We know he loves basketball.

But how does North Korean leader Kim Jong Un feel about car racing?

A new U.S. and Chinese draft resolution condemning North Korea's latest nuclear test has imposed a broad range of measures aimed at limiting the regime's ability to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile program. But buried in the list of items barred from importation into North Korea are a handful of luxury items, including high-end jewelry, pleasure yachts, luxury automobiles, and race cars.

The U.N. Security Council had previously prohibited the export of luxury goods into North Korea in 2006, but it never specified which products should be considered luxurious enough to be banned. In April 2007, a U.N. sanctions committee ruled that each member state would be responsible for determining what fell under the ban. In Italy, high-end tap shoes were enough to trigger airport security to act. In Austria, government authorities cracked down on a businessman selling luxury yachts to the North Koreans.

A U.N. panel responsible for monitoring U.N. sanctions against North Korea in 2010 documented six illegal purchases of luxury goods by the North Koreans, including 2 yachts, 12 Mercedes-Benz vehicles, 37 pianos, and high-end cosmetics. In 2009, Italian customs officials at Fiumicino Airport in Rome seized "a shipment of electronic items, including a projector, some amplifiers and other electronic equipment suitable for a cinema hall seating 1,000 people." Later that year, Italian authorities in the Port of Ancona seized 150 bottles of cognac and 270 bottles of whisky.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea remains actively engaged in the illicit procurement of luxury goods," the panel concluded. "Some of the luxury goods, such as the acquisition of the two luxury yachts, were facilitated by Office 39 of the Korean Workers' Party and obviously destined for use by senior regime figures."

China has always viewed the luxury ban as excessive -- a gratuitous penalty promoted by the west to humiliate the North Korean leadership -- and it has largely refused to enforce it. Commercial flights from Beijing to Pyongyang are routinely packed with luxury goods, according to an official who was recently in the country.

So China's agreement to ban specific luxury goods provides an indication of how angry Beijing must be at its troublesome neighbor and ally.  

But will a ban on race cars really bite? A cursory search through Google and Nexis didn't turn up any stories about Formula 1 races or the leader's love of fast cars -- though I did come across a few stories about a new online car racing game based in Pyongyang.

My guess is that the new U.N. list was based on a luxury watchlist assembled by the U.S. Commerce Department, which includes racing cars, tobacco, silk, leather, furs, fake furs, perfumes, cosmetics, designer clothes, pearl- and gem-encrusted jewelry, flat-screen televisions, laptop computers, snowmobiles and ... recreational sports equipment. Hmmm, I wonder if they ban basketballs. Now, that would hurt.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch  

Two decades of U.N. condemnations, threats, and sanctions have not stopped North Korea's nuclear ambitions. So, what does the Security Council have left to throw at Pyongyang?

The U.N. Security Council first called on North Korea to rein in its nuclear ambitions in 1993; more than a decade later, in 2006, it imposed its first round of sanctions to compel Pyongyang to freeze its nuclear and ballistic missile tests.

The U.N. pressure campaign -- punctuated by perennial bouts of nuclear diplomacy with Pyongyang -- has left Democratic and Republican administrations with little to show for their efforts. During the Obama administration, the Security Council has expanded the sanctions and threatened four times to impose additional penalties on North Korea if it continues to flout international demands to halt its nuclear program.

Pyongyang demonstrated once again this week it has no intention to heed those threats. In a press statement issued shortly after North Korea set off its third nuclear test on Monday, Pyongyang responded to the chorus of international condemnation with the usual bluster: North Korea, the statement asserted, has been forced to develop a nuclear deterrent to counter what it calls a "hostile" U.S. campaign to threaten its existence, and deprive it of what it sees as its legitimate right to launch satellites into space.

"If the United States makes the situation complicated by remaining hostile through the end we will have no choice but to take serial measures with more intense second and third response," the statement warned. It added that the interdiction of North Korean vessels "will be instantly regarded as an act of war and will lead to our relentless retaliatory strikes on their bases."

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, hit back, pledging a "swift, credible, and strong response by way of a Security Council resolution that further impedes the growth of DPRK's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its abilities to engage in proliferation actions."

But Rice encountered immediate resistance from China during the council's closed door session on Tuesday. China's deputy U.N. envoy, Wang Min, said that Beijing was firmly opposed to North Korea's action and underscored the importance of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. But he also sought to water down the council's response, initially arguing that the nuclear test posed no threat to international peace and security and needed to be addressed through dialogue with the government.

Wang ultimately yielded on that point after Rice read out North Korea's statement to the council, in which she posed a simple question: How can North Korea's nuclear test, coupled with a threat to strike out at the United States, not constitute a threat to international peace and security?

But Wang secured a concession -- the removal of a provision underlining the council's intent to begin negotiation of a Security Council resolution under Chapter Seven -- that signaled China's ongoing reluctance to impose further sanctions on North Korea. (Chapter Seven is the provision in the U.N. Charter that it invokes for the imposition of sanctions). In its place, the council issued a statement pledging to consider "appropriate measures" in response to Pyongyang's action. Western diplomats noted that previous North Korean nuclear tests have resulted in Chapter Seven resolutions, and it would be unthinkable that a resolution adopted in response to the latest test would not be under Chapter Seven.

So what measures could the U.N. Security Council take, short of military action (which virtually no country advocates), to convince North Korea to halt its nuclear program?

