Reviving Iran nuclear deal not a question of who goes first, U.S. official says

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-nuclear/reviving-iran-nuclear-deal-not-a-question-of-who-goes-first-u-s-official-says-idUSKBN2BI36U

By Arshad Mohammed

4 MIN READ

(Reuters) - Who might take the first step to resume compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is not an issue for the United States, a U.S. official said on Friday, suggesting greater flexibility on the part of Washington.

“That’s not the issue, who goes first,” the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

“Like, we are going to go at 8, they are going to go at 10? Or they go at 8, we go at 10? That’s not the issue,” the official said. “The issue is do we agree on what steps are going to be taken mutually.”

The Biden administration has been seeking to engage Iran in talks about both sides resuming compliance with the deal, under which U.S. and other economic sanctions on Tehran were removed in return for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program to make it harder to develop a nuclear weapon -- an ambition Tehran denies.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, withdrew from the deal in 2018 and reimposed U.S. sanctions, prompting Iran, after waiting more than a year, to violate some of the pact’s nuclear restrictions in retaliation.

The United States and Iran have yet to agree even to meet about reviving the deal and are communicating indirectly via European nations, Western officials have said.

The odds of their making progress to revive the deal before Iran holds a presidential election in June have dwindled after Tehran opted to take a tougher stance before returning to talks, officials have said.

In a speech on Sunday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said Washington must ease sanctions before Tehran would resume compliance.

The U.S. official sought to dispel what he said was an erroneous view that the United States insists on Iran’s full compliance before Washington would take any steps to resume its own commitments.

He also said it was not the U.S. stance that Tehran must take a first step to comply before Washington would take a step.

“It is absolutely not our position that Iran has to come into full compliance before we do anything,” the official said.

“As for, if we agree on mutual steps, like we’ll do X, they do Y, the issue of sequence will not be the issue. I don’t know who would go first. I mean we could – it could be simultaneous,” he said. “There’s a thousand iterations but ... I can tell you now, if this breaks down, it’s not going to be because of that.”

He added: “We will be pragmatic about that.”

Writing in Foreign Affairs magazine last year when he was a presidential candidate, Biden said: “Tehran must return to strict compliance with the deal. If it does so, I would rejoin the agreement.”

That language, echoed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other officials since Biden took office on Jan. 20, has been widely taken to mean Iran had to make the first move to comply.

The U.S. official, however, disputed this.

“It doesn’t say when,” the official said. “It is not a statement about sequence.”

Robert Einhorn, a nonproliferation expert at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he had not understood Biden’s Foreign Affairs article to mean Iran necessarily had to go first, “although it could certainly be read that way.”

“Several other formulations administration officials have used -- such as ‘the U.S. will return to compliance if Iran does the same’ -- seem quite neutral on sequence and don’t suggest to me that Iran must go first,” Einhorn said.

