Fitting the pieces together

In February 2001, the Sunday Times ran the article Was this Saddam’s Bomb by Gwynne Roberts. I couldn't find the original but it is also on Globalsecurity.org .

I only recently read this article and found it interesting but very hard to believe. One of the newly released documents CMPC-2003-015757  contains the Roberts article in English. This is the first time I have seen it. I did some research and found no serious academic or professional rebuttals other than people who also found it hard to believe. However, it seems that supporting evidence has been right in front of us for a few weeks now.

The article describes a conversation with a man called “Leone” who claimed to be a nuclear scientist working in Iraq. He approached Gwynne with tales of hidden nuclear programs, hidden nuclear weapons and most surprisingly a claim of a successful nuclear test performed in the Rezzaza Lake area of southern Iraq in 1989.

Leone claimed that the test was conducted underground in a massive tunnel. He said the tunnel required workers who were sacrificed for the secrecy of the project.

The tunnel and the entrance were huge and the manpower needed to block it up massive. Leone had told me that thousands of political prisoners worked on the tunnel after a presidential amnesty.
"They were well fed and lived in comfortable caravans. In return, they worked hard. But none of them came out of it alive," he said. "Many were contaminated with radioactive waste. Friends working for Iraqi security who were guarding them said they were buried in caves nearby. The Iraqi regime hoped the secret of the Rezzaza lake test would die with them.
"Hussein Kamel gave the order to kill these people . . . I was disgusted by it and  it's one of the major reasons I fled."
This grotesque story was corroborated by Imad. He said he was aware that political prisoners who worked on the Rezzaza tunnel were massacred by Iraqi security guards to conceal an unspecified secret military project. He did not know this was the nuclear test site.

I am not sure how these workers would have been contaminated if this test occurred as stated by Leone. But I don’t think it is beyond the bounds of reason that even though the tunnel was plugged deep inside, radiation could have penetrated the 50 meter concrete plug Leone described. Then when the workers went down into the tunnel to completely fill it in they were exposed to radiation.
It also seems like the deaths of hundreds of prisoners caused by radiation would certainly be hard to conceal, even in Iraq. But putting this story together with a newly released document does present an intriguing clue.

A few weeks ago a man named Joseph or screen name “Jveritas” started putting original translations on the Free Republic website. One of them was interesting but did not receive a lot of attention: ISGQ-2004-00224003

In this Iraqi document ISGQ 2004-00224003 dated February 7 2001, there was a discussion in upper echelon of the Iraqi intelligence about mass graves in Southern Iraq and how to shift the blame to the Coalition forces and make it look like these mass graves as the results massacres committed by the Coalition forces back in 1991 during Desert Storm Operation.
Beginning of the Partial Translation
The Republic of Iraq
The Intelligence Apparatus
Date: 7/2/2001
No 1687
In the Name of God the Merciful the Most Compassionate
Secret
To the respectful Mr. Director of the Fourth Directory
Your letter secret and immediate numbered B 264 on 2/4/2001
1. No information is available to us about the Mass Graves in the Southern Region.
2.We see to achieve the observation the following matters:
A. Inspect the graves to confirm the existence of Nuclear Radiations.
B. Were they buried alive or their death was by suffocation.
C. Are they military personnel or civilians.
D. Are there tombstones that carry the names of the martyrs
E. Identify accurate marks and proofs of the graves and the possibility to reach it quickly and identify it.
3. We do not agree that the declaration about it through a direct Iraqi media in the first stage at least and not to cause public and party reaction so that the subject will take as a priority an international interest, and we should work on the following direction during this stage:
A. Leak the news through reliable sources.. News agencies or Satellite stations.. and that there is confusion, and indications from the members of the Coalition forces about the existence of mass graves civilians and military personnel in the South of Iraq.
B. The attempt to search for soldiers from the Coalition forces in a serious way to mention these truth through the agencies.

This document is describing a mass grave filled with people who are suspected of suffering radiation exposure. The IIS intends to argue the bodies have been there since 1991.

So let’s put this in context. Leone tells a story in 1998 about a nuclear test in 1989. In February of 2001, the IIS is talking about a mass grave site that must have been there for many years. Why are they talking about it now (2001)? The U.N. was not in Iraq at that time. And it happens to be the same month that Gwynne Roberts takes this story public. Did the IIS find out about the article and begin planning the media manipulation to cover up a nuclear test? Or, this article may not have been the first time Roberts wrote about the graves. Perhaps there was an earlier work I couldn’t find and that’s why the IIS was concerned. Either way, the IIS seems to be reacting to his story. But it seems like the IIS is exploring ways to leak the news of the radioactive graves so it can be managed before the claim is made by another source, in other words, spin control.

