mail comments to a DOE analyst who responded that "It is most disturbing that WINP AC is essentially directing foreign policy in this matter. There are some very strong points to be made in respect to Iraq's arrogant non-compliance with UN sanctions. However, when individuals attempt to convert those 'strong statements' into the 'knock out' punch, the Administration will ultimately look foolish -- i.e. the tubes and Niger!"

G. Nuclear Conclusions

(U) Conclusion 27. After reviewing all of the intelligence provided by the Intelligence Community and additional information requested by the Committee, the Committee believes that the judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence. The Committee agrees with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) alternative view that the available intelligence "does not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution. "

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 28. The assessments in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding the timing of when Iraq had begun reconstituting its nuclear program are unclear and confusing.
([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 29. Numerous intelligence reports provided to the Committee showed that Iraq was trying to procure high-strength aluminum tubes. The Committee believes that the information available to the Intelligence Community indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 30. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) intelligence assessment on July 2, 2001 that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes "match those of a publicly available gas centrifuge design from the 1950s, known as the Zippe centrifuge" is incorrect. Similar information was repeated by the CIA in its assessments, including its input to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), and by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) over the next year and a half.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 31. The Intelligence Community's position in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that the composition and dimensions of the aluminum tubes exceeded the requirements for non nuclear applications, is incorrect.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 32. The [DELETE] intelligence report on Saddam Hussein's personal interest in the aluminum tubes, if credible, did suggest that the tube procurement was a high priority, but it did not necessarily suggest that the high priority was Iraq's nuclear program.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 33. The suggestion in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iraq was paying excessively high costs for the aluminum tubes is incorrect. In addition, 7075-T6 aluminum is not considerably more expensive than other more readily available materials for rockets as alleged in the NIE.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 34. The National Ground Intelligence Center's (NGIC) analysis that the material composition of the tubes was unusual for rocket motor cases was incorrect, contradicted information the NGIC later provided to the Committee, and represented a serious lapse for the agency with primary responsibility for conventional ground forces intelligence analysis.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 35. Information obtained by the Committee shows that the tubes were [DELETE] to be manufactured to tolerances tighter than typically requested for rocket systems. The request for tight tolerances had several equally likely explanations other than that the tubes were intended for a centrifuge program, however.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 36. Iraq's attempts to procure the tubes through intermediary countries did appear intended to conceal Iraq as the ultimate end user of the tubes, as suggested in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Because Iraq was prohibited from importing any military items, it would have had to conceal itself as the end user whether the tubes were intended for a nuclear program or a conventional weapons program, however.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 37. Iraq's persistence in seeking numerous foreign sources for the aluminum tubes was not "inconsistent" with procurement practices as in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Furthermore, such persistence [DELETE] was more indicative of procurement for a conventional weapons program than a covert nuclear program.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 38. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) initial reporting on its aluminum tube spin tests was, at a minimum, misleading and, in some cases, incorrect. The fact that these tests were not coordinated with other Intelligence Community agencies is an example of continuing problems with information sharing within the Intelligence Community.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 39. Iraq's performance of hydrostatic pressure tests on the tubes was more indicative of their likely use for a rocket program than a centrifuge program.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 40. Intelligence reports which showed [DELETE] were portrayed in the National Intelligence Estimate as more definitive than the reporting showed.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 41. [DELETE] in that it was only presented with analysis that supported the CIA's conclusions. The team did not discuss the issues with Department of Energy officials and performed its work in only one day.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 42. The Director of Central Intelligence was not aware of the views of all intelligence agencies on the aluminum tubes prior to September 2002 and, as a result, could only have passed the Central Intelligence Agency's view along to the President until that time.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 43. Intelligence provided to the Committee did show that Iraq was trying to procure magnets, high-speed balancing machines and machine tools, but this intelligence did not suggest that the materials were intended to be used in a nuclear program.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 44. The statement in the National Intelligence Estimate that "a large number of personnel for the new [magnet] production facility, worked in Iraq's pre-Gulf War centrifuge program," was incorrect.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 45. The statement in the National Intelligence Estimate that the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission was "expanding the infrastructure -- research laboratories, production facilities, and procurement networks -- to produce nuclear weapons," is not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 46. The intelligence provided to the Committee which showed that Iraq had kept its cadre of nuclear weapons personnel trained and in positions that could keep their skills intact for eventual use in a reconstituted nuclear program was compelling, but this intelligence did not show that there was a recent increase in activity that would have been indicative of recent or impending reconstitution of Iraq's nuclear program as was suggested in the National Intelligence Estimate.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 47. Intelligence information provided to the Committee did show that Saddam Hussein met with Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission personnel and that some security improvements were taking place, but none of the reporting indicated the IAEC was engaged in nuclear weapons related work.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Wed May 11, 2016 12:21 am

Part 1 of 2

IV. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS OF IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM

A. Background


(U) Prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's Continuing Programs of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Intelligence Community (IC) prepared several coordinated papers that contained assessments of Iraq's biological weapons (BW) program. Prior to the departure of inspectors in 1998, IC assessments focused largely on the United Nations Special Commission's (UNSCOM) findings in Iraq, outstanding compliance issues, and the IC's assessment of the difficulties UNSCOM would face as it attempted to gain full Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions requiring its disarmament.

(U) In February 1999, the Intelligence Community reported in Iraq: WMD and Delivery Capabilities After Operation Desert Fox, that Iraq probably retained the personnel, documentation, and much of the critical equipment necessary to continue and advance its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and delivery programs. Iraq possessed biological agent [20] stockpiles that could be, or already were, weaponized and ready for use, but the paper did not state definitively that Iraq had biological weapons. The size of those agent stockpiles was said to be uncertain and subject to debate, and the location, nature, and condition of the stockpiles was also unknown. Iraq's production of biological weapons was assessed to be largely dormant, but the IC observed that Iraq could begin BW agent production within days of a decision to do so.

([DELETE]) A July 1999 National Intelligence Council (NIC) Memorandum titled Iraq: Post-Desert Fox Activities and Estimated Status of WMD Programs noted that in the wake of Operation Desert Fox, the "loss of United Nations (UN) inspectors on the ground and of airborne imagery from the UNSCOM U-2 flights make it difficult to determine whether activity detected at known dual-use [21] sites is related to WMD production." It went on to note that Iraq may have already resumed some BW production but the IC had no reliable intelligence to indicate this, and assessed that in the absence of UN inspectors Iraq would expand its BW activities. A month later, the IC expanded this judgment in the August 1999 NIE, Worldwide BW program: Trends and Prospects (NIE 2000-12HCX), which stated that Iraq's "BW program has continued since the Gulf War, and we judge it is being revitalized now that the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) monitoring and inspection activities are suspended." This NIE was updated in December 2000 (Worldwide BW Programs: Trends and Prospects Update (NIE 99- 05CXlD», when the IC adjusted upward its assessment of the BW threat posed by Iraq, citing new intelligence acquired in 2000. The IC's concern about Iraq's BW program began to grow in early 2000 when the Defense Human Intelligence Service (DHS) began reporting the [DELETE] debriefings of an Iraqi engineer, the human intelligence (HUMINT) source code named CURVE BALL, who claimed to have worked on a project in Iraq to construct seven mobile biological production units. The December 2000 Worldwide BW NIE stated in its key judgements that:

(U) Despite a decade-long international effort to disarm Iraq, new information suggests that Baghdad has continued and expanded its offensive BW program by establishing a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability. We judge that Iraq maintains the capability to produce previously declared agents and probably is pursuing development of additional bacterial and toxin agents. Moreover, we judge that Iraq has BW delivery systems available that could be used to threaten US and Allied forces in the Persian Gulf region.


([DELETE]) In December 2000, at the request of the National Security Council, the IC also produced an Intelligence Community Assessment (lCA) on Iraq's WMD programs that included an assessment of the state of Iraq's BW program. The paper assessed that Iraq had largely rebuilt declared facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and expanded WMD-capable infrastructure. Specific to BW, the paper assessed:

• We cannot confirm whether Iraq has produced ... biological agents, although in the case of biological weapons, credible reporting from a single source suggests it has done so on a large scale and had developed a clandestine production capability.

• Our main judgment about what remains of Iraq's original WMD programs, agents stockpiles, and delivery systems have changed little: Iraq retains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents and munitions.

• IC analysts are increasingly concerned that Saddam has acquired a clandestine BW production capability which has the potential to turn out several hundred tons of unconcentrated BW agent per year.

• According to [DELETE] reporting from a single source, Iraq has constructed seven transportable -- via trucks and rail cars -- plants, some of which have produced BW agents. Although the information is unconfirmed, it tracks with UNSCOM evidence acquired in the mid-1990's that Iraq was considering such a program.