North Korea is already perhaps the most isolated country in the world. Its trade is scrutinized at foreign ports. Ships carrying North Korean supplies are routinely boarded and searched. Its banks largely shy away from doing business in the world's main financial markets.

Rice provided few details, saying simply that the United States would seek to "tighten" and "augment" a set of existing sanctions aimed at limiting North Korea's capacity to develop its weapons programs. The U.S. envoy recalled that the Security Council had just warned Pyongyang last month that it would face "significant action" from the council if it launched a ballistic missile or tested a nuclear weapon. "And indeed, we will do so," she assured reporters.

Turtle Bay has compiled a list of possible sanctions targets:

• For a start, the U.N. Security Council could strengthen a set of financial sanctions that are designed to restrict North Korea's access to international financial markets. In January, the council adopted a resolution that calls on governments to "exercise enhanced vigilance" in preventing their nationals from engaging in financial transactions linked to North Korea's ballistic missile or nuclear program. Those provisions could be made mandatory.
• The Security Council sanctions are primarily targeted at North Korean ballistic missile and nuclear technology. Sanctions could be expanded to hit other segments of North Korea's already ailing economy. While this approach could increase economic pressure on the leadership in Pyongyang, it would likely contribute to even further hardship and suffering for ordinary North Koreans, with limited chance of changing government behavior. The North Korean leadership has been willing to allow its people to endure extreme hardship, and China would never assent to a sanctions strategy that threatened to tip North Korea into chaos, triggering a potential exodus of starving citizens across the border into China.
• Expand the category of goods that North Korea cannot trade. The U.N. Security Council has identified a long laundry list of dual-use industrial items -- from vacuum pumps to high grade maraging steel -- that can potentially be used in a ballistic missile program or in the construction of centrifuges. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that the council could tighten the chokehold by expanding the prohibition on the range of prohibited items. "I think it works better to simply say all goods that could be used in a nuclear program are prohibited," Albright said. "It's easier to detect and enforce. And it will cause a lot more disruption in their supply chain."
• When the Security Council wants to ratchet up pressure on North Korea it has periodically added the names of individuals and companies to its sanctions black list. The North Koreans have sought to circumvent that move by creating front companies and changing the names of enterprises hit with financial sanctions. Expect to see the council add to that list.
• The U.N. Security Council has already imposed fairly comprehensive arms embargo on North Korea. But there is one glaring exemption: small arms. China has blocked previous efforts to include these weapons. Look for that exemption to come up for review.
• Infuriated by North Korea's 2006 nuclear and ballistic missile tests, Japan then quietly floated a proposal for a naval blockade on North Korea. The initiative never saw the light of day and is almost certainly not going to get past this time around. "It's a bridge too far," said one diplomat, explaining that virtually no one thinks it's sensible to cut off the already isolated government entirely, saying it could fuel mass starvation.
• The U.N. Security Council has already provided states with wide scope to search vessels transporting North Korean goods at port. The search and seizure provision has served to harass North Korean shippers, leading to the seizure of prohibited goods. The U.N. has not authorized states to board vessels in international waters -- a step that would bring the council into conflict with the seafaring protections contained in the Law of the Sea. And there is little chance that the council will push any further in that direction.

The 800-pound gorilla in the debate about the effectiveness of any sanctions is China. By the end of 2010, the last date for which there are records, China's trade with North Korea had boomed, surpassing $3.06 billion, up nearly 10 percent over 2008, according to figures cited by a U.N. panel monitoring enforcement of the North Korea sanctions.

A major share of North Korea's imports arrive via the Chinese port of Dalian, or across the border by land. George Lopez, a professor of peace studies at Notre Dame University and former member of a Security Council panel monitoring North Korea sanctions, said China could have a major impact on the sanctions if it enforced them more aggressively.

For instance, he said, they could conduct random inspections of goods entering the country, and they apply pressure on Chinese companies that trade with the north not to supply prohibited goods. Chinese banks, he added, could choose to clamp down on financial transactions by firms suspected of violating sanctions. But he said the United States may have to convince Beijing that it recognizes its interest in forestalling a collapse of the North Korean economy, and provide greater assurances that it has no intention to back the downfall of the regime in Pyongyang.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has a reputation for diplomatic sparring. Her battles with the Russian envoy, Vitaly Churkin, and the French ambassador, Gerard Araud, have been epic.

But Rice has generally held her punches in negotiations with Li Baodong, China's reserved, formal, U.N. envoy -- a man who has shown little taste for the diplomatic joust.

That is, until now. Early today, the big power envoys squared off in a closed-door Security Council session over competing views about how the 15-nation body should react to North Korea's missile launch.

Rice urged the Security Council to swiftly respond to North Korea's surprise launch of a satellite (via a ballistic missile) with a statement condemning Pyongyang's action as a violation of U.N. resolutions and characterizing it as a provocative act that "undermines regional stability."

Li pushed back, saying that there was no need to condemn North Korea, and that its test constituted no threat to regional stability.

"That's ridiculous," Rice shot back, according to one of three council diplomats who described the encounter.

"Ridiculous?" a visibly angered Li responded through an interpreter. "You better watch your language."

"Well, it's in the Oxford dictionary, and Churkin -- if he were in the room -- he would know how to take it," retorted Rice.

The reference to Oxford dictionary refers to Churkin's riposte, in December 2011, to a public broadside by Rice, who charged him with making "bogus claims" about alleged NATO war crimes in Libya to divert attention from charges of war crimes against its Syrian ally.

