Scientist Warns of Iraq’s Nuclear Gains

WASHINGTON —  Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has sharply accelerated his nuclear program and is broadening his already substantial efforts to build chemical and biological weapons, the program’s former director told Congress on Wednesday.

At the first in a series of hearings on U.S. tensions with Iraq, Khidhir Hamza told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Hussein was in the final stages of creating a uranium-enrichment program that would enable him to build cores for nuclear bombs. Iraq already has a workable bomb design and most of the needed components for a weapon, Hamza said, noting that German intelligence reports predict that Baghdad could have material for three bombs by 2005.

“Iraq is working to defeat containment, and in the end, it will achieve its purpose,” said Hamza, an American-trained nuclear scientist who led Iraq’s bomb-making program from 1987 to 1990 and escaped from the country in 1994.

Hussein’s goal of nuclear capability is a key reason the Bush administration has been contemplating an effort to oust him.

In a report last year, the Pentagon estimated that Iraq would not have sufficient enriched uranium for a bomb until at least 2006. But some experts have predicted that the Baghdad government could accumulate the necessary amount sooner by buying the material abroad or through the efforts of its two dozen nuclear scientists.

Hamza, who spent two decades in Iraq’s nuclear program, said his former employer also has “extensive” experience testing and designing radiological, or “dirty,” bombs. These weapons encase conventional explosives in low-level radioactive material, polluting the targeted area and terrorizing the population.

Few countries have tested such bombs, which are thought to have little military use.

Hamza said Iraq tested two bombs in Mohammediyat in 1988. Though the test showed little about whether such devices would be valuable in battle, “this provides Iraq another tool for possible use in a terrorism setting,” he said.

Hamza said Hussein has also actively cultivated terrorist connections, including efforts to recruit agents at Islamic conferences in Iraq for the last two decades.

But addressing another pressing question, a former United Nations weapons inspector told the committee that, in his opinion, Hussein would not hand over deadly weapons to terrorist groups.

Richard Butler, an Australian who formerly headed the U.N. weapons team in Iraq, said he had seen no evidence that Iraq had shared weapons technology with terrorist groups.

“I suspect that, especially given his psychology and aspirations, Saddam would be reluctant to share with others what he believes to be an indelible source of his own power,” Butler said.

The issue is important because many experts believe that national governments are less likely than terrorist groups to strike the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction. This is because governments could be easily destroyed in an American counterattack, while terrorists would be more difficult to find.

Butler and other witnesses said that despite mounting American anxiety, the exact state of the Iraqi weapons program continues to be highly uncertain.

“We do not know and have never fully known the quality and quantity of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

The hearing also brought conflicting advice on how the United States should go about mounting a military campaign against Iraq.

Retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East from 1991 to 1994, warned that the United States should not underestimate the number of troops, planes or ships that would be needed for such a fight.

The logistics of moving forces in the Middle East are daunting, he said, cautioning that an inadequate force could increase the cost of such a campaign.

“There is no doubt we would prevail, but at what risk?” Hoar said.

But retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney urged striking Iraq with a smaller “blitz warfare” force, relying heavily on air power, that would require only a “relatively small footprint” of U.S. forces in the region and “would minimize the political impact on our allies adjacent to Iraq.”

The Senate committee convened hearings to explore broad questions about the U.S. effort to oust Hussein, and to better inform the public at a time when the Bush administration is saying little about its largely unformed plans.

Congress generally supports the notion of overthrowing Iraq. But a number of senators raised questions about the mission, expressing concerns that it would cost lives and American resources and could damage U.S. relations abroad and tie up U.S. forces for years to rebuild Iraq.

“I do not believe this administration has yet made the case for military action against Iraq,” said Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.).