• Recent [DELETE] analysis suggests that Iraq has built and is operating a new castor oil plant. Castor oil has various civilian applications, but leftover bean pulp could easily be used to make the BW agent ricin.

• New construction at a few dual-use facilities formerly associated with the BW program has raised our concern about Iraqi intentions. Nevertheless, we are unable to determine -- because of the lack of intelligence information or observable signatures -- whether Iraq is diverting these or other of its many pharmaceutical, vaccine, or pesticide plants to produce BW agents.

• According to multiple [DELETE] sources, Iraq is bolstering its BW research and development, [DELETE] that in 1999 that such research & development (R&D) was being carried out while UNSCOM was active in Iraq. Iraq could easily have intensified and expanded this work over the last two years.

• A limited body of reporting suggests that Iraq is seeking through its extensive procurement network dual-use equipment and other materials for BW research.

(U) The 2000 ICA also discussed at length the significant uncertainties associated with Iraq's failure to satisfy UN inspectors that it had destroyed all of its biological weapons, agent and growth media.

(U) The IC published, The BW Threat to the Global and US Agricultural Sectors (ICB 2001-09) in March 2001, and Smallpox: How Extensive a Threat? (ICB 2001-34HC) in December 2001, which stated for the first time that "we think chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program, although credible evidence is limited." A chart included in the December 2001 assessment indicated the likelihood that smallpox is part of Iraq's "current offensive BW program" was medium, which was defined on the chart as "40-60%." The chart also indicated that the "quality of information" to support this assessment was "poor."

(U) While the Intelligence Community had adjusted upward its assessments of the BW threat posed by Iraq beginning with the 2000 Worldwide BW National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the October 2002 NIE represented a shift in the IC's judgments about Iraq's biological weapons program. Many of the uncertainties that were expressed in all previous IC assessments about what was known about the BW program were not contained in the NIE's text. The starkest shift was the judgment that "Baghdad has ... biological weapons." All previous assessments had stated that Iraq could have biological weapons. The other significant change was the assessment that all key aspects -- R&D, production, and weaponization [22] -- of Iraq's offensive BW program were active and that most elements were now larger and more advanced than they had been before the Gulf War. Given this shift in the IC's assessments, Committee staff focused their work on the analysis of Iraq's biological warfare program in the 2002 NIE.

(U) The Committee examined each of the IC's assessments outlined in the NIE and the available intelligence that supported those assessments. Committee staff also interviewed analysts and officials from the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and every intelligence agency involved in the biological section of the NIE including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Imagery and Mapping Agency [23] (NIMA), and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). The Committee also interviewed IC personnel responsible for intelligence collection regarding Iraq's BW capabilities and former UN inspectors.

(U) The Deputy National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Science and Technology assembled the biological warfare section of the NIE from a compilation of previous IC publications concerning Iraq's BW program. The material in the BW section was drawn from the Iraqi BW section of a draft update to the December 2000 Worldwide BW NIE that was titled, Worldwide BW Programs: Trends and Prospects Update, a September 12, 2002 CIA paper that was provided in support of the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Iraqi BW section from the draft NIE, Nontraditional Threats to the US Homeland Through 2007, and the September 17,2002 testimony and background material produced for the DCI for use with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

(U) The DIA analyst, who was a key player in producing the Iraqi section of the draft update to the December 2000 Worldwide Biological Weapons NIE, told Committee staff that the draft was revised in three successive rounds of electronic mail (e-mail) coordination with his IC counterparts. The DIA analyst told Committee staff that the comments he received from his IC counterparts in this e-mail coordination process did not significantly change any of the overall assessments, and only offered more detail and "refined our assessments." The DCI refused to provide the Committee with copies of draft revisions of the BW section of the October 2002 NIE. NIC officials and IC analysts told Committee staff that there was no significant dissent from any IC agencies concerning the October 2002 NIE's BW assessments.

([DELETE]) As the title of the October 2002 NIE's BW section, "Biological Warfare Program -- Larger Than Before," indicates, the primary assessment of the BW section of the NIE was that, not only had Iraq continued its BW program since 1991 in defiance of international efforts to disarm Iraq, but the program had advanced beyond what it had achieved prior to the 1991 Gulf War. This overall assessment is stated clearly in both the key judgments and the first sentence of the body of the BW section: "we assess that all key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization - ofIraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." An important component of this overall assessment is a statement found in the second sentence of the NIE's key judgments section, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons .... " This statement was not repeated in the body of the NIE's BW section. The [DELETE] CIA BW analyst [DELETE] noted during an interview with Committee staff that in retrospect, [DELETE] believes that the sentence should have carried the caveat that we assess that Baghdad has biological weapons, to better reflect the uncertainties associated with this judgment.

(U) To support the assessment that Iraq's offensive BW program was larger and more advanced than it was before the Gulf War, and that Iraq had biological weapons, the NIE makes the following assessments:

• Baghdad has transportable facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents.

• Baghdad has been able to renovate and expand its fixed dual-use BW agent production facilities.

• We assess that Iraq has some BW agents and maintains the capability to produce a variety of BW agents.

• In the absence of UN inspectors, Iraq probably has intensified and expanded research and development in support of Iraq's BW program. Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents.

• We assess that Baghdad also has increased the effectiveness of its BW arsenal by mastering the ability to produce dried agent.

• Iraq's capability to manufacture equipment and materials ... and to procure other necessary, dual-use materials ... makes large-scale BW agent production easily attainable.

• The nature and amounts of Iraq's stored BW material remain unresolved by UNSCOM accounting.

• We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts.

(U) The following sections outline the Committee's examination of the intelligence supporting the arguments behind the NIE's assessment that Iraq's offensive BW program was larger and more advanced than before the 1991 Gulf war.

B. Baghdad Has Transportable Facilities/or Producing Bacterial and Toxin BW Agents

([DELETE]) The NIE stated that "Baghdad has transportable facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents and may have other mobile units for researching and filling agent into munitions or containers, according to multiple [DELETE] sources. Iraq has pursued mobile BW production options, largely to protect its BW capability from detection, according to a credible source."

([DELETE]) A large part of the NIE's discussion of the alleged mobile BW production units was based on information provided by a source described in the NIE as "a credible source" and "an Iraqi defector deemed credible by the IC." The source was an Iraqi defector who had been the subject of debriefings [DELETE] since 2000. He was believed by the IC to have been a project engineer involved in the design and production of [DELETE] biological production facilities in Iraq. [DELETE]. The source is hereafter referred to by the codename he was given [DELETE] "CURVE BALL".

([DELETE]) The Committee was provided with 112 reports from the [DELETE] debriefings of CURVE BALL. CIA, DIA and INR BW analysts all told Committee staff that CURVE BALL provided the majority of the specific detail in the IC's assessments concerning the mobile BW production units. An INR BW analyst told Committee staff that if the reporting from CURVE BALL was removed from consideration it would have reduced his confidence in the assessment that Iraq had mobile BW production units. The INR BW analyst noted that without CURVE BALL" ... you probably could only honestly say that Iraq would be motivated to have a mobile BW program and that it was attempting to procure components that would support that."

([DELETE]) Additional reporting from CURVE BALL, and additional human intelligence (HUMINT) sources that analysts believed corroborated his reporting, was instrumental in the IC shifting its characterization ofIraq's mobile BW production program from an assessment in December 2000 that stated, "according to credible US military reporting [DELETE] Baghdad now can produce biological agents in transportable plants" to the 2002 NIE's assessment that "Baghdad has transportable facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents and may have other mobile units for researching and filling agent into munitions or containers, according to multiple [DELETE] sources" (emphasis added). A CIA BW analyst told Committee staff that, "The big factor changing assessments that we had since the Gulf War was this body of reporting we got on the mobile BW program."

([DELETE]) The NIE stated that CURVE BALL reported that, " ... seven mobile BW production units were constructed and that one began production as early as 1997." The NIE also said that, according to CURVE BALL, the seven units were produced [DELETE]. Reports from CURVE BALL provided to the Committee described the production of seven mobile BW production units. One report [DELETE], suggesting that production was underway in 1997. One of the reports also described the [DELETE] "construction of each of the new mobile biological weapons (BW) agent production units."