"This is not an issue that can be drowned out by expletives. You might recall the words one could hear: bombast and bogus claims, cheap stunt, duplicitous, redundant, superfluous, stunt," said Churkin to Rice. "Oh, you know, you cannot beat a Stanford education, can you?" said Churkin, mocking Rice's alma mater. Rice, a former Rhodes scholar, later noted that she also went to Oxford.

Today, however, Li countered that Rice's remarks were consistent with an American foreign policy approach that seeks to impose its will on other states.

In the end, however, Rice and her council allies were able to secure a clear condemnation of Pyongyang, though they dropped the provision suggesting the test has undermined regional stability. A Security Council statement condemned the missile launch, calling it a "clear violation" of U.N. Security Council resolutions banning ballistic missile tests. The council took note that it threatened last April to take action against North Korea if it launched further tests, and it vowed to "continue consultations on an appropriate response."

The United States, working with Japan and South Korea, is expected to lead efforts in the coming weeks to forge a tougher council reaction, preferably a resolution imposing sanctions. But they are expected to encounter tough resistance from China, which indicated it was not prepared to support a confrontational resolution penalizing Pyongyang, according to council diplomats.

And the man Rice will have to persuade to impose the council's will on North Korea is her new sparring partner, Li Baodong.

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

The U.N. Security Council issued a mild statement deploring North Korea's failed launch of a satellite rocket on Friday, but stopped short of imposing any fresh penalties on the government for its defiance of previous U.N. demands.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, who is presiding over the council's rotating presidency this month, said that Pyongyang had violated two U.N. Security Council resolutions banning missile launches.

"The Security Council deplored this launch, which is in violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874," said Rice, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation council. "Members of the Security Council agree to continue consultations on an appropriate response."

The mild response reflected concern among key council members, including China, that a harsh rebuke could complicate international efforts to contain the nuclear power, prompting North Korea to respond with a fresh nuclear test. It set the stage for lengthy discussions at the U.N. on how to calibrate the council's response.

U.S. officials say they are unlikely to pursue a new round of tough sanctions on Pyongyang in the Security Council, but that they would seek to tighten the enforcement of existing U.N. sanctions. The White House, meanwhile, announced it was backing away from plans to provide humanitarian assistance to North Korea.

The move followed a public rebuke of North Korea from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's office. A spokesman for Ban, who is in Geneva, issued a statement saying that "despite its failure, the launch of the so-called "application satellite" by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on 13 April, 2012, is deplorable as it defies the firm and unanimous stance of the international community."

"The Secretary General renews his call on DPRK authorities to work towards building confidence with neighboring countries and improving the life of its people," read the statement. Ban also reaffirmed his commitment to "helping the people of DPRK, in particular, addressing the serious food and nutrition needs of the most vulnerable."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Iran denounced the United States at the United Nations on Thursday night for engaging in a pattern of "provocative and covert operations," including the use of an RQ-170 unmanned spy drone that was captured by Iranian authorities, and warned that Tehran "reserves its legitimate rights to take all necessary measures to protect its national sovereignty."

Iran's U.N. ambassador Mohammad Khazaee wrote in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the United States has stepped up covert operations against Iran in recent months, perhaps referring to the assassination of three Iranian nuclear scientists. He called on the United Nations to condemn what he described as "acts of aggression" and to take "clear and effective measures" to "put an end to these dangerous and unlawful acts."

The diplomatic protest comes as the Iranian government has itself come under intensive criticism at the United Nations over its nuclear program, its human rights conduct, and its alleged role in an assassination plot against Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United Nations.

Earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report expressing serious "concern" that Iran has been seeking to master the technology to develop nuclear weapons capability. The U.N. General Assembly's Human Rights Council, meanwhile, adopted a resolution deploring the alleged assassination attempt.

A copy of the latest Iranian letter, which will also be presented to the presidents of the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly, was emailed to Turtle Bay by the Iranian government.

It says the American drone "violated Iran's air space" by flying "250 Kilometers deep into Iranian territory up to the northern region of the city of Tabas, where it faced prompt and forceful action by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

"This is not the only act of aggression and covert operation by the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Khazee wrote. "My Government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States Government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter."

(Full text below.)

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

* * *

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

No. 1396                          8 December 2011

Excellency,

Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honor to draw your kind attention to the provocative and covert operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United States Government, which have increased and intensified in recent months.

In the continuation of such trend, recently, an American RQ-170 unmanned spy plane, bearing a specific serial number, violated Iran 's air space. This plane flied 250 Kilometers deep into Iranian territory up to the northern region of the city of Tabas , where it faced prompt and forceful action by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In the past, the Iranian Government lodged its strong protests against similar acts by submitting several Notes including Notes No. 164440 dated 29 October 2008 and No. 268483 dated 11 February 2009 to the Government of the United States.

My Government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States Government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter. The Iranian Government expresses its strong protest over these violations and acts of aggression and warns against the destructive consequences of the recurrence of such acts. The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its legitimate rights to take all necessary measures to protect its national sovereignty.

My Government, hereby, calls for the condemnation of such acts of aggression and requests for clear and effective measures to be taken to put an end to these dangerous and unlawful acts in line with the United Nations' responsibilities to maintain international and regional peace and security, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter.

I am sending identical letters to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council. It would be appreciated if this letter could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly under the agenda item 83 and of the Security Council.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Mohammad Khazaee

Ambassador

Permanent Representative

H.E. Mr. Ban Ki-moon

Secretary-General of the United Nations

New York

cc: H.E. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin

President of Security Council

United Nations, New York

cc: H.E. Mr. Nasser A. Al-Nasser

President of General Assembly

United Nations, New York

For European and American leaders, U.N. General Assembly debates would not be the complete without delivering a full-throated attack on Iran's nuclear program.