In my research I could find no other triggering event for this discussion by the IIS like an actual discovery of mass graves by an external source.

The IIS seems to expect radiation to be present when they wrote in this memo “confirm” the presence of radiation.

The location matches, both describe the graves in Southern Iraq.

So the IIS document matches the story of Leone in location, radiation exposure, mass graves, and close enough for the timing as far as we can infer from the document.

And one more thing. Leone described a Group Four responsible for nuclear testing:

"They thought they had stopped the Iraqis from building the bomb, but they overlooked the military organization codenamed Group Four. This department is a comprehensive section that was involved in assembling the bomb from the beginning to the end. It was also involved in developing launching systems, missile programmes, preparing uranium, purchasing it on the black market, smuggling it back into Iraq."

Leone told me that Group Four successfully developed a gun-type device at the nuclear weaponisation centre at al-Atheer. Unscom, the UN inspectorate, was aware that the Iraqis were working on an implosion-type nuclear device there, but knew nothing about Group Four. All evidence of its existence had been removed before they arrived in Iraq, Leone said.

Now look at the IIS memo again. It is addressed to "the respectful Mr. Director of the Fourth Directory".

There is a Directorate 4 described on the FAS website :

Political Bureau The Political Bureau is probably the most important branch of the Mukhabarat. It includes a number of Directorates.
Directorate 4. Secret Service

The Secret Service Directorate is located inside the headquarters complex of the Mukhabarat. Its activities take place both in Iraq and abroad, with agents of D4 infiltrated into Iraqi Government departments, the Baath Party, associations, unions and organisations, Iraqi embassies and the opposition. In addition, the Secret Service receives intelligence from the Al Hadi Project, responsible for SIGINT. The Directorate includes a number of offices specialising in the collection against a specific country or region, including offices for Southern Asia, Turkey, Iran, America (North and South), Europe, Arab states, Africa and the former Soviet Union. D4 works in co-ordination with D3, D5, D9, D12, D14, D18. The current Director of D4 is Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Al Qurtan, and the Assistant Director of D4 is Brig. Mohammed Yasin Al Shammari, from Mosul.

So this document could be the IIS writing the Secret Service organization that would be concerned with the article, or it could be to the secret nuclear development group Leone describes or perhaps they are one and the same.

The IIS document can be viewed in two ways. Some might read it and think it is also an honest response to a potential international incident and how to deal with the rumor. I do not agree with that view. The document seems to confirm that the IIS believes the graves are there:

1. No information is available to us about the Mass Graves in the Southern Region.

One would expect that if the IIS knew the story to be false, they would quantify the statement with terms like "alleged" or "unlikely". It seems like they know the graves are there already. They might not know the exact location, but they know they exist in the area. Another possibility is that this statement means "no more information about the article concerning the mass graves is available". That would actually fit well with the rest of the document since the rest of the document sure seems to indicate the graves are known to be there.

Now look at the "observations". None of those actually say "confirm the graves exist" or something similar. If they weren't sure they existed or believed they didn't exist, that should be the first point.

And it seems kind of like putting the cart before the horse to say how the story should be leaked if they haven't confirmed the graves are there. And if they are not there, why leak the story at all? Just say it is not true. The IIS response seems like they expect graves to be found.

The statement "The attempt to search for soldiers from the Coalition forces in a serious way to mention these truth through the agencies" is a little hard to comprehend in translation. Unless you look at the document from this perspective:

The Secret Service has learned this mass grave is about to be reported. They send a request for information to the IIS to find out what is to be said in the article specific to the graves. The IIS can't find out what the article will say specifically. They come up with a cover story just in case. The mass grave is not a secret grave, but it is a known mass grave from the Gulf War. They want to ensure the bodies are a mix of civilians and military. If the atrocity was committed by the U.S. during war, there would be military killed in the fighting. If they died of suffocation, then they have a reasonable alternative to radiation exposure. If the grave site gets marked with tombstones, then it is not a secret grave but a known cemetary of martyrs of the Gulf War.

In short, this document appears to be a plan to turn a secret mass grave into a known cemetary of martyrs and provide all the necessary details to make that story work. Remove the mystery, remove the interest, old news. I believe it is a cover up, not an investigation. The last line indicates how the grave site will be revealed. Iraq will take the reporters out in a generous attempt to show compassion for its enemy the U.S. by searching for missing coalition soldiers (Spiker) and stumble upon this grave. Then when the story comes out about the secret graves, the reporters can say "no, we have seen the graves and it is not a secret, it is a cemetary from the war". It is camouflage.