([DELETE]) The NIE stated that "the reported locations of these plants have been identified in imagery, but Iraq has most likely dispersed these units since the source defected." Several reports from CURVE BALL described the locations of the seven mobile production units. Imagery analysts used this information to identify what they assessed to be the locations in Iraq described by CURVE BALL. In interviews with Committee staff, IC analysts indicated that they viewed the identification of the sites on imagery, and the fact that buildings were [DELETE] to accommodate the mobile production plants as described by CURVE BALL, as corroboration of CURVE BALL's reporting. A CIA BW analyst told Committee staff that "we were able to identify the sites he had named to be agricultural sites housing these mobile plants. Stuff like that looked like more corroboration to us at the time." The CIA BW analyst also noted that while the IC was confident that it had identified the seven sites that CURVE BALL was discussing, "when we reviewed the imagery we couldn't find evidence of the [mobile BW production] plants being there. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) The NIE's discussion of the mobile biological production units concluded with the estimate that if all seven units were operational, Iraq would take" ... approximately 14 to 26 weeks to produce the amount UNSCOM assessed was actually produced prior [to] the Gulf War." [DELETE]

1. Other Sources

([DELETE]) The NIE stated that the information concerning Iraq's efforts to build mobile BW production facilities " ... tracks with [DELETE] evidence that in the mid-1990s was considering a mobile fermentation capability, [DELETE]." The [DELETE] evidence is described in a December 1996 HUMINT report that provided a translation of two Iraqi handwritten notes [DELETE]. The report described how the undated notes were written on Iraqi Military Industrial Corporation letterhead found in late 1995 and provided a summary of their contents:

• [DELETE]

[DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) The NIE also noted that another source provided information to the IC on mobile biological research laboratories. The NIE said, "in mid-1996 Iraq decided to establish mobile laboratories for BW research to evade UNSCOM inspections, according to [DELETE], an Iraqi defector associated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC)." [DELETE] is hereafter referred to as the INC source. The information provided by the INC source is detailed in a March 2002 Defense HUMINT Service (DHS) intelligence report. The report discussed a project involving several Iraqi ministries, including the Iraqi Intelligence Service, to procure labs that would allow Iraq to conceal "biological research operations" from UNSCOM inspectors. The report noted that the source was "unaware of the exact nature of the research conducted in the labs." This report, which does not discuss mobile BW production, was the only report concerning mobile BW units from this source. In addition to the INC source, the IC provided the Committee seven other reports concerning Iraqi mobile biological laboratories. None of these discussed mobile BW production units. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Although he was not specifically referenced in the text of the NIE, the IC also provided the Committee with an intelligence report from the debriefing of another Iraqi Asylum seeker [DELETE]. A report from June 2001, which was the only report from this source provided to the Committee, said that Iraq had transportable facilities for the production of biological weapons mounted on trailers at a special armaments factory in Iraq, and that there were other Iraqi sites where biological weapons were produced. The report noted that protective gear had to be worn in these transportable facilities, which were housed in partially underground buildings that were surrounded by a fence. The report also stated that "anyone with open sores was strictly forbidden access to these facilities," and that "warheads with biological agents were stockpiled at this site."

([DELETE]) Committee staff found several areas of concern regarding the HUMINT sources upon which the IC relied to build its assessments concerning Iraq's mobile BW production program. Those sources were CURVE BALL, [DELETE], the INC source, and [DELETE].

2. CURVE BALL

( [DELETE]) [DELETE] A CIA BW analyst told Committee staff that the translation process used to debrief CURVE BALL led to some misunderstandings. CURVE BALL spoke in English and Arabic, which was translated into a Western European language. [DELETE] DHS officers [DELETE] translated the reports back into English before transmitting them to the [DELETE] Intelligence Community. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) The IC provided the Committee with a copy of an evaluation of the intelligence reporting from CURVE BALL that was submitted by [DELETE] DIA BW analysts. The evaluation stated that "overall, the fact that the source may be valuable and the reporting appears to be of major significance are presently compromised by reporting inconsistencies as noted in the guidance below." [DELETE] The DHS intelligence officer responsible for collecting and reporting the intelligence from CURVE BALL was unable to tell Committee staff whether these concerns had been raised [DELETE]. The DHS intelligence officer did not recall the particular evaluation provided by the DIA BW analysts, or if [DELETE] provided any information in response.

([DELETE]) A CIA BW analyst told Committee staff that a Department of Defense (DOD) detailee who provided technical advice on CURVE BALL " ... thought that the guy might be an alcoholic and that bothered him a lot." The detailee who provided technical advice to the CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) on BW matters, met CURVE BALL in May 2000 in order to administer [DELETE]. The detailee is the only American intelligence official to have met CURVE BALL before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

([DELETE]) The DOD detailee raised several concerns about CURVE BALL's reliability in an electronic mail (e-mail) he wrote to the Deputy Chief of the CIA's [DELETE] Iraqi WMD Task Force after reading a draft of Secretary Powell's speech to the U.N. The detailee noted that "I believe I am still the only [United States Government] USG person to have had direct access to him. There are a few issues associated with that contact that warrant further explanation, in my opinion, before using him as the backbone for the Iraqi mobile program." The detailee explained,

I do have a concern with the validity of the information based on "CURVE BALL" having a terrible hangover the morning [DELETE]. I agree, it was only a one time interaction, however, he knew he was to have a [DELETE] on that particular morning but tied one on anyway. What underlying issues could this be a problem with and how in depth has he been [DELETE]?


The DOD detailee also expressed concern in his e-mail that,

During the [DELETE] meeting a couple of months ago when I was allowed to request [DELETE] that "we/USG" wanted direct access to CURVE BALL, [DELETE] replied that in fact that was not possible, [DELETE] were having major handling issues with him and were attempting to determine, if in fact, CURVE BALL was who he said he was. These issues, in my opinion, warrant further inquiry, before we use the information as the backbone of one of our major findings of the existence of a continuing Iraqi BW program!


([DELETE]) The detailee's e-mail was sent to the Deputy Chief of the [DELETE] Iraqi WMD Task Force on February 4, one day before Secretary Powell delivered his speech. The detailee told Committee staff that prior to receiving a draft copy of Secretary Powell's speech he had "had many discussions with the analysts about my concerns with CURVE BALL as this whole thing was building up and taking on a life of its own. I was becoming frustrated, and when asked to go over Colin Powell's speech ... and I went through the speech, and I thought, my gosh, we have got -- I have got to go on record and make my concerns known .... "

([DELETE]) The detailee also told Committee staff that during his [DELETE] of CURVE BALL, he had several opportunities to speak with [DELETE] who had [DELETE] responsibility for debriefing CURVE BALL. The detailee observed that " ... this is an opinion of mine and I really have nothing else to base it on, but it was obvious to me that his case officer, for lack of better words, had fallen in love with his asset and the asset could do no wrong. I mean, the story was 100 percent correct as far as [DELETE] was concerned."

([DELETE]) [DELETE] The INR BW analyst also told Committee staff that he was not aware that the detailee had concerns that CURVE BALL might have a drinking problem.

([DELETE]) Because of Committee staff's concerns about the IC's reliance on a single source and questions about CURVE BALL's reporting, the Committee requested an IC assessment of CURVE BALL and his reliability. The DHS provided the Committee with an information paper on December 17, 2003 that stated " ... the Iraqi design engineer [CURVE BALL] is not a biological weapons expert nor is he a life science expert. Source simply designed [DELETE] production facilities. He never claimed that the project he was involved in was used to produce biological agents." The DHS assessment also noted that "the source's reporting demonstrates a knowledge of and access to personalities, organizations, procurement, and technology related to Iraq's BW program." Concerned that the assessment had said the primary source behind the IC's assessments of the Iraqi mobile BW production program had "never claimed that the project he was involved in was used to produce biological agents," Committee staff asked DHS to clarify what appeared to be a serious discrepancy. The DHS was unable to respond to the request for several weeks, noting to Committee staff that the matter was being handled by the DCI's staff. The DHS then issued a correction to the Committee on January 15,2003 that stated the information in the December 17, 2003 contained several errors and [DELETE] ..." The DHS correction also stated that "by virtue of his position, and as reflected in the published Intelligence Information Reports, the source demonstrated extensive knowledge of Iraq's BW program. As the project manager, he had intimate details of the mobile BW program." The author of the December 2003 DRS paper which stated that CURVE BALL "never claimed that the project he was involved in was used to produce biological agents" was the DHS intelligence officer who had primary responsibility [DELETE] for collecting and reporting the intelligence from CURVE BALL's debriefings. In an interview with Committee staff, the DHS officer stated that in his haste to provide an assessment of the source to the Committee, he had misread some of the intelligence reports from the source.

