Paul Williams is a journalist who has written two books on the nuclear terror threat. In 2004 he came out with Osama's Revenge in which he claimed that al Qaeda was preparing a nuclear attack against America that would "take place simultaneously at various locations throughout the country." And now, in 2005, Williams offers us The Al Qaeda Connection, in which he describes the relationship between al Qaeda nuclear weapons and narcotics smuggling. Williams points to testimony from captured terrorists and borderland criminals who say that a mass nuclear attack on the U.S. in imminent. Like many observers I'm not sure how to analyze the testimony of political fanatics who are told lies by their superiors as a matter of course. And I don't know much weight to give the testimony of narcotics traffickers. Piecing together testimony is tricky business. Furthermore, I am skeptical when it comes to the idea that a non-state actor (i.e., al Qaeda) possesses dozens of nuclear weapons and a counterintelligence capacity sophisticated enough to maintain and hide these weapons in various countries and, even more astounding, move them undetected from place to place in preparation for a mass assault on the United States. Opinions on the likelihood of this scenario differ, and the complex technical issues are many. I had the opportunity to interview Mr. Williams during the past week and found him to be passionate, persuasive and highly informed.
Does al Qaeda have nuclear weapons?
For a small group of fanatics to accomplish what many nations have been unable to accomplish (including Iraq under Saddam Hussein), one has to establish an economy of scale and a richness of talent equal to the task. To build dozens of nuclear weapons, with sufficient miniaturization, requires tools and brainpower that only nations can muster. What Williams therefore suggests is that Islam - according to the Prophet Mohammed - is a nation in its own right; and Osama bin Laden has won the hearts and minds of a majority within this nation. "The United States is not simply fighting a war against al Qaeda," Williams told me, "but a host of Muslim organizations. The Declaration of War against the United States of February 23, 1998 was signed not only by Osama bin Laden but also Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of the Jihad Group of Egypt; Abu Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, leader of the Armed Ismaic Group (Algeria); Sheiikh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, leader of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh. The fatwah received support from Asbat al Ansar (Lebanon), Harakat ul-Ansar (Pakistan), al-Badar (Pakistan), the Saafi Group for Proselytism and Combat (Algeria), Talaa al Fath (Vanguards of Conquest), the Groupe Roubaix (Canada)/France), Harakat ul Jihad (Pakistan), Jaish Mohammed (Pakistan), Hezbollah (Iran/Lebanon/Syria), Hamas (Israel/Palestinian Authority), al Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Egypt), al-Hadith (Pakistan), Bayt al-Imam (Jordan), Islamic Jihad (Palestinian Authority), Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, al-Jihad (Bangladesh), al-Jihad Group (Yemen), Laskar e-Toiba (Pakistan), Lebanese Partisans Group, Libyan Islamic Group, Moro Islamic Liberation Front (Philippines), Partisans Movement (Kashmir), Abu Sayff (Philippines), Al-Ittihad (Somalia), Ulema Union of Afghanistan, et alia. This goes to show that the jihad has widespread support among Muslims throughout the world. Nor is the war a war against terror. Terror is a tactic not a nation or militant body."
Williams seems to be saying that America hasn't properly identified its enemy. Instead, we have evaded the task by declaring war on the enemy's tactics. According to Williams, the enemy of America is a specific militant religious group. The clash of faiths in the present conflict is therefore fundamental. "Saudi Arabia, in short, is not much different than Afghanistan under the Taliban," Williams explained. "This brings us to the crux of the problem. In 2001, the CIA conducted a poll which showed that over 90 percent of the Saudis between the ages of 25 and 45 support bin Laden and the jihad."
Forget the smiling assurances of the Saudi princes. The Muslims of certain countries have deep-seated beliefs that include a predisposition to favor the terrorist cause of bin Laden. "Similarly," noted Williams, "a Gallup poll of that same year [2001] showed that a wide majority of Muslims throughout the world possess a highly unfavorable opinion of the United States." Of course, none of this proves that al Qaeda is a nuclear power. But it begins to present the outline of a very large population, in the hundreds of millions, from which to draw the talent and the manpower to accomplish what only nation-states have hitherto accomplished. So what is the destructive power of Islam under the banner of bin Laden?
"Regarding the destructive power of al Qaeda," replied Williams, "bin Laden has been in search of nuclear weapons and materials since 1992 when he was in the Sudan. At that time, he made several purchases from Pretoria. This was verified by testimony in federal court in New York, viz., U.S. vs. Osama bin Laden (1999). Regarding the destructive capability of radical Islam, consider the fact that Pakistan is a member of the nuclear club and that eight assassination attempts already have been undertaken against President Musharref. When Musharref goes - he is, by all accounts, 'a dead man walking' - he will be replaced by the mullahs who are intent upon our destruction. Also, consider the situation in Iran, which is about to enter the nuclear club. Iran, of course, represents the opposite side of Islam - the Shia. Then take into account that nuclear laboratories, thanks to Dr. A.Q. Khan, have been established in Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Kuwait, Myanmar and Abu Dhabi. We have never faced a threat of this magnitude."
Put in these terms, of course, a catastrophic future is indicated. The danger is inarguable and, to make matters worse, the United States seems unable to admit what has occurred and formulate a new national security policy. Even after 9/11 the country is clearly unprepared. As a military expert told me two years ago, "America is wide open to a massive terrorist assault." Like the majority of Americans today, President Bush will not accept the darker truths that underlie the situation.
I asked Williams if he could prove that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons. "Yes," he said, "there is undeniable proof that al Qaeda has nuclear weapons. In December 2001, as U.S. troops combed the tunnels near an al Qaeda base in Kandahar, they discovered uranium-238 in a lead-lined canister. This was reported in every major U.S. newspaper, including The New York Times. In October 2001, an al Qaeda operative was arrested as he attempted to enter Israel through the checkpoint at Ramallah. The operative had a bomb strapped to his back that Mossad first believed was a radiological devise but later discovered, as verified by UPI, that it was a tactical nuke. Early in 2001, two British agents, as reported by BBC on Nov. 26, 2001, managed to infiltrate an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan by posing as recruits from a London mosque. The agents eventually were sent to Herat where they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Finally, Dr. Mahmood and Dr. Majid of the A.Q. Khan Research Facility in Pakistan admitted upon interrogation that they provided assistance to al Qaeda in developing nuclear weapons and that at least one weapon was forward deployed from Karachi to the United States. You can check out this story by turning to A. Borchgrave, 'Al Qaeda Nuclear Agenda Verified,' Washington Times, Dec. 10, 2001. There are numerous other instances in which proof has been provided but the above accounts should suffice to dispel all doubt."
In next week's column I will present the second half of my interview with Paul Williams and discuss a few of the intriguing details in his latest book.