Unless this document can be shown as inauthentic it may be the first physical evidence to back up Leone’s story and Gwynne Roberts' article other than the satellite images in the article.

Comments

[Urinated State of America]

" I did some research and found no serious academic or professional rebuttals other than people who also found it hard to believe."

Ray, I have a real problem withmaking up my mind on you. On the one hand, you're a former member of the ISG, probably were in MSIG and deserving of respect, but then you come out with credulous stuff like this or the Radio Sawa anthrax story, or Seixon's woeful piece on the trailers* and wreck your credibility.

Here's two rebuttals for you:
http://www.theestimate.com/public/030901.html

You've also got Duelfer in a 2002 report to Congress saying it was "demonstrably wrong" in a footnote on page 2:

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2002/Duelfer.pdf

(* Why was it woeful? 'Cos Seixon's doubt on the hydrogen generator explanation story is based on the presence of sodium azide (in preliminary chemical analyses) and urea. Well, sodium azide hydrolyzes under acidic conditions to nitrogen gas, which would be used to displace hydrogen from the reactor to avoid creating a potentially explosive mixture in the reactor when opened for servicing. Likely source of the urea is left as a trivial exercise for the reader while sitting on the toilet.)

[Ray Robison]

Urinated, I saw the article from the estimate. They used zero evidence and only conjecture. For instance, it makes this determination "In his story, Roberts claimed to have been shown a letter by Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, confirming the test. But Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan in 1995 and was certainly debriefed thoroughly by Western intelligence. He later returned to Iraq and was killed by his family. If Kamel knew about a successful nuclear test, would he not have told Western intelligence?" See the problem? Leone says in the very article that Hussein Kamal gave the order to kill these people and cover it up. Yet this article questions why he did not report it. Are they serious or was that a joke? I will check out the other reference you posted. I am not maried to the analysis here. As you can see, I qualified my remarks pretty heavily. But the first debunking you present is crap. thanks for the other citation. For those who question the article, know that the author Gwynne Roberts got the interview with Bin Laden and I have never seen that debunked.

[Ray Robison]

oh you have got to be kidding me. The report sites two reasons why they call the story dubious. One- that Saddam's behavior would change. Ohhhhh pllleeeaassseee. that is a weak assessment. How do we know his behavior didn't change?

Two, there was no underground facility. Now this is 2002 before we controlled Iraq. So on the ground inspection would be difficult. If you look at the global security article, you will notice two things. One, a picture that sure seems to fit the story, and two, no retraction or statement of doubt on the story by the times or global security. In fact, I could not find any article that stated the facts had been called in to question and I looked fully expecting to find that because the story is so odd. Again, I have no way of knowing if Leone is telling the truth. But judging by the IIS memo, it sure as hell looks like they were concerned about it.

[Ray Robison]

BTW, I did not endorse or analyze the seixon story but chemistry aside, it made one very good point. Why would the Iraqis need to build those trailers when the had bought commercial portable hydrogen generators?

[Ray Robison]

oh yea, forgot "Saddam's behavior didn't change". The claim is that the test was done in 1989. What did Saddam do the nex year? Invade and occupy Kuwait. Hhhhmmmmmm.....

[Urinated State of America]

Took a long while ('cos of multiple ways to transliterate rezaza). Appears to have been debunked pretty shortly after Gwynne Roberts story.

On the testing the graves: remember that DU was used extensively during Iraq War I.

As the medical adage goes, when you hear the sound of hooves, expect horses rather than zebras.

From http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2001/0611nuc.htm

Did Iraq Conduct a Clandestine Nuclear Test?
Reuters
June 11, 2001

The chief U.N. arms inspector and experts at a London think tank have concluded there was no evidence Iraq had carried out a successful nuclear test in 1989, as alleged in news reports earlier this year.
Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said he reported to the U.N. Security Council last week "the information is totally wrong" that Iraq conducted a nuclear test beneath Lake Rezazza, southwest of Baghdad on Sept. 19, 1989, before the Gulf War.

He told reporters his department and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had evidence in its files, from overhead flights and previous ground inspections "there had been no nuclear tests" nor a tunnel under the lake.

Purported evidence of a test, from two defecting former scientists in Iraq and an interpretation of satellite photographs of the test area, was reported in London's Sunday Times newspaper in February and received fairly wide coverage.