([DELETE]) 3. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

[DELETE]


([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

[DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Committee staff asked a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) polygraph expert with 29 years of experience with polygraph examinations about the possibility of a "false negative" resulting from a polygraph examination. A false negative is when a subject who is telling the truth is judged to be deceptive on a polygraph. The DoD polygraph expert told Committee staff that in regard to polygraph examinations, "anything could always be a false positive or a false negative. The polygraph is not 100 percent accurate and will never be 100 percent accurate, because we're dealing with the psychology and the physiology of the individual." [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

[DELETE]


4. INC Source

([DELETE]) As previously discussed, a March 2002 report from the INC source, [DELETE] stated that in mid-1996 Iraq decided to establish mobile laboratories for BW agent research to evade UNSCOM inspections. The NIE described the source by name and noted that he was an "Iraqi defector associated with the Iraqi National Congress." He had defected from Iraq in late 2001, and was brought to the attention of the DIA by Washington-based representatives of the INC in February 2002. After several meetings with the INC source, a DIA debriefer assessed that some of the information he provided " ... seemed accurate, but much of it appeared embellished." The DIA debriefer believed that " ... the source had been coached on what information to provide." The DIA's report from the INC source, however, described him as a "first time reporter who is considered reliable" and does not note the debriefer's concerns that he had been coached or that he had embellished information. The report also stated that the "source passed a DHS-administered polygraph regarding information included in this report."

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) In April 2002, the CIA published an assessment of the INC source that stated that DHS had terminated contact with him after four meetings because of suspicions he was a fabricator. In May 2002, DIA issued a "fabrication notice" which said that the information the INC source provided was "assessed as unreliable and, in some instances, pure fabrication." A DIA investigation of this source that resulted in the fabrication notice, questioned the source's truthfulness and noted that the " ... information is now considered suspect." Although the source passed "an issue-specific DIA administered polygraph examination, DIA's discussions with the examiner indicate that some areas were not fully explored, which could account for the potential fabrication." In July 2002, the National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia provided the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs with an assessment of Iraqi defectors who had been brought to the attention of the IC by the INC and noted the concerns the DIA and the [DELETE] had about the source's reliability. Despite the April 2002 CIA assessment, the May 2002 fabrication notice and the July 2002 assessment suggesting the source may have fabricated information, the source was highlighted in the October 2002 NIE, and he was one of the four HUMINT sources specifically referred to in the part of Secretary Powell's February 2003 speech before the UN Security Council that discussed the mobile BW production units.

([DELETE]) 5. [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Although he was not specifically referenced in the text of the NIE, the IC also provided the Committee with an intelligence report from the debriefing of another Iraqi asylum seeker [DELETE]. The June 2001 report, which is the only report from this source that discussed mobile BW units, stated that there were transportable facilities for the production of biological weapons mounted on trailers at a special armaments factory in Iraq, and that there were other Iraqi sites where biological weapons were produced. The detailee also expressed concern about this source in his e-mail concerning Secretary Powell's UN speech. He noted that the source was "[DELETE], but one whose reliability nor reporting has been evaluated," and said the reporting had inconsistencies that needed further checking. The detailee added, "we sure didn't give much credence to this report when it came out. Why now?" The detailee's e-mail was written four months after the NIE was published.

6. Intelligence Community Mind Set Concerning Mobile BW Programs

([DELETE]) An INR BW analyst told Committee staff that " ... as a community the U.S. BW analysts generally think that BW programs historically have shifted from large-scale fixed facilities producing large quantities of BW agents being stockpiled to smaller dual-use facilities that can be mobilized. [DELETE] So it's very appealing to the analysts to learn about a mobile BW program. It fits with what we think the state of the BW program worldwide are heading toward. It's kind of like a built-in bias."

([DELETE]) A CIA Directorate of Operations (CIA/DO) officer told the Committee that when he began serving as the Deputy Chief of the CIA Iraq WMD Task Force in the summer of2002, the Iraqi BW program was not the focus of the Iraq WMD Task Force's efforts because, while many questions existed about other issues such as Iraq's nuclear weapons program, analysts felt fairly certain that they knew what the BW program looked like and believed the issue was largely "wrapped up." He noted that although there was always a lot of ambiguity with these sources, the CIA's lead analyst on Iraq's BW program was adamant about the existence of the Iraqi mobile BW platforms. He noted that [DELETE] was "a bull dog with these sources." The CIA/DO officer told Committee staff that the CIA BW analyst and the Department of Defense detailee who was assigned to CINDO had "locked horns" over the reliability of the mobile BW HUMINT sources. The CINDO officer noted that he had several conversations with the CIA BW analyst about the detailee's concerns over the reliability of the mobile BW HUMINT sources. In one of these conversations, the CIA BW analyst discounted the detailee's concerns by stating that the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) had multiple sources reporting on the program, and that the detailee was not aware of all of this reporting.

C. Baghdad Has Been Able to Renovate and Expand its Fixed Dual-Use BW Agent Production Facilities

([DELETE]) The introduction of the BW section of the NIE said that, "Baghdad has been able to renovate and expand its fixed dual-use BW agent production facilities .... " Later in the NIE, however, the reference to renovation of fixed facilities said, "we are increasingly concerned that Baghdad's renovation and expansion of its fixed, dual-use facilities that served as Iraq's BW agent production capability prior to the Gulf War are part of an effort to increase significantly Iraq's BW agent holdings." The second version of this assessment makes it more clear that the dual-use facilities were not known to be BW agent facilities, but that the IC had concerns about their potential use as BW facilities because they had been used for BW agent production prior to the Gulf War. To support this assessment, the NIE discussed renovation and expansion activity at three fixed, dual-use facilities: the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, the Habbaniyah I Castor Oil Plant, and the Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Production Plant.

1. Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute

([DELETE]) The NIE noted that increased activity and construction at Iraq's Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute has been observed [DELETE] since at least 2000 "suggesting more than pharmaceutical production or distribution is taking place." [DELETE]

([DELETE]) The IC provided the Committee a National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) [24] report that described [DELETE] of Amiriyah from April 1999 to November 2001, which stated that the facility remained active during this period and may have increased its level of operations. [DELETE]. The report said that these changes may represent changes in the facility's operations.

([DELETE]) The NIE's dsicussion of Amiriyah also states that "Iraqi scientists reportedly conducted quality testing at this site on BW agents produced in the mobile production units, [DELETE]. A HUMINT report from [DELETE] CURVE BALL, who provided the majority of the intelligence reporting concerning the mobile BW program, [DELETE]

([DELETE]In discussions with Committee staff, both CIA and DIA BW analysts said they assessed that the changes [DELETE] at the facility suggested Amiriyah was active, but said the activity could have been consistent with legitimate public health related activity. A CIA Iraq analyst [DELETE] also told Committee staff that in the late 1990's and in the 2000 to 2002 period Iraq did have "some huge vaccination campaigns," particularly against polio and foot and mouth disease (FMD). A CIA BW analyst also told Committee staff that she was not aware of any effort in the IC to analyze the impact of those mass vaccination campaigns on dual-use facilities like the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

2. Habbaniyah I Castor Oil Plant

([DELETE]) The NIE noted that the Habbaniyah I Castor Oil Plant, which was damaged during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 because it was assessed to be involved in the production of the biotoxin ricin, was rebuilt by early 2000. The NIE said, "The facility continues to extract oil from the castor beans, allegedly for use in brake fluid production. [DELETE]. The NIE stated that while the extraction of castor oil is a legitimate activity, the bean mash that is left over contains the BW agent ricin. The IC assessed that ricin was probably not being extracted at the castor oil plant but said concurrent activity at the nearby main production building, "suggests that toxin extraction may be taking place in the main production building."

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

3. Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Production Plant

([DELETE]) The NIE also pointed to [DELETE] of the Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Production Plant in support of the assessment that Iraq may be rebuilding dual-use fixed facilities for BW production. Iraq used Dawrah to produce BW agent before UNSCOM rendered the facility useless for BW work in 1996 by filling ductwork with a cement and foam mixture and destroying equipment used for BW agent production. Other research and production equipment at Dawrah deemed by UNSCOM to be legitimate was left in place. The NIE noted that Iraq probably renovated the facility after UNSCOM's work, but said "We are unable to determine whether BW agent research or production has resumed." Iraq claimed in 1999 that the facility was going to be renovated to produce foot and mouth disease vaccine.

([DELETE]) In a September 2001 report, [DELETE] assessed that the facility had been renovated beginning in 1999 [DELETE] .

([DELETE]) As noted in the NIE, the [DELETE] report said it was unclear whether the possible restart of the plant was related to Iraq's BW program or was for legitimate vaccine production.