But this year, the council's major powers have been mute, particularly the three European powers, Britain, France and Germany, that have engaged in a long, fruitless effort to persuade the Iranian leadership to provide verifiable assurances that its nuclear program is peaceful in exchange for a basket of trade benefits and political rewards.

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy didn't make a single reference to Iran's nuclear program in his address last week to the General Assembly. British Prime Minister David Cameron blasted Iran's repressive policies at home, but said nothing about its atomic ambitions. Ditto for Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

Minutes after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad blasted the United States, Britain, and Israel for military aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere, Cameron shot back: "He didn't remind us that he runs a country where they may have election of a sort but they also repress freedom of speech, do everything they can to avoid the accountability of a free media, violently repress demonstrations and detain and torture those who argue for a better future."

President Barack Obama did commit a couple of sentences to Tehran's nuclear program, but it was largely boilerplate, and lacked the sense of urgency and alarm that has marked previous public statements.

"The Iranian government cannot demonstrate that its program is peaceful, it has not met its obligations and it rejects offers that would provide it with peaceful nuclear power," Obama said in a U.N. speech that addressed the Arab Spring and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Iran, along with North Korea, "must be met with greater pressure and isolation," he said, if they "continue down a path that is outside international law."

If one missed the fire and brimstone diplomatic sermons on Iran's nuclear threat that used to be standard fare in Washington and Paris there was only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Speaking a day after Ahmadinejad excoriated the West for a litany of historical sins, Netanyahu said "can you imagine that man who ranted yesterday -- can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it's too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian Winter."

But apart from Netanyahu, it was notably quiet. "Most Council members remain concerned about the continuation and possible acceleration of Iran's nuclear program," according to an assessment by the Security Council Report, a non-profit, Columbia University-affiliated research group that tracks the Security Council's activities. "However, as has been the case for some months, even members willing to consider additional action against Iran do not view any new measures as likely in the near future. It appears most members are not eager to push for additional Council action at this time." 

Certainly, Iran's nuclear program hasn't gone away or halted its advances.  On Sept. 2, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a mixed report on Iran's nuclear activities, citing continued cooperation with nuclear inspectors who visited many of Iran's declared nuclear facilities, but also confirmed efforts by Tehran to step up its uranium enrichment activities -- including the introduction of more advanced enrichment technology -- in flagrant violation of successive U.N. resolutions.

The report also cited "extensive and comprehensive" information related to a possible clandestine military program to develop a nuclear payload for a missile. The report's findings, coupled with Iranian officials' public pronouncements, has raised concerns among the U.S. and Europeans about Iran's plan to expand their stockpile of a more refined grade of uranium enriched to 19.75 percent -- higher than that needed for the generation of electricity and more than required to fuel its advanced medical reactor in Tehran.

Read on

There is perhaps only one thing that remains clear in the international furor over the defection/kidnapping of the Iranian scientist Shahram Amiri: getting another country's nuclear scientist on the rolls is the greatest coup that a spy agency can achieve. It's certainly more valuable than implanting a photogenic "illegal" into another country, as Russia's cover operators did in America with their undercover spy, Anna Chapman.

But the excitement of the chase can quickly fade, leaving a generation of atomic defectors feeling a bit jilted as they struggle to make a life for themselves in their new country. "Freedom can be harsh," Charles Duelfer, who led the CIA inquiry into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, told Turtle Bay. "The U.S. government's interest wanes pretty quickly once fully debriefed. Then what do you do? Can't work on the U.S. nuclear program. Write a book? Then what?"

As long as there have been nuclear programs, there have been nuclear spies. In 1942, before he created James Bond, Ian Flemming, then a 34-year-old commander in the Royal Navy's volunteer reserve, toiled away in a naval intelligence unit and devised and realized a plan to create an elite unit of intelligence commandos who would cross enemy lines to capture vital enemy secrets, according to Sean Longden's history of the squad, T-Force: The Forgotten Heroes of 1945. Under Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the team uncovered many of Nazi Germany's nuclear secrets and captured prominent German nuclear scientists, including Willem Groth and Otto Hahn.

More than half a century after the dawn of the atomic era, nuclear scientists have maintained their staying power as a high-value intelligence target, garnering large sums for their country's nuclear secrets. American and European sleuths have aggressively pursued nuclear scientists in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and beyond in an effort to ensure the safety of friendly countries' nuclear stockpiles or to unlock the key to an enemy's most treasured security secrets.

It remains unclear why Amiri decided to leave. A senior U.S. official told the Washington Post that Amiri possessed valuable insights into Iran's nuclear program and that he was paid $5 million to share them with American debriefers -- money he may no longer be able to access. But the official also suggested the U.S. had got what it needed: "We have his information, and the Iranians have him."

But U.S. specialists who have sought to help other nuclear defectors settle in the United States say the Amiri case highlights the challenges in recruiting foreign scientists. The CIA, they say, has often failed to provide the transplants with adequate career prospects or guarantees for the safety of relatives. Some U.S. officials said Amiri, who claims he was kidnapped by American authorities, may have returned because of concerns over the well-being of his family.

