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
Warfare movie A24
Top photo credit: (official trailer for Warfare/A24)
'Warfare': Rare Iraq film that doesn't preach but packs truth

'Warfare': Rare Iraq War film that doesn't preach but packs punch

Media

Unlike Alex Garland’s Civil War, his Warfare, co-directed with war vet Ray Mendoza, is not just another attempt at a realistic portrayal of war, in all its blood and gore. Warfare, based on a true story, is really a parable about the overweening ambition and crushing failure of empire, a microcosm of America’s disastrous adventure in Iraq.

A Navy Seal mission reconnoiters a neighborhood in Ramadi. “I like this house,” says the team commander, reflecting the overconfidence of the empire at its unipolar moment. But it soon becomes clear that the mission has underestimated the enemy, that the whole neighborhood has, in fact, been tracking the Seals’ movements. Surprised and scared, the mission requests to be extricated. But extrication becomes a bloody, hellish experience despite the Seals’ technological edge in weapons, IT, and logistics, and it barely succeeds.

keep readingShow less
vietnam war memorial washington DC
Top photo credit: Washington, DC, May 24, 2024: A visitor reads the names of the fallen soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial at the National Mall ahead of Memorial Day. (A_Kiphayet/Shutterstock)

Veterans: What we would say to Trump on this Memorial Day

Military Industrial Complex

This Memorial Day comes a month after the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon, which was largely used to recall the collapse of the entire American project in Vietnam. In short, the failure of the war is now viewed as both a rebuke of the American Exceptionalism myth and the rigid Cold War mentality that had Washington in a vice grip for much of the 20th Century.

“The leaders who mismanaged this debacle were never held accountable and remained leading players in the establishment for the rest of their lives,” noted author and professor Stephen Walt in a RS symposium on the war. “The country learned little from this bitter experience, and repeated these same errors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and several other places.”

keep readingShow less
Ukraine war
Top image credit: HC FOTOSTUDIO via shutterstock.com

Should a Russia-Ukraine peace leave territorial control for later?

Europe

Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, there have been ongoing diplomatic efforts to broker a peace settlement in the three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. So far, however, negotiations have failed to bridge the stark divide between the two sides.

Two of the key contentious issues have been post-war security guarantees for Ukraine and the political status of Ukrainian territory claimed or annexed by Russia. Specifically, regarding territorial sovereignty, Ukraine and Russia have rejected the United States' proposal to “freeze” the war along the current line of conflict as a de facto new border. Ukraine has refused to renounce its claims of sovereignty over territories occupied by Russia (including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014). Russia, in turn, has demanded Ukraine’s recognition of Russia’s territorial claim over the entirety of the four Ukrainian regions, which Russia annexed in 2022.

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.