Terry Wallace, a professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona, says that while it is far easier to prove something did happen than to prove it did not there was no reason to believe the story is "anything but a hoax."

An examination of global earthquake catalogs, produced by the International Seismic Center and U.S. Geological Survey, revealed no significant seismic activity in Iraq the day the test was alleged to have taken place, Wallace said.

Such an explosion he said, in an article for the London-based think tank, the Verification, Training and Information Center, would have been easily detectable by international or by regional monitoring in Iran, Israel or Jordan, which keep records of earthquakes.

None of them reported any seismic events of the magnitude necessary for a nuclear test in the region around Lake Rezazza, Wallace said.

U.N. arms inspectors have not been permitted to track down Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction since mid-December 1998, when they were withdrawn shortly before the United States and Britain launched a four-day bombing campaign prompted by Iraq's failure to cooperate with the arms teams.

Blix's agency has now signed a contract with a private, satellite firm and is restarting overhead flights this month.

Earlier this year, Western intelligence agencies alleged that Iraq had reconstituted parts of its banned arms programs. The German Federal Intelligence Agency (BND) in February told selected reporters Iraq could produce a nuclear device in three years and fire a missile as far as Europe by 2005.

U.S. and British officials alleged in January that Iraq had rebuilt three factories capable of producing chemical and biological weapons.

The IAEA, meanwhile, carried out its annual inspection of the Iraq's Tuwaitha nuclear power center in January and reported that low-grade nuclear material held there had not been moved since its last visit.

[Ray Robison]

Urinated, I saw scrubs as well, great show.
As for the DU, when the document first came out, abscent knowing about the GR article, I had thought the same thing and said so. I considered that they were going to put radioactive material on a mass grave to make it look like DU. (BTW, that whole DU thing is completely stupid, even if it was a major environmental disaster, it would never cause a mass casualty situation necessitating a mass grave in the application used by U.S. forces. That is just absurd, but the story might just work on the leftists and media.)

So of course, I considered that in this analisys. The problem is, the whole tenor of the document is for a coverup. If they truly believed it was caused by DU, why manipulate the scene or "leak" the coverage? And why wait for years to bring this up? It just doesn't fit the document. Leone's story does fit the document.

The Reuters article is the best rebuttel I have seen. I think it should be judged and when I get a chance, I will add it to the story.
There are I believe two significant points:
"He told reporters his department and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had evidence in its files, from overhead flights and previous ground inspections "there had been no nuclear tests" nor a tunnel under the lake."

The article contains photos of what certainly appears to be the tunnel Leone described. However, it was not under the lake. Perhaps if they were looking for a tunnel under the lake, they were looking in the wrong place. And I have to consider, how many times were the UN and IAEA fooled by Saddam before.

Also "Such an explosion he said, in an article for the London-based think tank, the Verification, Training and Information Center, would have been easily detectable by international or by regional monitoring in Iran, Israel or Jordan, which keep records of earthquakes."

The article describes a method of suspending the bomb in a way to reduce the seismic signature. Thus, I can't discount the story based on that statement alone.

But don't get me wrong. If I saw convincing evidence like a report that a nuclear detection team had found the tunnel and saw no sign of radiation, well then the story would be a cleverly crafted lie using real elements. That is always a possibility. I just haven't seen anything yet that debunks the essential elements of Leone's story that can not be countered within the story itself, which of course was known before the attempts at rebuttel. I went on google earth and found the military base near the lake pictured in the article. That element is verifiable. I hope to search for the tunnel soon, but realize that may be impossible for the resolution on google earth.

[Ray Robison]

"Wallace and his colleagues examined the global earthquake catalogues produced by the International Seismic Center and the US Geological Survey and say they reveal no seismic disturbances at all in Iraq that day. Moreover, they say there has been no seismicity within 50 km of the reported test site for the years 1980 to 1999. One problem with the assertion that no weapons testing took place, they point out, is that the detection threshold for these global catalogues was just magnitude 4.0 in 1989 so a smaller magnitude event may have not been picked up by the sensors."

Leone said it was 2.7 on the surface. http://www.psigate.ac.uk/spotlight/issue9/earth.html

[Ray Robison]

Just found this:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/finalreport.pdf

It is an IAEA on site environmental inspection of locations in Kosovo where DU was used. This is a serious scientific study.

Under findings, it says
"The corresponding radiological and chemical risks from all points of view are consequently insignificant"

The radiation in this case is not from DU.

[AL]

"Urinated", pulling out (and sticking with) the old DEPLETED Uranium line is a very quick way of losing credibility.