"This is a real problem," said David Albright, a nuclear scientist who heads the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright said that the CIA has provided top scientists that have outlived their usefulness with little support and menial careers. Perversely, he said, the approach has encouraged defectors to ply their handlers with exaggerated claims or to provide their services to the next highest bidder. The most notable case involved Rafid Ahmed Alwan, dubbed Curveball by the CIA, who claimed to have been a chemical engineer in a secret mobile biological weapons plant. His assertion, which provided a critical rationale for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, was later disproved by the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which was led by Duelfer. "The incentive structure encourages these guys to exaggerate their technical qualifications and their knowledge of what's going on in a secret nuclear program," Albright said. "When they drain them dry, their value drops dramatically."

Khidhir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected to the United States in 1994, was considered a valuable catch, prompting the CIA to mount a secret operation to spirit his family out of the country, according to Albright. The following year, a more valuable defector, Saddam Hussein's brother in law, Hussein Kamal, fled Iraq for Jordan, providing detailed briefing of Iraq's weapons programs to CIA and U.N. specialists. The defection prompted Iraq to provide greater details about its chemical, biological, and nuclear programs; it also undercut Hamza's value, who was subsequently set up to operate a BP gas station in Fredericksburg, Va. A couple of years later, Hamza approached Albright for a job and helped provide insights into Iraq's nuclear program. But he was also drawn to the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, together with whom he played a role in exaggerating the threat of Iraq's nuclear program. "He went on to become their biggest nuclear exaggerator," he said.

The United States also assembled a series of task forces in Baghdad to search for high value nuclear operators. One CIA team quickly located Mahdi Obeidi, an Iraqi expert on nuclear centrifuges, who hid a trove of documents and centrifuge parts in his rose garden. The materials, which were buried in the early 1990s, provided a blue print of Iraq's nuclear program. Obeidi told the Americans that the materials had not been touched since then, and that he had ended his work in the nuclear weapons field.

Albright said that U.S. authorities initially offered to allow Obeidi to defect to the United States, but that he would have to leave his family behind. The CIA relented after CNN approached the CIA for comment on the scientist's predicament, according to Albright. "I can tell you it is very, very difficult to get the U.S. government to approve taking in someone," said Duelfer, who urged the White House to allow Obeidi to flee to the United States. "It always amazed me that it is so hard to get approval to bring in someone who may well have risked their life for us." The Russian illegals, he noted, had little trouble getting U.S. residency. "But that's the way it is," Albright says.

Duelfer said the United States "is a difficult place to adjust, especially if you come from circumstances of prestige and assured income...you can do what you want, but you may go broke." Returning home, he said, is not so unusual. Hussein Kamal was lured back to Iraq, where Saddam Hussein had him executed for his treachery. Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, was drugged and abducted by Mossad agents in 1986, after telling British reporters about the existence of an Israeli plutonium separation plant. Vitaly Yurchenko, a KGB colonel who defected in 1985, walked away from his CIA handler in Georgetown after being spurned by his mistress, who told him she fell in love with a KGB officer, not a traitor. Like Amiri, Yurchenko told the press he had been kidnapped and tortured.

"We could do better," said Duelfer. "Still, there are reasons we do it badly." He cited the massive costs, political and bureaucratic constraints, and "every imaginable weirdness you can think of from multiple wives and girlfriends to illness and criminal backgrounds."

Please follow me on Twitter @columlynch.

The Obama administration on Friday lifted sanctions against four Russian entities involved in illicit weapons trade with Iran and Syria since 1999, and acknowledged exempting a Russian-Iranian missile deal from a U.N. draft resolution banning most missile sales to Iran.
The move comes just three days after the United States, reached agreement with Russia and other key powers reached agreement on a draft sanctioning Iran for violating U.N. demands to halt its uranium enrichment program. The draft includes a loophole that would exempt a 2005 Russian deal, valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, to sell Tehran five S-300 surface-to-air missile systems.

The removal of the four entities, which was recorded in Friday's Federal Register, suggested that the United States engaged in some last-minute bargaining to ensure Moscow's support for sanctions. The companies include Russia's state arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, which was sanctioned for its dealing with Iran in 2006 and 2008, and Moscow Aviation Institute, one of three entities sanctioned in 1999 for aiding Iran's development of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

The United States launched full-out negotiations Wednesday in the 15-nation security council on a draft resolution that would expand an arms embargo on Iran and tighten financial measures against Iranian elites.

Read the full story, coauthored with the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler, here.

Brazil and Turkey's announcement of a nuclear fuel deal with Iran has done more than complicate U.S. plans for a U.N. sanctions resolution. It also threatens, or promises, to upend the political order that has held sway in the Security Council for decades -- one in which the five permanent members of the U.N.'s most powerful body make all the critical decisions on key security matters.

Not since the run-up to the Iraq war have the council's middle and small powers sought to foil the ambitions of the big five. Despite intense pressure from the United States, Mexican ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser and Chile's envoy Juan Gabriel Valdés refused to back the U.S. drive to war. They were both driven from their jobs (Zinser after ripping the U.S. for cultivating "a relationship of convenience and subordination"), and the United States invaded anyways.

In announcing today's deal, Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu made it clear that they were rejecting the Obama administration's case for sanctions and asserted Iran is entitled to its rights, under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to enrich uranium and develop its own capacity to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful nuclear power. Today's pact makes no mention of the three U.N. Security council resolutions demanding that Tehran cease its enrichment of uranium until it can persuade the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it is being used solely for peaceful purposes. "This plan is a route for dialogue and takes away any grounds for sanctions," Amorim told reporters in Tehran.