([DELETE]) A CIA Iraq analyst [DELETE] told Committee staff that Iraq may have had a legitimate need for foot and mouth disease (FMD) vaccine because for years the U.S. had vetoed Iraqi requests under the UN Oil for Food program for FMD vaccines based on suspicion that these materials were intended for BW purposes. The U.S. Government (USG) and IC later learned that Iraq had in fact had an FMD outbreak, prompting the USG to start approving Iraqi imports of FMD vaccinations in 1999. The USG, as a member of the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee, rejected a proposal from the Iraqis and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization to rehabilitate Dawrah because the USG believed that was able to import as many FMD vaccines as it needed.

([DELETE]) [DELETE] The information that Iraq may have had legitimate public heath reasons to restart the Darwah plant was not included in the NIE.

D. We Assess That Iraq Has Some BW Agent and Maintains the Capability to Produce a Variety of BW Agents

(U) The NIE stated that "we assess that Iraq has some BW agent and maintains the capability to produce B. anthracis, botulinim toxin, aflatoxin, Clostridium perfringerns (gas gangrene) and ricin toxin." The NIE also noted that Iraq "may be able to produce a number of other incapacitating and lethal agents that it has researched over the years" and assessed that "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program."

1. Smallpox

([DELETE]) The 2002 NIE stated in the key judgments that "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program." The body of the 2002 NIE expanded on this assessment:

"Various intelligence reports and [DELETE] indicate that Iraq probably has retained unauthorized stocks of Variola major virus, the causative agent of smallpox. Baghdad reportedly kept smallpox virus samples from its 1971-1972 outbreak, [DELETE]. We assess that the chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program, although credible evidence is limited."

(U) The NIO and Deputy NIO for Science and Technology (S&T) told Committee staff that the statement "although credible evidence is limited" was not included in the key judgments because the issue was adequately addressed in the body of the NIE, and because of space limitations in the key judgments, they decided not to reiterate the point. The Deputy NIO added that she expected the readers of the NIE to read both the key judgments as well as the body of the document. When asked by Committee staff if a policymaker who read only the NIE 's smallpox key judgment, and not the body of the NIE's BW section, would have been misled about the uncertainties behind that assessment, an INR BW analyst responded, "Absolutely, particularly on such a sensitive topic as smallpox. And it's important to remember that people who were reading this at the time when we were having a national debate on whether people should be immunized and what the threat was from al-Qa'ida on smallpox, it was a much more charged atmosphere than the one we are in right now."

([DELETE]) The assessment "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Baghdad's offensive BW program" was based primarily on intelligence [DELETE] that Iraq probably had retained unauthorized stocks of Variola major virus, the causative agent of smallpox. The assessment was also based on reporting that kept smallpox virus samples from a 1971-1972 outbreak, as well as reporting that suggested Iraq had the capability to work with the virus and fragmentary reports that were looking into such work. [DELETE], who said Iraq had saved samples from a smallpox outbreak in the 1970s. [DELETE] also said that Iraq had "the capability of producing several biological agents -- among them ... smallpox." The report indicated that at the time of the conversation in May 2002, [DELETE]. The report does not indicate that any of Iraq's work on smallpox was applied to an offensive biological program.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE] The former UN BW inspector noted that he believed that the quantity of dry agent the machine could produce was too small to be very useful in a biological weapons program and stated that "I don't think that machine was designed to dry smallpox to make weapons material. That would be a hard way of doing it." CIA BW analysts told Committee staff that they believed any quantity of dry agent would be useful in a biological weapons program.
([DELETE]) Another HUMINT report from February 2000 discussed reported research conducted at a facility run by the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Abu Ghurayb, near Baghdad, involving a number of agents including smallpox. [DELETE]. No mention is made in the report about whether the reported efforts at Abu Ghurayb were successful in creating a delivery method for smallpox.

([DELETE]) The IC provided the Committee with [DELETE] additional HUMINT reports. One of the reports said an Iraqi scientist had "published on pox viruses [DELETE]  described Iraqi work on "a poxvirus such as monkey pox." A third report said Iraq worked on camel pox virus. None of the reports referenced smallpox.

([DELETE]) One report provided to the Committee that, at least as of 1991, smallpox was not a part of Iraq's offensive BW program. [DELETE] report from 1995 detailed [DELETE]. CIA BW analysts also told Committee staff that they believed that work on camelpox would give Iraq the capability to work on smallpox if they had it.

(U) In a written response to a question from Committee staff, the CIA said "We have no evidence that Iraq ever weaponized smallpox." The NIE's assessment that, "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive BW program," was based on the intelligence indicating that it was likely within Iraq's ability to produce smallpox agent.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intel

Postby admin » Wed May 11, 2016 12:21 am

Part 2 of 2

2. Other Agents

(U) The NIE also noted that "Iraq has some B W agent and maintains the capability to produce B. anthracis, botulinim toxin, aflatoxin, Clostridium perfringerns (gas gangrene) and ricin toxin" and that Iraq "may be able to produce a number of other incapacitating and lethal agents that it has researched over the years." To show which agents Iraq has researched, the NIE included a table titled "BW Agents that Iraq has Researched." The table listed twenty one biological agents that Iraq had researched. While some of the agents listed on the chart are highly lethal agents that Iraq had confirmed it weaponized prior to 1991, others do not appear to have been researched for weapons purposes, while others have little or no utility in a BW program.

(U) BW Agents that Iraq has Researched

Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) / Enterovirus 70 (acute hermorrhagic conjunctivitis)
Botulinum toxin (botulism) / Camelpox virus
Ricin / Rotavirus
Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene) / Vibrio cholerae (cholera)
Yersinia pestis (plague) / Clostridium tetani (tetanus)
Brucella melitensis (brucellosis) / Hemorrhagic fever viruses
Variola major virus (smallpox) / Staphylococcal enterotoxins
Burkholderia mallei (glanders) / Rickettsia prowazekii (typhus)
Aflatoxin / Francisella tularensis (tularemia)
Mycotoxins / Shigella dysenteriae (dysentery)
Tilletia species (wheat covered smut) / --


(U) Of the 21 agents listed on the chart, only one is an effective and lethal battlefield BW agent that Iraq had declared to the UN that was researched, produced and weaponized prior to 1991: anthrax.

([DELETE]) Three of the agents on the chart are agents that Iraq declared to the UN that it had weaponized prior to 1991, but have differing and debatable utility as a battlefield B W weapon: aflatoxin, ricin and botulinum toxin (botulism). Aflatoxin, a type of mycotoxin, may cause cancer and liver damage, but only years after exposure. IC analysts told Committee staff that there are indications in the scientific literature that aflatoxin can suppress the immune system, which may increase the effectiveness of other BW agents, but there are no indications that Iraq had weaponized aflatoxin for this purpose. A HUMINT report relating information [DELETE] noted that Iraqi scientists admitted to some level of research on other mycotoxins for BW purposes sometime prior to 1991. Although aflatoxin is a mycotoxin, the category "mycotoxins" is listed separately on the NIE's chart. A former senior UN BW inspector told Committee staff that the Iraqis had admitted to producing about ten grams of a mycotoxin that could serve as an effective BW agent prior to 1991 " ... for special purposes for the intelligence service."

(U) Another agent on the chart, Tilletia species (wheat cover smut), also known as wheat bunt and wheat rust, is a fungus that can significantly reduce crop yields. Iraq declared to the UN that it weaponized tilletia species as an anti agricultural BW agent prior to 1991.

([DELETE]) Four of the agents, enterovirus 70, camelpox virus, clostrinum perfringens (gas gangrene) and rotavirus, are incapacitating agents on which Iraq admitted to have conducted BW-related research and development work prior to 1991. These are agents that would result in symptoms such as muscle pain, blurred vision, vomiting, and diarrhea, that could have incapacitating effects. One report provided to the Committee indicated that [DELETE] also considered the possibility that Iraq's camelpox work was intended to cause economic damage to Saudi Arabia by attacking their camel herds.

([DELETE]) The IC also provided the Committee with intelligence reports that suggested Iraq had conducted BW research on seven of the agents listed on the NIE's chart: brucella, tularemia, plague, tetanus, hemorrhagic fever viruses, cholera, and smallpox. A HUMINT report describing [DELETE] the former Iraqi BW facility at Salman Pak revealed that Iraq had samples of four of these eight BW agents: brucella, tularemia, clostrinum perfringens (gas gangrene), and tetanus.

[DELETE]. A 1999 HUMINT report describes an order given by Hussein Kamal [DELETE] in 1994 to conduct research on, among other topics, tetanus. When [DELETE] asked why the military was interested in "public and animal health issues" Kamal told them that the work was for "Iraq's biological warfare program."

