LONDON, Sept. 9 (UPI) -- Iraq could be "only months away" from producing nuclear weapons if it were able to get hold of sufficient weapons-grade uranium or plutonium from a foreign source, the independent International Institute of Strategic Studies said in a special report issued Monday.
But as neither Iraq nor any other country or group has so far been able to obtain such "black market" fissile material for a nuclear weapon, the IISS concluded, chances are it will be many years before it is able to produce a nuclear bomb from its own devices.
The organization called Iraq's acquisition of foreign nuclear weapons materials a "nuclear wildcard" and was generally negative about such a likelihood, as it was about Iraq's ability to deliver a nuclear bomb by missile or aircraft.
"While Iraqi acquisition of fissile material on the black market is not a high probability, it has to be seen as a real risk that could dramatically and quickly shift the balance of power," the report, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, a Net Assessment," said.
Much more likely, the report said, was use of biological or chemical weapons, the latter being "better known and less threatening."
"Of the three WMD types, nuclear weapons seem the furthest from Iraq's grasp," the report said.
But exactly how threatening Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction is to the world is much less clear from the report, which contained substantially no new intelligence information.
The report provides both support and caution for President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair in their view that "doing nothing about Iraq is not an option."
"In the present situation, Saddam Hussein can slowly continue to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction and missile capabilities, though hampered by technical problems, sanctions and the threat of air strikes against covert facilities," concluded the report.
"If sanctions were lifted, Iraq's ability to reconstitute its capabilities would accelerate, as it recovers access to vital foreign supplies of material, components, equipment and expertise. In either case -- whether sooner or later -- it seems likely that the current Iraqi regime will eventually achieve its ambitions of being the dominant state in the region.
"Should Iraq acquire nuclear weapons and more effective delivery means, it would greatly limit options for checking potential Iraqi threats to its neighbors and certainly stimulate further proliferation in the region."
The report was edited by Gary Samore, an American Democrat and member of former President Bill Clinton's National Security staff. The IISS itself is politically neutral, although its director, John Chipman, has established conservative views.
The organization is internationally renowned for the annual military balance report on global military holdings and trends, used as a bedrock for net assessment analysis by the U.S. Defense Department and much of the world. Weapons inspections depend on the extent of Iraq's willingness to cooperate.
"A war, if it installs a new government in Baghdad willing to comply with Iraq's international commitments, would eliminate Iraq's WMD threat, but at the risk of some limited CBW (chemical and biological weapons) use -- and civilian casualties -- during the conflict to overthrow the present regime.
"Either course of action carries risks. Wait and the threat will grow. Strike and the threat may be used. This strategic dossier invites policymakers and the public to make an early assessment of the relative risks of these different options and to choose a course that has the best chance of promoting regional and international security."
On nuclear weapons, the report said that it "seems unlikely" that Iraq would have been able to engage in construction of a large-scale facility for enriching uranium while weapons inspectors were about between 1991 and 1998.
"Assuming that 1998 is the starting point, most experts do not believe that Iraq could have completed a facility for the production of nuclear weapons-usable nuclear material in only a few years," it said.
The most recent CIA public assessment does not say whether Iraq has actually engaged in an effort to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon. But it cites the most recent Pentagon report on proliferation issues as concluding it would take five or more years and key foreign assistance to rebuild the infrastructure to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon.
Iraq could produce a "dirty bomb" of non-explosive radioactive materials. But a project in 1987 used ineffective dispersal technology "and was far too large and heavy to be delivered by missiles in Iraq's inventory, and Iraq's current capability to deliver radiological weapons by aircraft are limited."
The report says Iraq probably has about a dozen of the 400-mile-range al Hussein Scud missiles remaining from the Gulf War. A radiological attack by truck or boat seems more plausible than by missile or aircraft.
On biological weapons, the report said that this assessment was its least confident because of the lengths Iraq went to conceal them from U.N. weapons inspectors.
"As of 1998, Iraq possessed sufficient civilian facilities, equipment and materials to produce bulk biological weapons agent within weeks following a political decision to resume production. It is not known for certain whether Iraq has resumed production of fresh biological weapons agents, but it seems a safe bet that it has, or will, in the face of an impending attack," it said.
The report suggested Iraq has "thousands of liters" of deadly biological agents: "Infectious agents present the greatest potential threat, but almost nothing is known about Iraq's work with infectious agents, including the key question of whether Iraq has somehow preserved or obtained smallpox virus."
On chemical weapons, the report said, "It is unlikely that Iraq currently possesses an offensive CW capability comparable to its pre-1991 levels. ... Unless Iraq has advanced beyond the impact fusing and warhead design of its 1991-era special warheads, its ability to disseminate efficiently CW agent with missile warheads is extremely limited and unlikely to cause large casualties."
In an apparent reference to reports of unmanned aircraft drones equipped with chemical weapons tanks, the report said it was "unknown" if Iraq has been able to develop such air-delivery methods, and the capabilities of the remaining Iraqi air force are "very weak."
"Nonetheless, the potential threat of CW attack could disrupt logistical operations in rear areas and cause panic among civilian populations, and increase political pressure for retaliation," it said.
In a replay of the Gulf War, if the United States attacked some Iraqi commanders, they could decide not to use chemical weapons in the hope of preserving their personal safety in a post-Saddam Iraq.
"It seems unlikely, however, that all use of CBW can be avoided. Some loyal units are likely to use CBW munitions (rockets and artillery shells) against U.S. forces in the field, even though the effectiveness of these attacks will probably be limited," according to the report.
The report went on: "With nothing to lose, Baghdad may seek to mount CBW attacks with special forces and sympathetic terrorist groups in the U.S. and allied countries. A difficult question to answer is the willingness of military officers and security officials to follow President Saddam Hussein down a suicide path and the degree to which, conversely, an internal military coup becomes more likely if the regime appears doomed."