The move reflects deeper reservations among many key middle powers -- including countries like Egypt, Indonesia, and South Africa -- that the big five powers are preparing to use this month's ongoing NPT review conference in New York to impose greater restraints on the rights of developing countries to develop nuclear fuel programs in the name of preventing proliferation. They fear that any effort to restrict Iran's right to develop its own fuel might be used against them in the future.

Addressing the General Assembly last month, Egypt's U.N. ambassador, Maged Abdelaziz, who chairs the 118 nation Non-Aligned Movement, said it is crucial to "preserve the right of non-nuclear powers to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and not to allow a fuel bank or any kind of supply arrangement that is going to decide on behalf of the countries concerned what are their developmental needs and how [they should] deal with this fuel."

The accord may be sufficient to drive a wedge between the United States and its European allies, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other. Moscow and Beijing have both professed their preference for a negotiated settlement over Iran's nuclear program. And they have both pressed Iran to accept the fuel swap as a way of showing it is serious about resolving the nuclear standoff.

The Britain, France, Germany, and the United States favor a fuel swap as a confidence-building measure aimed at enhancing international trust in Tehran's nuclear intentions. But they harbor suspicions that Iran has cut the deal to evade U.N. sanctions and that it has no intention to adequately addressing international concerns about its nuclear activities.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs delivered a carefully measured response to the nuclear pact, saying the U.S. welcomed the deal to ship nuclear fuel off Iranian soil, but that Tehran's assertion that it will continue enriching uranium "is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions." He urged Iran to report the agreement immediately to the IAEA, where its commitment can be tested.

Gibbs said the U.S. would continue to press Iran to "demonstrate through deeds-and not simply words-its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions." He said that the U.S. expected Iran to comply with all U.N. resolutions, including those calling for full cooperation with IAEA inspectors and the suspension of Iran's enrichment of uranium. "Given Iran's repeated failure to live up to its own commitments, and the need to address fundamental issues related to Iran's nuclear program, the United States and the international community continue to have serious concerns," he said.

Despite their frustrations, U.S. officials were cautious not to criticize the Brazilian and Turkish role in pushing a deal that is all but certain to weaken their case for sanctions. The approach contrasted with that of the Bush administration, which initial sought to punish former allies that opposed its quest for a war resolution in Iraq, according to U.N. diplomats.

In the aftermath of the invasion, "allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked, and even punished" for their refusal to back a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein's government, Chilean U.N. ambassador Heraldo Muñoz wrote in a book on the matter.

But the latest deal came under fire from analysts who said it would do nothing to stop Iran's uranium enrichment and would leave Iran with enough low-enriched uranium to be reprocessed into weapons-grade fuel if Tehran acquires the technological knowhow to do it. "This is a poorly negotiated deal that doesn't serve U.S. interests and may only worsen the situation," said David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear weapon inspector who tracks Iran's nuclear program. "Here you have a subgroup of nations weighing in and saying the enrichment program is not subject to further negotiations."

The arrangement requires Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey within the next month. In exchange, Iran will receive fuel rods containing 120 kilograms of a more purified form of reprocessed uranium for Iran's Tehran medical reactor within one year. If any provision of the pact is breached, Turkey would be required to return the uranium to Iran. Turkey and the IAEA (which has not yet signed on) will monitor the stored uranium in Turkey.

The deal hinges on Tehran's ability to negotiate a deal with the France, Russia, the United States, and the IAEA (the so-called Vienna group) to assure the delivery of fuel rods for the research reactor to Iran. "The nuclear fuel exchange is a starting point to begin cooperation and a positive constructive move forward among nations," according to the pact. It should replace and avoid "all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions, and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize rights and obligations under the NPT."

Iran first expressed interest in the fuel swap after the IAEA presented the proposal to Tehran in October. But Iran quickly reversed course. In the weeks leading up to the deal, the United States has expressed skepticism over Iran's intention to implement a fuel swap. "I have told my counterparts in many capitals around the world that I believe that we will not get any serious response out of the Iranians until after the Security Council acts," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

The world's five original nuclear states -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- on Wednesday reaffirmed their commitment to "take concrete and credible steps towards irreversible disarmament" of their nuclear arsenals and to take "concrete steps" to establish the a nuclear-weapons free zone In the Middle East. But the big powers set no fixed deadline for achieving either of those goals, and the United States has made it clear it will not press Israel to eliminate its undeclared nuclear weapons program until there is peace in the Middle East. The so-called P-5 also made no commitment to halt efforts to modernize their nuclear warheads. Still, the U.S. and its nuclear partners signalled a willingness to engage the non-nuclear weapons states on issue they care about, including a pledge to start negotiations in Geneva on a pact providing security assurances for non-nuclear states.

In a joint statement, the five powers raised concerns about the proliferation risks posed by Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs, and proposed reinforcing trade restrictions on nuclear technologies and strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency's authority to inspect states' nuclear power programs to prevent diversion to a military program. They also proposed that countries that withdraw from the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as North Korea did in 2003, should be held accountable for any violations of the treaty they may have committed before pulling out.

Below is a copy of the joint statement the nuclear powers presented at the NPT's eighth review conference at U.N. headquarters in New York:

Read on

Indonesia announced today that it will seek ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, dropping its demand that it would only do so after United States had ratified the landmark agreement. The announcement marks the most significant non-proliferation commitment by a non-nuclear state at the NPT conference.