Russia Stands Against U.N. Action on Syria

Friday, June 10, 2011
Russia on Thursday hinted it might block any attempt to have the U.N. Security Council penalize Syria for failing to comply with an ongoing probe of a suspected bombed nuclear reactor, the New York Times reported (see GSN, June 9).
Russia, China and four other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation governing board voted against a resolution to involve the Security Council in the U.N. nuclear watchdog's dispute with Damascus. The motion -- advanced by the United States and its allies -- passed on Thursday with backing from 17 nations on the board.
Moscow and Beijing both hold permanent Security Council seats and veto authority over all decisions by the body. Brazil, India and India -- all nonpermanent council members -- have raised questions as well over possible action against Damascus.
Intelligence assessments from the United States reportedly indicate Syria's Dair Alzour facility had housed a reactor being built with North Korean aid and intended to produce weapon-usable plutonium. Damascus has rejected accusations it engaged in illicit nuclear activities, but it has denied multiple IAEA requests for return visits to Dair Alzour since inspectors found traces of anthropogenic natural uranium during a June 2008 inspection of the site.
The IAEA board resolution asserted that Syria's "noncompliance" with its global commitments was cause for referral to the Security Council for possible punitive action
Moscow, though, said the decision to send Syria to the United Nations was rooted in bias and conjectural data.
“The situation in this country, in our view, does not present a threat to international peace and security,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said.
In arguing against the body's involvement in the Syrian dispute, Russia has contended that a Security Council resolution laid the groundwork for NATO's military involvement in Libya, according to envoys (see GSN, May 18; Dan Bilefsky, New York Times, June 9).
The IAEA board also pressed Syria to abide by the Additional Protocol to its atomic inspections arrangement, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a statement. The Additional Protocol enables IAEA inspectors to conduct snap inspections of atomic facilities and access additional information about nuclear activities in member states (International Atomic Energy Agency release, June 9).
The board's resolution on Syria "marks a significant action by the international community to uphold the nonproliferation rules of the road," the White House said in a statement.
"As the IAEA reports, with assistance from North Korea, Syria attempted to build a secret nuclear reactor capable of producing large amounts of nuclear weapons-usable plutonium, but with no apparent legitimate civilian purpose," according to the statement. "Syria has stonewalled and obstructed the efforts of the IAEA to investigate the nuclear reactor for years, refusing to provide access to associated sites, personnel and documents in violation of Syria’s freely accepted legal obligations.
"With this resolution, the board has referred Syria to the U.N. Security Council for further deliberation, consistent with the board’s mandate and authorities when confronted with noncompliance," the White House said.
"The United States remains determined to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We will work with partners and allies around the world to stand together to insist that every country meet its responsibilities or be held accountable for its actions," it added (White House release, June 9).
The State Department in a press release demanded that Damascus "fully cooperate with the IAEA by providing necessary access to all sites, items, and information related to the Dair Alzour investigation and allow the IAEA to verify that Syria is fully complying with its safeguards agreement.
"Syria is challenging the authority of the IAEA and the integrity of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty regime. The only way Syria can demonstrate that it has come back into full compliance with the NPT is by cooperating with the IAEA and providing the necessary information and access" the document states (U.S. State Department release, June 9).

UN nuclear agency votes to send Syria to the UN Security Council for violating nuclear accords

Washington Post

By Associated Press,

VIENNA — The U.N. nuclear watchdog voted Thursday to report Syria to the U.N. Security Council for violating its safeguard agreements, citing Syria’s undeclared construction of a covert nuclear reactor and refusal to supply information.

The move by the International Atomic Energy Agency comes amid political protests in Syria, but Washington and its allies insist the timing of the recommendation has nothing to do with the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters and is separate from an effort by European nations to have the Security Council condemn Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.

“The resolution is a necessary and appropriate step in light of the troubling findings in the IAEA’s latest report, including Syria’s refusal of the last three years to cooperate with the investigation,” Glyn Davis, the chief U.S. envoy, to the IAEA told reporters after the vote.

Ministers of the IAEA’s 35 governing members have been meeting since Monday to discuss a raft of issues ranging from the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant to a lack of satisfactory cooperation from member states, including Syria and Iran.

Although the vote on taking action against Syria passed, it proved divisive. Seventeen members voted in favor, while six opposed the measure, based on the findings of IAEA chief Yukiya Amano. However, 11 nations abstained, meaning they did not contribute to the tally. One member was absent from the vote.

In Washington, White House press secretary Jay Carney said the vote marks a “significant action by the international community to uphold the nonproliferation rules of the road.” He said Syria for years has “stonewalled and obstructed” the IAEA’s efforts and pledged that the U.S. will stand with its partners and allies around the world to ensure that countries meet their responsibilities or be held accountable for their actions.

China and Russia voted against the recommendation, meaning it could face stiff opposition in the U.N. Security Council, where those nations hold veto power.

Before the vote, the Russians called the referral “untimely and not objective.” They said the evidence against Syria was hypothetical and based on “possible alleged insufficiencies.”

Indeed, the recommendation is the first from the IAEA that was based on an interpretation of evidence gathered against Syria. Amano acknowledged that while the agency did not have “absolute proof,” it was solid enough to justify taking action against Damascus.

Amano said that Syria should have declared its Dair Alzour site, which was destroyed by Israeli warplanes in 2007, but was believed to have been capable of producing plutonium for possible use in nuclear weapons. Since 2008, the IAEA has been frustrated in repeated attempts to follow up on further evidence regarding the site.

“Syria’s apparent attempt at constructing a secret, undeclared plutonium production reactor ... represents one of the most serious safeguards violations possible,” Davis said.

He went on to accuse Syria of “choosing to actively hinder the investigation by denying access, providing incomplete and misleading information, sanitizing multiple locations, and refusing to respond substantively to the agency’s requests for further information and access.”

