Follow us on social

Aq-khan-scaled

A.Q. Khan: The death of a nuclear salesman

To his home country of Pakistan he was a patriot. To many others he was a scientist-smuggler who helped start Iran's nuclear program.

Analysis | Global Crises


We would not have an Iranian nuclear program to worry about were it not for Pakistani nuclear engineer and smuggler, A.Q. Khan.

Abdul Qadeer Khan, who died October 10 at the age of 85 from Covid complications, was the self-proclaimed father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb. Though Pakistan secretly launched its nuclear program in 1972, the effort accelerated when the German-trained metallurgist returned to Pakistan in 1975. 

He left his position at the URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands with more than just the knowledge of how to turn uranium ore into the fuel for nuclear reactors — or nuclear bombs. He brought with him connections to a sprawling network of industrial suppliers and stolen plans for the European gas-centrifuges, which he modified to produce Pakistan’s first machines. He was soon put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan’s Kahuta enrichment facility.

The entire operation relied on Khan’s massive smuggling program. He clandestinely brought in key technology from a dozen countries, including the import of an entire facility from West Germany for producing uranium hexafluoride, the gas fed into the centrifuges. With his help, by 1985 Pakistan was capable of producing highly-enriched uranium, despite repeated promises by the government that it would never do so. It was likely able to build a bomb by 1987.

Although Washington sought to discourage Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons, it repeatedly pushed the issue to secondary consideration. U.S. officials placed more value on Pakistan’s role in countering Soviet influence in the region, particularly in aiding the mujahideen fighting against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. U.S. pressure delayed but could not stop Pakistan’s first test in 1998, when it exploded 5 weapons in response to India’s five nuclear tests. 

By looking the other way as Pakistan built the bomb, the United States guaranteed the program's success. A nation with an unstable government, a fragile economy, powerful extremist influences in its military and intelligence agencies, terrorist groups operating within its national territory, and a rivalry with a nuclear-armed India with which it has fought repeated wars, now-nuclear-armed Pakistan became the most dangerous country on earth.

It got worse.

With Pakistan’s nuclear program now out in the open, Khan began to run his smuggling operation in reverse, exporting nuclear technology and expertise to other countries. In 2003, investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iran’s nuclear program and Libya’s decision to come clean on its secret programs exposed Khan’s nuclear black market to the world. 

Khan’s key clients were Iran, Libya, North Korea and other undisclosed countries, possibly including Saudi Arabia. It was a full-service operation, spanning continents and the entire gamut of nuclear technologies. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei called it “the Walmart of private proliferation.” 

For at least twelve years, Khan led this smuggling ring, netting more than $100 million from Libya alone. He provided blueprints, technical design data, specifications, components, machinery, enrichment equipment, models, and notes on the first generation P-1 and the next generation P-2 centrifuges. (“P” stand for “Pakistan.”) At least with Libya and possibly with Iran, Khan included as a bonus weapons-related designs and drawings. The blueprints were copies of a bomb design that China had apparently transferred to Pakistan in the 1960’s and formed the basis of Pakistan’s first weapons.

Iran purchased centrifuges from Khan, starting in 1989. By the early 2000’s, Iran had dozens of centrifuges operating in pilot plants. Iran insists the machines are of Iranian design, relabeling them IR-1, IR-2, etc., for “Iran-1.” 

Iran is a highly capable society and it is possible that it could have designed and built an indigenous nuclear program on its own eventually. Khan, however, kick-started the effort, giving it at least a decade of knowledge and development before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq changed the regional calculus. 

Without Khan, there would not have been much of an Iranian program to discover. Talks between Iran, Europe, and the United States might have proceeded very differently without the obstacle of a large, developing enrichment program. 

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan (no relation) lauded the engineer upon his death, calling him “a national icon.” Khan had publicly acknowledged his nuclear exports in 2004 (in English, on Pakistani television) and claimed sole responsibility. The government denied any knowledge of his operations (even though Pakistan military planes, for example, carried missiles from North Korea to Pakistan as part of Khan’s barter deals). Kahn was given a full pardon, retained a role advising the government, and continued to earn riches until his death. 

For Pakistan, Khan will forever be a patriotic hero. For most others, he will be remembered as the most dangerous smuggler the world has ever known.

Note: This article relies on research and writings conducted for the author’s book, Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats (Second edition, 2005)


FILE PHOTO: Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan is photographed after a silent prayer over the grave of his brother Abdul Rauf Khan, during funeral services in Karachi May 8, 2011. REUTERS/Athar Hussain
Analysis | Global Crises
Hezbollah
Top photo credit: Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)
Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)

Hezbollah to US: It's not in your interest to support Israeli attacks

Middle East

The Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Sheikh Naim Qassem, recently asserted that continued instability in Lebanon does not serve U.S. interests.

Qassem made the remarks following an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs which Israel claimed had targeted a Hezbollah weapons depot.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)
Ukraine War at 3: The victory we demanded and the attrition we got

Ukraine’s battlefield position is deteriorating fast

Europe

The election of U.S. President Donald Trump changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine from “as long as it takes” to seeking a negotiated peace settlement. These negotiations will be driven by the battlefield reality. The side holding the biggest advantage gets to dictate the terms. This gets more complicated if there is no ceasefire during the negotiations and the battlefield remains dynamic. Belligerents may conduct offensive operations while negotiations are progressing to improve their bargaining position. Historically in many conflicts, peace negotiations lasted years, even as the war raged on, such as during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thus, the balance of power, measured in resources, losses and quality of strategic leadership are critical to the outcome of negotiations.

For Western powers, this carries serious consequences. They have staked their reputation on this conflict and with it, the fate of the rules-based world order. The Global South and the multipolar world order is waiting in the wings to take over. Failure to achieve victory has the potential to fatally undermine that order and remove the West from global leadership, which it has enjoyed for the last several centuries.

keep readingShow less
Russia Navy United Kingdom Putin Starmer
Top Photo: Russian small missile ships Sovetsk and Grad sail along the Neva river during a rehearsal for the Navy Day parade, in Saint Petersburg, Russia July 21, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

How Russia’s naval rearmament has gone unnoticed

Europe

Today, there are only three global naval powers: the United States, China, and Russia. The British Royal Navy is, sadly, reduced to a small regional naval power, able occasionally to deploy further afield. If Donald Trump wants European states to look after their own collective security, Britain might be better off keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic.

European politicians and journalists talk constantly about the huge challenge in countering an apparently imminent Russian invasion, should the U.S. back away from NATO under President Trump. With Russia’s Black Sea fleet largely confined to the eastern Black Sea during the war, although still able to inflict severe damage on Ukraine, few people talk about the real Russian naval capacity to challenge Western dominance. Or, indeed, how this will increasingly come up against U.S. naval interests in the Pacific and, potentially, in the Arctic.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.