"I wish to inform the present august assembly that Indonesia is initiating the process of the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty," said Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa. "It is our fervent hope that this further demonstration of our commitment to the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agenda will encourage other countries that have not ratified the treaty, to do the same."

The test-ban treaty was established in September 1996, and more than 150 states have ratified it. But the pact will not go into force until eight countries with nuclear power programs --China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and North Korea -- ratify the treaty.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who chaired a preparatory commission on the treaty in 1999, has pressed the United States and other governments to ratify the agreement. "The time has come to think seriously about setting a timeframe for ratification," he said Monday. "It has been 15 years since the treaty was opened for signature. Here, too, how long must we wait?"

Most of the declared nuclear powers, including the United States, have observed a moratorium on nuclear tests. But the United States has sought for years to develop technological procedures that would allow it to ensure the effectiveness of its nuclear weapons without having to test explosives.

The Obama administration supports the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but it has not put it forward for consideration by the U.S. Senate because of concerns that it will be voted down. But Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton today reiterated support for the pact. "We have made a commitment to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," she said.

Next week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet in New York with diplomats from more than 180 countries at the eighth review conference of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (pdf), the Cold War pact that determines who can have nuclear weapons and who can't. The nuclear accord obliges the five original nuclear powers to disarm while exacting a pledge from other countries not to pursue nuclear weapons. In exchange, those that foreswore atomic weapons were assured the right to develop nuclear energy programs, under the monitoring of U.N. inspectors.

The Obama administration will seek to use the nearly month-long conference to plug gaps in a landmark agreement that has significantly limited the spread of nuclear weapons but enabled a small number of nuclear proliferators, including Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, to develop clandestine atomic weapons programs under the nose of U.N. weapons inspectors.

The nuclear conference has gained increased urgency as concerns about global warming have fueled renewed interest in nuclear power, and the prospects of lucrative international trade in nuclear fuel. The U.S. wants to strengthen U.N. monitoring of nuclear-energy programs and to impose greater controls over the production and trade in enriched of uranium to ensure that Iran and other potential proliferators will not succeed in completing another nuclear weapons program. But American diplomats -- who see the conference as an opportunity to reinvigorate the NPT -- insist that they respect and recognize the rights of non-weapons states to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs.

Still, U.S. President Barack Obama is facing a major challenge to his nuclear vision from countries in the developing world that feel the nuclear treaty has been applied unfairly. Many states harbor a festering resentment against the major nuclear powers, saying they have used the NPT to establish an entrenched class system that guarantees their own nuclear defense, and that of allies like India, Israel, and Pakistan, but exposes the vast majority of U.N. members to the threat of nuclear annihilation. They are loath to accept new demands imposed by the big powers that would curb their own rights to develop nuclear power, or to participate in a burgeoning nuclear trade.

Call it the nuclear caste system. The Obama administration's ability to balance the interests of these various players and to strike a new nuclear bargain in the coming weeks may well determine whether the frayed nuclear bargain can survive another generation.

Read on

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has requested a visa to attend a high-level conference next week at U.N. headquarters to review progress on the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, according to senior U.N. officials and diplomats.

The development raises the prospect that the Iranian leader may use the high-profile conference to challenge efforts by the Obama administration to rally international support for measures aimed at preventing Tehran and other potential proliferators from acquiring nuclear technology. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead the U.S. delegation in the nuclear talks, which begins Monday.

The move comes as the permanent five members of the Security Council --Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States -- and Germany have been negotiating the text of a new sanctions resolution against Iran. The United States had hoped to conclude the negotiations on Iran sanctions before the start of the nuclear conference, fearing protracted discussions could undercut U.S. efforts to push for reforms on the treaty.

"I believe you will see a sanction regime coming out by the end of this month, beginning of next month," U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden said Thursday on ABC's The View talk show.

The United States and its European allies are seeking passage of a resolution that would impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Tehran, restrict investment in Iran's energy industry, and authorize the seizure of Iranian vessels suspected of transporting banned weapons.

U.N. diplomats said that Ahmadinejad wants to address the nuclear gathering on Monday, the same day that Clinton speaks. An Iranian official declined to confirm whether the Iranian president planned to come.

U.N. diplomats said it remained unclear whether Ahmadinejad would use the event to launch a political attack on the U.S. and European push for sanctions, or whether he would announce a new deal aimed at heading off council sanctions.

Iran announced earlier this week that it is willing to restart a discussion with U.N. Security Council members over a nuclear fuel-swap proposal by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The proposal would allow Iran to ship its low-enriched uranium abroad in exchange for a purer grade of uranium that could be used to fuel and Iranian research reactor that produces nuclear isotopes for medical purposes.

"There is a possibility for an exchange of views," Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said Tuesday, following a meeting with his Turkish counterpart.

Iran has repeatedly expressed interest in the fuel-swap arrangement, only to change its mind. China and Russia, who are reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran, have been pressing Tehran without success in recent months to reconsider and accept the fuel-swap deal. U.N. council diplomats said they suspect that Iran has revived the issue to stall discussion on a fourth round of U.N. sanctions.

Turkey and Brazil, both of which hold nonpermanent seats on the Security Council, have also begun talks with Iran aimed at striking a deal on the fuel swap. On Tuesday, Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, following his meeting with Mottaki, said Turkey would be willing to serve as a mediator in a fuel exchange.