In a separate report on Iran, Amano cited fresh information acquired by the agency that indicated a “possible military dimension” to Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, called the report “not balanced and factual,” and went on to insist that Amano was “not doing his job.”

Iran announced Wednesday that it would triple its output of enriched uranium at a higher level than is needed for nuclear fuel — near 20 percent — by installing more efficient centrifuges.

Davis called that move “brazen” and told the board the agency’s admission that it knows ever less about Iran’s enrichment activities is “deeply troubling.”

Together with China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom, the U.S. called on Tehran to “cooperate fully with the agency” and uphold its agreements.

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely civilian, yet steps such as the enrichment are moving it closer to a weapons capacity.

“We will not suspend any of our nuclear activities, including enrichment,” Soltanieh said.

Tehran is already under four rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt enrichment. The IAEA did not recommend any fresh action at this week’s meeting.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© The Washington Post Company

Six European Ambassadors to Iran on the U.N.'s Attitude towards Tehran's Nuclear Program

Former European ambassadors to Iran Richard Dalton, Steen Hohwü-Christensen, Paul von Maltzahn, Guillaume Metten, François Nicoullaud, and Roberto Toscano write in the Los Angeles Times today that "it is unacceptable that the talks [with Iran on nuclear development] have been deadlocked for such a long time." Though the U.S. and Europe are authorized by the U.N. to use "coercive measures in case of 'threats to the peace,'" such threats are not so easily defined. Technically, "nothing in international law or in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids the enrichment of uranium," for example, nor do we have proof that Iran is actually building nuclear weapons. "We often hear that Iran's ill-will, its refusal to negotiate seriously, left our countries no other choice but to drag it to the Security Council in 2006," but they point out that Tehran readily agreed to thorough and even invasive inspections. This was ignored by the U.S. and Europe who seem to fear offering "the Iranian regime an opening that could help it restore its internal and international legitimacy." The authors suggest that "the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany should certainly keep the focus on matters of political and human rights, but they should also try harder to solve a frustrating and still urgent proliferation problem. By doing so, we would reduce a serious source of tension in a region that longs more than ever for tranquility."

latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ambassadors-iran-20110609,0,1965058.story

latimes.com

Op-Ed

Nuclear proliferation: Engaging Iran

A period of uncertainty in the Arab world and the Middle East offers an opportunity to reconsider the West's position on Iran and restart negotiations over its nuclear program.

June 9, 2011

advertisement
This piece was written by six former ambassadors to Iran from European countries: Richard Dalton (United Kingdom), Steen Hohwü-Christensen (Sweden), Paul von Maltzahn (Germany), Guillaume Metten (Belgium), François Nicoullaud (France) and Roberto Toscano (Italy)

As ambassadors to Iran during the last decade, we have all followed closely the development of the nuclear crisis between Iran and the international community. It is unacceptable that the talks have been deadlocked for such a long time.

The Arab world and the Middle East are entering a new epoch in which no country is immune from change. This includes the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is facing the disaffection of a significant part of its population. Such a period of uncertainty offers opportunities for reconsidering the West's established position on the Iranian nuclear question.

In terms of international law, the position of Europe and the United States is perhaps less assured than is generally believed. Basically, it is embodied in a set of resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council authorizing coercive measures in case of "threats to the peace."

But what constitutes the threat? Is it the enrichment of uranium in Iranian centrifuges? This is certainly a sensitive activity, by a sensitive country, in a highly sensitive region. The concerns expressed by the international community are legitimate, and Iran has a moral duty, as well as a political need, to answer them.

In principle, however, nothing in international law or in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids the enrichment of uranium. Besides Iran, several other countries, parties or not to the treaty, enrich uranium without being accused of "threatening the peace." And in Iran, this activity is submitted to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These inspections, it is true, are constrained by a safeguards agreement dating from the 1970s. But it is also true that the IAEA has never uncovered in Iran any attempted diversion of nuclear material to military use.

Is the threat to the peace, then, that Iran is actively attempting to build a nuclear weapon? For at least three years, the United States intelligence community has discounted this hypothesis. The U.S. director of national intelligence, James Clapper, testified in February to Congress: "We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.... We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.... We continue to judge that Iran's nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach, which offers the international community opportunities to influence Tehran."

Today, a majority of experts, even in Israel, seems to view Iran as striving to become a "threshold country," technically able to produce a nuclear weapon but abstaining from doing so for the present. Again, nothing in international law or in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids such an ambition. Like Iran, several other countries are on their way to or have already reached such a threshold but have committed not to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody seems to bother them.

We often hear that Iran's ill-will, its refusal to negotiate seriously, left our countries no other choice but to drag it to the Security Council in 2006. Here also, things are not quite that clear.

Let us remember that in 2005 Iran was ready to discuss a ceiling limit for the number of its centrifuges and to maintain its rate of enrichment far below the high levels necessary for weapons. Tehran also expressed its readiness to put into force the additional protocol that it had signed with the IAEA allowing intrusive inspections throughout Iran, even in non-declared sites. But at that time, the Europeans and the Americans wanted to compel Iran to forsake its enrichment program entirely.

Today, Iranians assume that this is still the goal of Europe and America, and that it is for this reason that the Security Council insists on suspension of all Iranian enrichment activities. But the goal of "zero centrifuges operating in Iran, permanently or temporarily," is unrealistic, and it has heavily contributed to the present standoff.

Of course, a dilemma lingers in the minds of most of our leaders. Why offer the Iranian regime an opening that could help it restore its internal and international legitimacy? Should we not wait for a more palatable successor before making a new overture?

This is a legitimate question, but we should not overestimate the influence of a nuclear negotiation on internal developments in Iran. Ronald Reagan used to call the Soviet Union the "evil empire," but that did not stop him from negotiating intensely with Mikhail Gorbachev on nuclear disarmament. Should we blame him for having slowed down the course of history?

The five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany should certainly keep the focus on matters of political and human rights, but they should also try harder to solve a frustrating and still urgent proliferation problem. By doing so, we would reduce a serious source of tension in a region that longs more than ever for tranquility.

The failure of the last round of negotiations in Istanbul at the end of January and the last disappointing exchange of letters between the parties show only too well that the current deadlock will be difficult to break. On the process, the more discreet and technical negotiations are, the better chance they will have to progress. And on the substance, we already know that any solution will have to build on the quality of the inspection system of the IAEA.

Either we trust IAEA's ability to supervise all its member states, including Iran, or we do not. And if the answer is that we do not, then we must ask why, if the organization is effective only with its most virtuous members, we should continue to maintain it.

The next step should be for the two sides in this conflict to ask the IAEA what additional tools it needs to monitor the Iranian nuclear program fully and provide credible assurances that all the activities connected with it are purely peaceful in intent. The agency's answer would offer a basis for the next round of pragmatic negotiations with Iran.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

UN nuclear watchdog refers Syria to Security Council

BBC news

9 June 2011 Last updated at 16:45 ET

The UN nuclear watchdog is to report Syria to the Security Council over its alleged covert nuclear programme.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to rebuke Syria on claims of an undeclared nuclear reactor.
The structure, which Syria has maintained was a non-nuclear military site, was destroyed by Israel in 2007.
The IAEA's move comes as international pressure mounts on the UN Security Council to censure Syria over its lethal crackdown on protests.
European nations on Wednesday presented a separate draft resolution to the Council condemning Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
Desert site
At the IAEA meeting at its headquarters in Vienna, 17 countries voted for and six against, including Russia and China.
Diplomats said that overall 11 countries of the 35-member board of governors abstained and one country was absent from the vote.
Israel bombed the desert site of the alleged reactor - near Deir Alzour in the country's remote north-east - in September 2007.
The IAEA began investigating the allegations in June 2008, but Syria has refused to co-operate and, with the exception of a one-off visit, has not allowed UN inspectors to Deir Alzour or related sites to verify the US claims.
Thursday's motion was proposed by the US and its Western allies who had asked the IAEA's governing body to find Syria in "non-compliance" with its international obligations.
"Syria's apparent attempt at constructing a covert, undeclared plutonium production reactor, a reactor with no credible peaceful purpose, represents one of the most serious safeguards violations possible," said US Ambassador Glyn Davies.
He said the intentions of the structure at Deir Alzour were clear and that a resolution was the only responsible course of action.
"The reactor there was built for the express purpose of producing plutonium for possible use in nuclear weapons."
'Regrettable'
Syria's ambassador to the IAEA called the agency's move "regrettable" but pledged that the country would honour its obligations.
"I think Syria has always been committed to its obligations and to its duties and I think we will continue to do so," Bassam Al-Sabbagh said after the meeting.
Syria is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which gives it the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under inspection from the IAEA.
But it has also signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA under which it is obliged to notify the UN's nuclear watchdog of any plans to construct a new nuclear facility.
The last country the IAEA referred to the Security Council was Iran, in February 2006.
The Security Council has the power to impose sanctions, a move it has taken in the case of Iran no less than four times.
However, diplomats are not convinced that this will happen in Syria's case due to opposition from both Russia and China.
The diplomatic move at the IAEA came a day after Britain, France, Germany and Portugal proposed a draft resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on protesters to the Security Council, despite the risk of a Russian veto.

Nuclear Watchdog Details Concerns In Iran, Syria

NPR
by MIKE SHUSTER
May 25, 2011

The International Atomic Energy Agency has released troubling new reports on the nuclear activities of Iran and Syria.

The Iran report indicates the production of enriched uranium there is increasing and raises more questions about Iran's possible research into the military applications of nuclear technology.

In the Syria report, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog has reached the conclusion that Syria was very likely building a clandestine nuclear reactor when Israel bombed the site in 2007.

Iran: Uranium Enrichment Increasing

Iran's production of low-enriched uranium is on the rise, and though the facility at Natanz is far from full capacity, it is producing more per month now than in the past.

Iran's enrichment activities were hampered by breakdowns and by a computer attack last year caused by what's come to be known as the Stuxnet worm.

But the IAEA report suggests Iran has surmounted those difficulties, says David Albright, director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

"Iran's increase in its low-enriched uranium output by 30 percent since last summer shows ... that it's getting Natanz to work better, and shows that probably any leftover effect from Stuxnet has been reduced."

Related NPR Stories

Inside The United States' Secret Sabotage Of Iran
U.S. success with covert efforts like cyberattacks is making Iran's leaders nervous, analysts say.
U.N. Watchdog Says Syria Was Trying To Build Nuclear Reactor
April 28, 2011
The IAEA report does confirm that Iran has not diverted any of its known uranium stocks from civilian to military uses.

The report focuses some attention on the gas centrifuges that are used to manufacture enriched uranium. Since Iran started its enrichment about four years ago, it has used only first-generation centrifuges obtained from Pakistan.

Centrifuge technology has improved since then, and Iranian leaders have boasted that they intend to install new, far more efficient centrifuges in the future. But the IAEA has found no actual evidence that Iran has installed the newer technology.

Open Questions About Weapons Development

There are also ongoing questions about research Iran has done on aspects of nuclear weapons technology. The agency has pressed Iran for years to clear up questions about its military nuclear research. Iran has left many unanswered.

One concerns experiments with a neutron generator and uranium deuteride — this is what might be called a trigger for a nuclear explosion. The agency believes Iranian scientists worked on this particular piece of technology for as many as four years, perhaps longer, says Albright.

"This particular piece is important because it doesn't have any other uses that really are legitimate or credible," Albright says. "And it also shows that Iran is working on fairly sophisticated components of a nuclear weapon. I mean there's a much simpler way to do it. If you want to perhaps do it more secretly, you may want to go this route of uranium deuteride neutron initiator."

The agency's report does not assert that Iran is currently engaged in this work — only that the agency suspects it did the work before and may have continued it in some capacity.

On Wednesday, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency said simply that the IAEA's questions are based on fabricated documents.


EnlargeDigitalGlobe/Getty Images
This site in Syria was bombed by Israeli jets more than three years ago because it was suspected to be a nuclear reactor. It is now showing new construction.
Syria Stalls IAEA Investigation

On Syria, the agency says it's reached the conclusion that a facility under construction there that was bombed by Israel more than three years ago was "very likely a nuclear reactor, similar to one in North Korea."

The IAEA has been stymied for several years in its investigation of this incident. Syria allowed one inspection of the site, after the rubble was removed. There are three other locations in Syria believed to be related to this site, but Syria has not permitted agency inspectors to visit those.

The investigation has reached a dead end, says Albright.

"The IAEA has been under pressure," he says. "They can't let this slide. It's bad for the credibility of the IAEA if Syria gets away with it."

State Department spokesman Mark Toner indicated the U.S. wants to see this discussed by the IAEA in an upcoming meeting of its board of governors.

"The attempt by Syria to construct a clandestine nuclear reactor site is obviously a matter of concern, and we fully expect that the IAEA board will address this issue when it meets, I believe, next week," Toner says.

There's an expectation that the U.S. will urge that Syria be referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible economic sanctions.

Taliban Say They Won't Hit Nuclear Arsenal

WSJ, MAY 26, 2011
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG And OWAIS TOHID
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576345331283515312.html#printMode

ISLAMABAD—The Taliban has no plans to attack Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, its spokesman declared, as the militants kept up their campaign to avenge Osama bin Laden's death, ramming a pickup truck laden with explosives into a police station and killing six people.

A larger assault earlier this week by the Pakistan Taliban on a naval base renewed fears that Pakistan's sizable nuclear arsenal could be vulnerable. The Taliban's spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, dismissed those concerns Wednesday as America's "excuse" to pressure Pakistan's government into fighting the Taliban, who he portrayed as the country's true protectors.

"Pakistan is the only Muslim nuclear-power state," Mr. Ehsan said in a telephone interview, adding that the Taliban had no intention of changing that fact. The Taliban, after all, aim to take over Pakistan and its weapons.

He then mocked Pakistan's willingness to work with the U.S., saying, "isn't it a shame for us to have the Islamic bomb, and even then we are bowing down to the pressures of America?"

While the brutality of the Pakistan Taliban has alienated them from most Pakistanis, Mr. Ehsan's anti-American sentiments are shared by many people here.

The long-questioned alliance with the U.S. has come under increased scrutiny following the raid this month that killed bin Laden. The U.S. raid was seen by most here as a violation of national sovereignty by an unfaithful ally.

Mr. Ehsan's remarks appeared tailored to appeal to that increasingly nationalist mainstream, where conspiracy theories flourish about American, Indian and Israeli plots to deprive Pakistan of its atomic arsenal. Pakistan's nuclear capability is cherished here as the guarantor of safety from India's far larger conventional military.

The Pakistan Taliban, an offshoot of the Afghan insurgent movement, have repeatedly tried to win public support by presenting themselves as a defender of Pakistan, though their attacks have killed thousands of Pakistanis. Following the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani militants and the resulting spike in tensions with archrival India, the Taliban offered to fight alongside Pakistan's army in the event of war.

Still, it was impossible to judge the sincerity of Mr. Ehsan's declaration regarding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Even if the Pakistan Taliban has no designs on the arms, there are myriad Islamist groups in Pakistan, including al Qaeda, that are believed to have interest in acquiring nuclear weapons.

Pakistan says its nuclear arsenal, which is believed to include about 100 warheads, is safe. Officials say facilities that store the weapons are well guarded, and that rigorous checks screen out political and religious extremists from the nuclear program.

But U.S. and other Western officials have raised doubts about those guarantees in part because they have little visibility into Pakistan's nuclear program. Their access is limited by the military, which fears both allies and enemies ultimately aim to take the weapons away.

One of army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani's first thoughts upon hearing a helicopter had crashed the night bin Laden was killed was that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was under attack, according to people familiar with his thinking. The helicopter turned out to be one of the U.S. choppers involved in the raid.

Adding to concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program is the Taliban's proven ability to penetrate high-security areas, such as the naval air station it attacked Sunday in the Arabian Sea port of Karachi, the country largest city. A base storing atomic weapons is about 15 miles (24 kilometers) from the air station.

It took hundreds of navy commandos and marines and paramilitary soldiers more than 15 hours to clear the navy base in Karachi. Ten people were killed and a pair of American made maritime surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft, each priced at $36 million, were destroyed.

The navy said Wednesday the base's commander had been relieved.

Wednesday's attack, the fourth since bin Laden's death, leveled a police station in the northwestern city of Peshawar. The station is used in part to interrogate militants, though none were inside at the time, said police chief Liaquat Ali Khan.

The pickup truck used in the attack was carrying at least 660 pounds (300 kilograms) of explosives, said Bashir Bilour, a senior official in the province where Peshawar is located, according to the Associated Press.

Mr. Ehsan, the Taliban spokesman, said the attack was a "continuation of our recent attacks to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden."