IISS: The case against Iraq

Gary Samore, senior fellow for non-proliferation with the IISS

Editor's Note: CNN Access is a regular feature on CNN.com providing interviews with newsmakers from around the world.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Dr. Gary Samore, senior fellow for non-proliferation with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, spoke with CNN Senior International Correspondent Walter Rodgers about the IISS report on Iraq. Following is an edited transcript of the interview:

CNN: Does your report make a compelling case for George Bush or not?

Samore: The purpose of the report was not to make a compelling case one way or the other in terms of whether a military attack is justified.

MORE STORIES Iraq nuclear dilemma exposed    RESOURCES Statement on Iraq by IISS Director John Chipman

What we've tried to highlight is that even though Iraq's capabilities are less now than where they were in 1991 before the Gulf War, it seems clear that the Iraqi government has a very persistent and very strong commitment to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long-range ballistic missile capabilities, and they're probably moved those capabilities forward since the end of inspections in 1998.

The argument in favour of taking action now, whether it's to compel Baghdad to accept inspectors or to use military force to change the regime, is that it's better to act when those capabilities are still short of reaching their ultimate objective.

If you wait, you run the risk that the Iraqis will get further along, perhaps even acquire a nuclear weapon, and that will make it much more difficult to pressure Baghdad or to prevent them from taking actions in the region that would jeopardise U.S. interests.

CNN: But if you don't wait they're going to use the threat against you anyhow?

Samore: Right now the threat is limited. We think they do probably have large amounts of biological and chemical weapons agents in bulk form, but their ability to actually deliver those agents against long-range targets outside Iraq, against cities, is actually quite limited.

If the U.S. acts now to force inspections or change the regime, the threat will be relatively less. If you wait the threat becomes much greater.

CNN: Is the threat to the West or Saddam's neighbours greater now than when George Bush came to power two years ago, significantly greater?

Samore: It's very hard to say. So much is unknown. It does seem to be clear the Iraqis have started to move ahead in the programs that they have.

Over the weekend there have been news reports about the Iraqis trying to acquire high-strength aluminium tubes which could be used as components for their nuclear weapons programs, for their efforts to produce highly enriched uranium.

That seems to be yet another indication they're moving ahead in the absence of inspectors since '98. I think it's very hard to quantify the extent to which the threat is greater now than it was then, except to say it is greater, and there doesn't appear to be any sign of Iraq stopping unless something is done.

CNN: U.N. inspectors left four years ago. What are the growing gaps in our knowledge about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction arsenal in the last four years?

Samore: The most important gap is the extent to which the government of Iraq has used civilian facilities, chemical and health facilities, to convert them for the production of chemical and biological weapons agents.

CNN's Walter Rodgers

Unless those facilities are under consistent monitoring by the inspectors, it's relatively easy for the Iraqis to convert the civilian facilities and use them for the production of weapons. And we speculate in the report that that's very likely what they've done.

There's no way of knowing for sure unless the inspectors are there.

CNN: Quick one-word answer -- who's the greater threat in the region, Iraq or Iran?

Samore: It's hard to give you a one-word answer. I'd say Iran has greater capabilities, but in terms of the actual use of weapons and the use of military force to pursue foreign policy, I think there's a clear case that Iraq has demonstrated it has a much more aggressive foreign policy than Iran does.