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) As noted in the preceding discussion concerning smallpox, the last of the eight BW agents, the only report provided to the Committee which provided a Iraqi BW link to this agent was a February 2000 HUMINT report which discussed reported research conducted at Abu Ghurayb, near Baghdad, involving a number of agents including smallpox. The report that said experiments had reached an advanced stage and were moving into the "production phase" and noted that in 1995 one of the researchers commented that tests at the facility focused on how to introduce materials into soft drinks and "other mediums." One of the specific projects undertaken was to produce lethal pills. No mention is made in the report about whether the reported efforts at Abu Ghurayb were successful in creating a delivery method for smallpox.

([DELETE]) Two reports provided to the Committee discussed glanders, an agent listed on the NIE's chart. [DELETE]. A former senior UNSCOM BW inspector told Committee staff that glanders is an effective BW agent that had been weaponized by the Soviet Union. He noted, however, that he was not aware of any evidence that Iraq had worked with glanders in a BW program. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control's internet web page notes that glanders is " ... still commonly seen among domestic animals in ... the Middle East. ... "

([DELETE]) A 1999 HUMINT report was provided to the Committee that discussed Iraqi research on shigella dysenteriae, the causative for dysentery. The report states that staff [DELETE] researched "shigella", among other pathogens, but notes that the report's source did not recall what strains of shigella were held at the facility. The report also notes that the facility had been inspected by UNSCOM more than once, and prior to each inspection the head of the department forbade his staff from discussing their work with inspectors. The head of the department also instructed his staff to keep the pathogens at home until after the UNSCOM inspections had finished.

([DELETE]) None of the intelligence provided to the Committee showed a BW link to two of the agents listed on the NIE's chart. One of those agents, Staphylococcal enterotoxins, [DELETE]. No other intelligence was provided to the Committee that would indicate a BW connection to Iraqi research conducted on this agent. [DELETE].

(U) A chart in a CIA paper published one month after the NIE that was titled, Iraq: Biological Warfare Agents Pose Growing Threat to US Interests, presented another depiction of Iraq's biological agent research. The chart titled, "Status of Possible Iraqi BW Agents" showed three levels of research activity -- research and development (R&D), production, and weaponization -- and provided three different levels of confidence of the IC's knowledge of Iraq's work -- confirmed, probable and suspected. This chart presented a more accurate depiction of the certainty and uncertainty behind the assessments of Iraq's biological agent research and made clear which agents were researched for weapons purposes. The title of the chart in the NIE, "BW Agents that Iraq has Researched" suggested that all of the agents were researched for weapons purposes, while the CIA publication more clearly indicated that the agents were "possible" BW agents.

Image
Image
(U) Status of Possible Iraqi BW Agents
Note: Agents are not listed in any particular order. Assessments reflect past Iraqi declarations to the UN plus intelligence assessments of Iraq's current biological weapons capabilities.


E. In the Absence of UN Inspectors, Iraq Probably Has Intensified and Expanded Research and Development in Support of Iraq's BW Program. Baghdad Probably Has Developed Genetically Engineered BW Agents

([DELETE]) The NIE assessed that in the absence UN inspectors, Iraq probably had intensified and expanded research and development efforts in support of Iraq's BW program. The NIE noted that "Military reporting and [DELETE] intelligence indicates that Iraq's BW research and development efforts have benefitted from professional contacts between its scientists and engineers and their foreign counterparts, exploiting conferences and scientific exchanges to acquire technical knowledge and supplies." The NIE's key judgments stated that "Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents." The NIE's discussion of this research and development focuses on research activity [DELETE] and reported BW testing near Iraq's Qadisiyah Reservoir.

([DELETE]) 1. Research Activity [DELETE]

([DELETE]) The NIE stated that "[DELETE] in 1999 that R&D in support of Iraq's offensive BW program was continuing [DELETE]. In the absence of UN inspectors, Iraq probably has intensified and expanded these efforts." The NIE stated in the key judgments that "Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered BW agents." The text of the NIE, however, said only that foreign government service reporting indicated that "biological research facilities are actively engaged in genetic engineering and biotechnology research and development," and noted that some of the facilities were suspected of involvement in Iraq's BW research and development program.

([DELETE])[DELETE] However, UNSCOM's final report, which was submitted to the UN Security Council in 1999, stated that "Iraq has a broad based research community in Universities, Medical and Agricultural Institutes, covering microbiology, biological processing, materials science, genetic engineering, pathology, biolotical production, munitions and weapons." [DELETE].

([DELETE]) The IC also provided the Committee with eight intelligence reports to support the assessment that Iraq was engaged in genetic engineering and biotechnology research. The first was a 2002 HUMINT that discussed information [DELETE]. The report provided no additional information. The NIE noted that IPA is the parent organization for a center that was engaged in BW related work prior to the Gulf War. A second HUMINT report stated that two scientists were conducting "secret research" in the microbiology laboratory at the Saddam College of Medicine. The report said the scientists were working to genetically alter anthrax and plague to increase the bacteria's resistance to "antibiotics and environmental factors." While the work was described as "secret," the report did not draw any link to BW work. The CIA told Committee staff that, while the report did not connect this research to BW work, the CIA believes that there is no legitimate application to this work outside of a BW program. A DIA BW analyst told Committee staff that there were legitimate non-BW reasons for conducting such research. He noted, however, that such research was suspicious in a country like Iraq. CIA BW analysts told Committee staff that this research was particularly suspicious because it was "secret. "

(U) A third report was from a 1997 DIA HUMINT source who said that an Iraqi postgraduate microbiology student, who the source alleged was an officer in the Iraqi Special Security Organization (SSO), was conducting research to genetically manipulate the cholera toxin. The source believed the goal was to produce an offensive BW weapon. Another report provided a research paper from the same student published in 1997 which discussed transferring the gene encoding tetanus toxin from clostridium tetani to e. coli and bacillus subtilis "in order to research the antibiotic resistant qualities of the clostridium tetani strains." The only connection between this research and BW is the source's allegation that the post-graduate microbiology student is an SSO officer. A DIA BW analyst told Committee staff, while such research could be useful to a BW program, it also has a legitimate public health application in determining what antibiotics are most effective in treating particular strains of the pathogen.

([DELETE]) Additional HUMINT reporting described a microbiology research paper written by [DELETE] on a variety of toxins including cholera and the work of an unnamed researcher [DELETE] working on a project to discover a cholera strain immune to antibiotics. The source of the report said that the researcher was rumored to have close ties to Iraq's intelligence service and to be a member of the Ba'th party.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

2. Reported BW Testing Near Qadisiyah Reservoir

([DELETE]) The NIE also stated that "Iraq may have tested BW agents at a facility near the Qadisiyah Reservoir in western Iraq, according to [DELETE] reporting," and that "an [DELETE].

([DELETE]) A 1996 HUMINT report from a former officer of the Iraqi Directorate of General Security said that 1,600 death row prisoners from Baghdad prisons were delivered to "unit 2100", near al-Haditha, which conducted chemical and biological warfare experiments on human subjects. [DELETE] into Iraqi prison records revealed that prisoner transfer files at a prison believed to be involved in the alleged incident during the time in question were missing. [DELETE] that prisoner transfer files "were in order and well maintained before and after this time frame."

([DELETE]) The NIE assessed that the reported testing location described in the HUMINT report as an "unknown location near al-Haditha" was near the Qadisiyah reservoir. [DELETE].

([DELETE]) A DIA BW analyst noted to Committee staff that there was "really very little" to suggest a BW role [DELETE] at Qadisiyah, and noted that "Perhaps we were stretching that just a little bit." A [DELETE] analyst responsible for the [DELETE] analysis of this facility told Committee staff "You have to remember that this was only considered a suspect facility. That's as far as we went with it. The information this to BW was so incredibly sketchy that this is sort of our best guess [DELETE].

F. We Assess That Baghdad Also Has Increased the Effectiveness of its BW Arsenal by Mastering the Ability to Produce Dried Agent

([DELETE]) The NIE assessed that Iraq had increased the effectiveness of its BW arsenal by "mastering the ability to produce dried agent." The IC assessed that Iraq had both liquid and dry BW agents. As the NIE pointed out, the ability to produce dry BW agents is significant because it allows the agent to be disseminated over a much wider area than wet agent. IC analysts also told Committee staff that dry agent is much easier to handle than liquid agent and has a longer shelf life. The NIE stated that "Iraq had the capability to dry organisms in a respirable particle size prior to the Gulf War but declared that all weapons systems deployed during the Gulf war were filled with liquid agent." The NIE went on to note that, " ... reporting on the procurement of dual-use drying and milling equipment suggest (sic) continued interest by Iraq in the capability to dry and size at least some of the agents in its arsenal."

([DELETE]) The IC provided the Committee with 14 HUMINT and [DELETE] reports to support the assessment that Iraq had the capability to dry BW agent. Six of the reports described existing Iraqi dual-use drying and milling equipment, while the other eight reports described Iraqi attempts to acquire such equipment. Nothing provided to the Committee indicated whether or not the Iraqis were successful in obtaining the equipment in any of these eight cases. Only one of the 14 reports described drying and milling equipment that is clearly linked to a BW effort. The report came from the HUMINT source codenamed CURVE BALL who reported on Iraq's alleged mobile BW program. The report stated that the alleged mobile BW trailers contained spray drying equipment. The other 13 reports described dual-use drying and milling equipment that would be useful in a BW program, but none of these reports showed any links to a BW program.

([DELETE]) Iraq declared to UNSCOM that prior to 1991 it produced only liquid biological weapons agents and dried a small amount of anthrax for use in aerosol tests on animals. [DELETE]. Intelligence Community analysts told Committee staff that technology and expertise to dry Bacillus thuringiensis is directly applicable to drying and milling anthrax.

G. Iraq's Capability to Manufacture Equipment and Materials ... and to Procure Other Necessary, Dual-use Materials ... Makes Large-scale BW Agent Production Easily Attainable

1. Foreign Procurement


([DELETE]) The NIE stated that "Iraq continues to circumvent and undermine UN sanctions to enhance its biotechnical self-sufficiency, while advancing its BW program when possible." The NIE listed several examples of Iraqi attempts to procure dual-use biotechnology equipment abroad. The IC provided the Committee with 19 [DELETE] reports showing Iraqi attempts to procure dual-use biotechnology equipment abroad. While all of this equipment would be useful in a BW program, only one of these reports showed a BW-related end user in Iraq, and only one report indicated that Iraq had received the dual-use equipment as a result of its efforts.

([DELETE]) The NIE also described Iraqi efforts to obtain a "jet mill" capable of grinding hundreds of kilograms of biological material per hour to one to ten microns "the ideal particle size range for BW agents." Although it is not discussed in the NIE, IC BW analysts told Committee staff that the one to ten micron particle range is also the ideal particle size for some legitimate pharmaceutical applications such as inhalers.

([DELETE]) The NIE described the travel in 1999 of three Iraqi intelligence officers [DELETE] to obtain materials " ... for use in the manufacture of biological weapons .... " A 2000 HUMINT report stated that three Iraqi Intelligence Service officers traveled [DELETE] " ... coordinate the acquisition of quantities of materials for use in developing Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability. Their plan was to obtain materials in [DELETE] for use in the manufacture of biological weapons."

([DELETE]) The NIE also described, "a robust network of intermediary firms [DELETE] and elsewhere that assist with the procurement of dual-use and support equipment for Iraq's offensive BW " The NIE stated that "Since the embargo was imposed in 1990, [DELETE]" A CIA Iraq analyst [DELETE] told Committee staff that after 1991 Iraq used front companies to import a wide range of goods, including consumer goods. None of the intelligence provided to the Committee showed that Iraq used front companies as a denial and deception technique to procure equipment for a BW program.

([DELETE]) The last example of BW-related procurement cited by the NIE is an Iraqi order for the antibiotic [DELETE]. The NIE stated that the order was placed by "the same Iraqi company that recently procured CW nerve agent antidotes." The Iraqi company, [DELETE] which purchased the CW nerve agent antidotes is also responsible for a wide variety of goods associated with Iraq's legitimate public health needs. [DELETE]. This suggests that the [DELETE], which is widely used to treat a variety of infections, was intended for legitimate public health needs in Iraq.

([DELETE]) The CIA noted in a written response to a question from Committee staff that "A majority of the dual-use equipment sought probably was for legitimate research because of the dual-use nature of the equipment and the much larger needs of Iraq's industrial infrastructure over its [BW] program. [DELETE]" CIA and DIA BW analysts interviewed by Committee staff all agreed that in every case cited by the NIE of Iraqi attempts to obtain dual-use biotechnical equipment abroad, the Iraqis could have been seeking equipment for their legitimate needs. As a CIA BW analyst noted "There was nothing that was uniquely BW .... " A CIA BW analyst stated that none of the equipment and materials required for a BW program were exclusively BW in nature, and said that the IC did not have a specific case where it could provide intelligence that showed that a piece of dual-use biological equipment or material sought by Iraq was clearly intended to go to an Iraqi BW-related end user. The Deputy Director for Analysis at the DCI's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control told Committee staff that " ... if you look at every individual dual-use procurement, if your question is, are there any of these procurements that we saw that can't be explained by a potential legitimate application ... I think the answer to that probably is no."

2. Indigenous Iraqi Efforts

([DELETE]) The final part of the NIE's section concerning Iraq's ability to obtain dual-use biological equipment and production capabilities stated that "We assess that Iraq also maintains the capability to manufacture some BW-related equipment and materials indigenously." The IC provided the Committee with several [DELETE] reports and an abstract of a paper published in a European science journal that showed dual-use biotechnical capabilities inherent in Iraqi industry that could potentially be converted for use in an offensive BW program.

(U) While all of the examples in the NIE have potential application to the Iraqi BW program, and while some of the organizations involved were connected to the pre-1991 Iraqi BW program, only one of the reports has a clear link to a post-1991 BW program. The report came from the HUMINT source codenamed CURVE BALL who reported on Iraq's alleged mobile BW program. According to this report, CURVE BALL stated that fermenters and tanks in the mobile production units had been made in Iraq.

(U) When asked by Committee staff whether the 2002 NIE did a good job of explaining the possibility that some, most or all of the examples cited in the NIE of dual use biological research and procurement could have been intended for legitimate, non-BW uses, a senior INR analyst stated, "I think, to answer your question, someone who is not an expert in weapons of mass destruction, if I were coming to the issue and they said here, read this Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, even if you have a discussion of dual-use applicability I think that I would come to the conclusion that, well, it must be really for WMD stuff because it's in this Estimate that talks about Iraq's WMD. So even if it has a legitimate application in civilian industry, the presumption that I would come to the document with as a lay reader in what was then the environment, I assume, of policymakers or Hill policymakers, my assumption would be that I would think it was for [chemical-biological weapons] use."

H. The Nature and Amounts of Iraq's Stored BW Material Remain Unresolved by UNSCOM Accounting

(U) The NIE stated that "The nature and amounts of Iraq's stored BW material remain unresolved by UNSCOM accounting." The NIE went on to state that "From the end of the Gulf war to mid-1995, Iraq denied that it had an offensive BW program, claiming that it had conducted only 'defensive research.' Only after UNSCOM confronted Baghdad with irrefutable evidence of excessive growth media procurement did Iraq admit that it had an offensive BW program and had made 30,000 liters of concentrated biological weapons agents. Even then, UNSCOM estimates that Iraq's production of anthrax spores and botulinum toxin could have been two to four times higher than claimed by Baghdad."

(U) UNSCOM's final report noted that Iraq "categorically denied" it had a BW program from 1991 to 1995 and took "active steps to conceal the program" from UNSCOM. "In 1995, when Iraq was confronted with evidence collected by the Commission of imports of bacterial growth media in quantities that had no civilian utility with Iraq's limited biotechnology industry, it eventually, on 1 July 1995, acknowledged that it used this growth media to produce two BW agents in bulk, botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis .... "

(U) The NIE described Iraq's inability to substantiate claims that a large amount of growth media was lost in failed production runs or stolen from the high security BW facility at Al-Hakam and other sites. UNSCOM's final report listed the growth media as an unresolved accounting issue, and IC analysts told Committee staff that they did not believe that it is possible that growth media could have been stolen from a facility like Al-Hakam. A former UN inspector told Committee staff, however, that he found it believable in light of the chaos and looting that followed immediately after the defeat of the Iraqi army in 1991. He noted that Iraqi guards abandoned their posts at many Iraqi government facilities. When asked why an Iraqi would want to steal growth media, he noted that there was not necessarily any logic to looting.

([DELETE]) The NIE also described Iraq's failure to provide adequate proof that it destroyed 157 aerial bombs it had filled with BW agent. The UNSCOM final report stated that inspectors were unable to verify both how many aerial bombs existed and how many were actually destroyed. The NIE noted that "Iraq claimed that it produced four aerosol spray tanks by modifying a Mirage F-1 fuel drop tank. We have no evidence that the Iraqis destroyed these tanks, [DELETE] ." While the UNSCOM report noted that inspectors were not satisfied that the prototype drop-tank was destroyed, "The remains of the other three drop-tanks were inspected by the Commission." The UNSCOM final report also noted that "There is no evidence to corroborate that only four were produced. Interviews indicate that 12 tanks were to be modified."