The United States' confidential U.N. sanctions text calls for a comprehensive arms embargo on Iran, allows foreign states to seize Iranian ships suspected of carrying materials linked to its nuclear program, and curtails Tehran's ability to raise new investment in the country's energy sector, according to U.N.-based diplomats.

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the U.S. proposal today in a meeting at the U.S. mission with the U.N.'s big powers -- China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany. The United States hopes to adopt a sanctions resolution before the end of April, but some council officials said it was more likely it would pass in June.

The text under negotiation has been written by the United States, with input from Washington's European partners. It has been crafted to target senior officers in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and a network of Iranian companies and financial institutions it controls. The U.S. believes these entities have been used to underwrite Tehran's military proxies throughout the Middle East and fund Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear enrichment programs.

China objected strenuously to the U.S. proposal for sanctions on energy investments during a big-power meeting last week in New York on the text, and insisted that Beijing would not accept any provisions that challenged its commercial interests in Iran, according to council diplomats. But Beijing has finally begun to engage in direct negotiations, offering some suggestions during the past 24 hours on how the U.S. should modify its text.

The negotiations continued as Iran announced that it had made a critical breakthrough in its efforts to produce a self-sufficient nuclear fuel program. The country's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, said that Iran had enriched uranium to 20 percent purity, well above the previous 3.5 percent level achieved by Iran's nuclear scientists. Iran requires uranium enriched to that level to fuel its medical research reactors. The purity of Iran's enriched uranium is still well below the 90 percent level required to produce a nuclear bomb, but it moves it far closer to being able to produce a nuclear weapon.

The developments follow a high-level meeting in Washington Monday between U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese leader Hu Jintao. After the meeting, U.S. officials said that Obama received a commitment from Hu to continue negotiations on a new sanctions resolution. But the Chinese have yet to agree to endorse any specific measures against Tehran.

Today's meeting at the U.S. mission to the United Nations represents the first time the six powers -- known as the P-5+1 -- have begun substantive negotiations on the U.S. text. During a three-hour meeting at the British mission last week, China, Russia, and others simply restated their positions on U.N. sanctions. Beijing and Moscow both say they remain committed to resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran through negotiations. They both have pressed Iran to accept an offer to swap its enriched uranium for nuclear fuel from Russia or France for use in a medical research reactor.

But Russia's U.N. ambassador Vitaly I. Churkin voiced frustration. "I don't think any of us wants to impose sanctions; what we want is to have a diplomatic solution," Churkin said. But "if Iran wants to negotiate it should start negotiating."

Security Council diplomats say that the passage of the last Iran sanctions resolution, 1803, took more than six weeks of intense bargaining in New York to conclude, and that was after their capitals had already agreed to the general parameters to the talks. They believe the current negotiations may take even longer, given that the key powers are essentially starting from scratch. The timing has also been complicated by the presence of Lebanon in the Security Council presidency next month. Lebanon's cabinet includes a key bloc from the Shiite movement Hezbollah, which receives financial and military backing from Iran.

Here's a link to the key nuclear negotiators in New York. The U.S. proposal targets four key sectors of the Iranian economy.

ARMS: The U.N. Security Council has previously imposed a partial arms embargo on Iran that is crafted to prevent Iran from trading in ballistic missile or nuclear technology, and which bans the exports of most weapons. The United States and its European partners want to close the gap with a total ban on imports and exports. But Russia, which supplies Iran with military materials, objects to the comprehensive arms embargo. Moscow and Beijing have insisted that any new sanctions should narrowly target Iran's capacity to developed ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons.

ENERGY: The U.S. wants to bar new foreign investment in the Iranian energy sector, according to diplomats familiar with the U.S. plan. But it would not bar the export or import of oil and other petroleum-based products. China's U.N. ambassador Li Baodong objected to the provision last week during a closed-door meeting of the key U.N. powers negotiating U.N. sanctions. Russia supports China. "If we speak about energy sanctions, I'll give you my opinion. I think that we are unlikely to achieve a consolidated position in the world community on this issue," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in a recent interview with ABC television, according to Reuters.

SHIPPING: The U.S. text would permit the seizure of Iranian vessels on the high seas suspected of ferrying cargo linked to Iran's ballistic missile and nuclear program. It would also seek to make it harder for Iran to by insurance on Iranian vessels. The Obama administration sees last year's resolution on North Korea as a model for tightening sanctions on banned Iranian trade. In June, the Security Council voted to authorize states for the first time to board North Korean vessels at sea if they were suspected of carrying banned cargo. The resolution has led to increased seizure of North Korean vessels. But the Chinese have argued that North Korea, a declared nuclear power, deserves a tougher approach than Iran, whose nuclear ambitions remain ambiguous and unproven. The United States and its European allies have countered that sanctions are supposed to be preventive instead of punitive, and that it makes sense to do whatever it can to dissuade Tehran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

FINANCIAL: Rice will be looking to sanction Iran's central bank and press for additional targeted travel and financial restrictions against officials and businesses linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including a group of companies recently sanctioned by the Treasury Department. A natural target is Revolutionary Guard General Rostam Qasemi. who is also the commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Construction Headquarters, the engineering arm that Treasury says helps the Guards generate income and fund their operations. A previous sanctions resolution simply encouraged states to "exercise vigilance" to ensure that their financial dealing with Iranian banks, including Bank Melli and Bank Saderat, did not result in funds being diverted to banned military programs. The United States wants to strengthen those measures. Both Russia and China have argued that it would be improper to sanction Revolutionary Guard activities that are unrelated to Iran's banned nuclear and missile activities.