(U) The NIE stated that UNSCOM's final report indicated that " ... about 20 mobile double-jacketed storage tanks, which we judge may contain previously produced agent, remain unaccounted for." UNSCOM's final report states that "20+ tanks remain unaccounted for." The report noted that these tanks "were used to transfer agent between production and filling or deployment site and for storage of agent. Owing to their properties, they can be used for long-term storage of agent under controlled conditions .... "

I. We Judge That We Are Seeing Only a Portion of Iraq's WMD Efforts, Owing to Baghdad's Vigorous Denial and Deception Efforts

(U) One of the NIE's key judgments stated, "We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts." The NIE's BW section contained a text box titled "Iraq's Denial and Deception (D&D) Program for Biological Weapons." The first sentence of the box stated that "Iraq has a national-level BW D&D program."

([DELETE]) [DELETE] the intelligence provided to the Committee does not provide a clear link after 1991 between offensive BW related work and the dual-use research [DELETE].

([DELETE]) The NIE also states that "Iraq uses codewords to compartmentalize BW program elements, conceal acquisition of BW-related equipment, and impair Western attempts to monitor Iraqi technology acquisition." The NIE cited the use ofthe codeword "project 600" for BW activity at Iraq's Abu Ghurayb facility, which was in use before the 1991 Gulf War. The Committee was provided with six HUMINT reports concerning the use of codes:

• A 1993 HUMINT report describing the use of the code word "project 600" for BW activity at Iraq's Abu Ghurayb facility before the 1991 Gulf War.

• A 1997 HUMINT report described the use of the codename "313" with the Djerf al Nadaf facility. While Djerf al Nadaf may have a B W connection, the use of a code for this facility is not necessarily specific to BW.

• A report from the HUMINT source code named CURVE BALL who provided most of the IC's understanding of the mobile production capability states that letters were used to describe agents produced in mobile plants.

• [DELETE]

• A 2000 HUMINT report described the use of letter-number codes to refer to BW agents. UNSCOM's final report notes that Iraq referred to BW agents with letter code designation in its declarations to the U.N.

• A 2000 HUMINT report that discussed research allegedly underway as of 1997 at a facility run by the Iraqi Intelligence Service in Abu Ghurayb, near Baghdad, focused on how to introduce a number of BW agents into soft drinks and "other mediums." The report stated that the facility's reports referred to BW agents by letter-number codes.

(U) The intelligence provided to the Committee describes the use of codewords to "compartmentalize BW program elements" but no intelligence reports were provided that described the use of codewords to "conceal acquisition of BW-related equipment, and impair Western attempts to monitor Iraqi technology acquisition." While code words are a denial and deception measure, no intelligence was provided to the Committee that showed an Iraqi "national-level BW D&D program" existed in 2002, as stated in the NIE.

J. Explaining Uncertainties

(U) The NIE provided a "tone box" that listed the IC's "confidence levels for selected key judgments in this estimate." The NIE's key judgments are broken down into three categories of high, moderate and low confidence. Assessments related to Iraq's BW capabilities listed under the "High Confidence" heading are:

• "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

• "We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs."

• "Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles."

(U) There were no assessments of Iraq's BW capabilities listed under the "Moderate Confidence" or "Low Confidence" headings. Nowhere in this section, or anywhere else in the NIE, is the possibility explicitly raised that the majority or all of the dual-use biotechnology issues discussed in the NIE's BW section could represent legitimate public health activity.

K. Intelligence Agencies' Analysis of Iraq's Biological Weapons Program Prior to Publication of the NIE

(U) Analysis from individual intelligence agencies on Iraq's biological weapons program was consistent between agencies and largely consistent with the NIE and other IC products discussed earlier in this report. The following are examples of assessments from the DIA and the CIA. INR told the Committee that it did not publish any specific intelligence papers on Iraq's BW program.

(U) In October 1997, the DIA published a Defense Intelligence Assessment, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs: Progress, Problems, and Potential Vulnerabilities which stated that "Iraq may have successfully concealed some biological agents. It retains much of its biotechnical infrastructure and is positioned to weaponize biological warfare (BW) agents at pre-Gulf War levels in 2 years or less after sanctions are lifted." The paper noted that Iraq's " . . . dual-use-type facilities give Iraq the capability to produce biological agents and plausible deniability of a biological weapons program," but "no active BW facilities are currently identified .... "

(U) In January 2002, the DIA published a Defense Intelligence Assessment, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction and Theater Ballistic Missile Programs: Post-II September, which stated "Some aspects of Iraq's biological warfare (BW) program are active, and most elements are probably larger and more advanced than they were in the pre-Gulf War program. Iraq is capable of producing and weaponizing a moderate spectrum of BW agents for a moderate range of delivery systems. UN sanctions imposed after the Gulf War did little to prevent Saddam from equipping and operating the program." The paper also notes "Iraq has gone to great lengths to conceal its BW production, reportedly using mobile trailers" and that "several BW -associated facilities have recently undergone renovation and construction. These facilities may have provided additional capabilities and support to the BW infrastructure."

([DELETE]) DIA published a Defense Contingency Product, Iraq -- Key WMD Facilities An Operational Support Study in September 2002 which said, referring to bulk biological agent-filled munitions that Iraq claimed to have destroyed in 1991, " ... Iraq never provided credible evidence to support this claim. The location, nature, and condition of this [BW] stockpile, and the seed stocks and growth media for biological agent production are unknown." The paper stated that [DELETE]. The paper also noted that "Iraq is assessed to possess biological agent stockpiles that may be weaponized and ready for use. The size of those stockpiles is uncertain and is subject to debate. The nature, size and condition of those stockpiles are also unknown."

(U) A September 2002 DIA Information Paper with the subject line, Iraqi Interest in Smallpox as a Biological Warfare (BW) Agent, states that the "DIA assesses it is possible that Iraq possesses samples of the smallpox virus. However, whether Iraq is actually producing smallpox agent in quantities or where it could be produced is unknown."

(U) The CIA published a paper in August 1996 titled Iraq's Remaining WMD Capabilities, stated "Baghdad has provided no compelling evidence to buttress its claim that all its B W agents and munitions were destroyed in the spring of 1991. Even if Iraq's claims were true, its BW expertise could enable it to rapidly resurrect a small-scale BW program."

(U) In October 2002, CIA published a paper titled Saddam 's Timelines for Using WMD, which stated that "Based on Iraqi declarations and a variety of intelligence reporting, we judge Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating biological agents and is currently using fixed facilities to quickly produce and weaponize a variety of such agents, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), botulinum toxin, alflatoxin, Clostridium perfringens (gas gangrene), and ricin toxin. Iraq could also use its mobile facilities to produce some bacterial agents."

L. Biological Conclusions

(U) Conclusion 48. The assessment in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that, "[W]e judge that all key aspects -- research & development, production, and weaponization -- of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War" is not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 49. The statement in the key judgments of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that "Baghdad has biological weapons" overstated what was known about Iraq's biological weapons holdings. The NIE did not explain the uncertainties underlying this statement.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]
(U) Conclusion 50. The statement in the National Intelligence Estimate that "Baghdad has mobile transportable facilities for producing bacterial and toxin biological weapons agents," overstated what the intelligence reporting suggested about an Iraqi mobile biological weapons effort and did not accurately convey to readers the uncertainties behind the source reporting.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]
([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 51. The Central Intelligence Agency withheld important information concerning both CURVE BALL's reliability and [DELETE] reporting from many Intelligence Community analysts with a need to know the information.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) Conclusion 52. The Defense Human Intelligence Service, which had primary responsibility for handling the Intelligence Community's interaction with CURVE BALL's [DELETE] debriefers, demonstrated serious lapses in handling such an important source.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 53. The statement in the key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate that "Chances are even that smallpox is part of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program" is not supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 54. The assessments in the National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iraq's capability to produce and weaponize biological weapons agents are, for the most part, supported by the intelligence provided to the Committee, but the NIE did not explain that the research discussed could have been very limited in nature, been abandoned years ago, or represented legitimate activity.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 55. The National Intelligence Estimate misrepresented the United Nations Special Commission's (UNSCOM) 1999 assessment concerning Iraq's biological research capability.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 56. The statement in the key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate that "Baghdad probably has developed genetically engineered biological weapons agents," overstated both the intelligence reporting and analysts' assessments of Iraq's development of genetically engineered biological agents.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]

(U) Conclusion 57. The assessment in the National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq has ... dry biological weapons (BW) agents in its arsenal" is not supported by the intelligence information provided to the Committee.

([DELETE]) [DELETE]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17175
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Next

Return to Another View on 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron