Iraq declared that work on the turbo pump to feed simultaneously four Volga/SA2 missile engine combustion chambers actually started at the beginning of 1995. Assistance from abroad had been sought by Iraq for this project. Iraq stated that the effort achieved no tangible results. According to the Commission's assessment, a single stage missile with four engines of this type could have a range in excess of the permitted limit of 150 kilometers.

Iraq declared that work on the 7-ton thrust missile engine had only started in June 1995. Such an engine could increase substantially the propulsive force of the then-declared missile system under development, which already had a range just below the permitted threshold of 150 kilometers. The engineer involved in the project claimed to have no knowledge of the purpose of the development of the new engine. He stated that no designs had been completed. No documentation has been provided by Iraq regarding these activities.

...Available evidence shows that around August 1991, Iraq started a secret project to construct a surface-to-surface missile called "J-1" without notifying the Commission as required by the Security Council resolutions. No aspect of the J-1 program -- from design, to parts manufactured, to flight-testing -- was declared to the Commission until late 1995 i.e. some two years after it was allegedly aborted. Iraq states that Lt. General Hussein Kamil issued the orders both for the project itself and for the requirement to keep it a secret from the Commission.

During the period when work on the J-1 project was ongoing, the Commission's inspectors were told by Iraq that it was merely developing a non-proscribed Ababil-100 missile that it had declared to the Commission. As it is known now, the Ababil 100 had some specifications similar to the J-1. Iraq admitted later that its intention had been to hide the "covert" undeclared project from inspectors within "open" work being done at declared missile facilities. Specific measures were taken by Iraq to conceal the J-1 effort from the inspection teams. Components for J-1 missiles were hidden or removed before visits of inspection teams.

The J-1 project was declared abandoned in May 1993. According to Iraq's declarations, prototypes of the J-1 missile were built and six flight tests were conducted in January - April 1993. Iraq provided several documents as well as imagery showing some of the test launches. Some components said to be produced under the J-1 program were also shown to inspectors. The Commission has conducted document and computer searches at the relevant facilities to find additional supporting data - such as contemporaneous production records - to verify Iraq's declarations, albeit without success. Iraq stated that some of the hardware associated with the project had unilaterally been melted in foundries after the J-1 project had been stopped in May 1993.

Iraq's development of the J-1 surface-to-surface missile was based on the Volga/SA2 surface-to-air missile with certain modifications, particularly to its engine and guidance and control system. There were key similarities between the J-1 missile and the Fahad missiles that were under development in Iraq before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991). The Fahad missiles, based also on modification of Volga/SA2 systems, were proscribed weapons with declared ranges of 300 or 500 kilometers.

Iraq declared that the J-1 missile had never been intended to reach proscribed ranges, and stated that the longest range achieved during the tests in 1993 was 134 kilometers. The Commission has no independent information that verifies the ranges achieved in the J-1 missile flight tests. The Commission's analysis indicates that the system, as tested, was inherently capable of reaching proscribed ranges. Given certain technical aspects associated with this project, it will be difficult to conclusively verify Iraq's declarations."

There were key similarities between the J-1 missile and the Fahad missiles that were under development in Iraq before the adoption of resolution 687 (1991). Iraq's development of the J-1 surface-to-surface missile was based on the Volga/SA2 surface-to-air missile with certain modifications, particularly to its engine and guidance and control system. During the period when work on the J-1 project was ongoing, UNSCOM inspectors were told by Iraq that it was merely developing a non-proscribed Ababil-100 missile that it had declared to UNSCOM.

Since the Gulf War, Iraq has been openly developing two short-range missiles up to a range of 150 km, which are permitted under UN Security Council Resolution 687. The al-Samoud liquid propellant missile has been extensively tested and is being deployed to military units. Intelligence indicates that at least 50 have been produced. Intelligence also indicates that Iraq has worked on extending its range to at least 200 km in breach of UN Security Resolution 687. Production of the solid propellant Ababil-100 (Figure 4) is also underway, probably as an unguided rocket at this stage. There are also plans to extend its range to at least 200 km. Compared to liquid propellant missiles, those powered by solid propellant offer greater ease of storage, handling and mobility. They are also quicker to take into and out of action and can stay at a high state of readiness for longer periods.

The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.

During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programs. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Earlier this week, UNMOVIC missile experts met for two days with experts from a number of Member States to discuss these items. The experts concluded unanimously that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150 kilometers in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) and the monitoring plan adopted by resolution 715 (1991).

As for the Al Fatah, the experts found that clarification of the missile data supplied by Iraq was required before the capability of the missile system could be fully assessed.

…Under UNSCOM monitoring during the 1990s, the missile had a diameter of 50 centimeters. In spite of explicit UNSCOM prohibitions, however, it acquired a bigger brother (sometimes called the al-Samoud 2) with a diameter of 76 centimeters, close to the Scud's diameter of 88 centimeters. The issue of diameters is not a quibble; for a missile of a given length, the amount of propellant it can hold grows with the square of its diameter. Hence, the al-Samoud 2 could carry 2.3 times as much propellant as the smaller variant, leading Schmucker to estimate that it could fly nearly twice as far.

…These performance estimates do not account for the possibility that improvements may have been made to the missile in the years since UNSCOM monitoring. Schmucker's 1999 estimates envisioned "medium term" improvements that could extend the range of the smaller al-Samoud to 230 kilometers with its full 300-kilogram payload. With a payload reduced to 200 kilograms, the range would rise to 300 kilometers. Presumably, the larger missile's range could be increased correspondingly.

Moreover, as with the Tammuz II (an SA-2 on top of an al-Husayn), the al-Samoud could be incorporated into a two-stage missile. Depending on the specifics of the design, a 300-kilogram payload could be delivered to a range in excess of 1,000 kilometers. Such a missile is not publicly reported to exist at present, but many former UNSCOM inspectors fear that it may be the next step.

Iraq also planned to use the SA-2 as the second stage of the Tammuz II missile; by installing it on top of an al-Husayn missile (a stretched Scud), designers hoped to attain a range of 2,000 kilometers.

After the Gulf War, Iraq tried to adapt the SA-2 as a secret missile (termed the G-1 or J-1), but all flight tests failed. Iraq had far better success transforming the SA-2 into the al-Samoud, whose claimed range fell below the 150-kilometer limit prescribed by the ceasefire terms. In order to make this adaptation, Iraq combined the technology of the SA-2 with that of a proscribed missile, the Scud.

Iraq never fully accounted for its existing missile programs. Discrepancies in Baghdad's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a small force of extended-range Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warheads. Further, Iraq never explained the disposition of advanced missile components, such as guidance and control systems, that it could not produce on its own and that would be critical to developmental programs.

Iraq declared that, in the beginning of 1989, it attempted to complete the BADR 2000 project by itself, in particular the production of solid propellant motors. This time it decided to deal directly with the supplier companies or their middlemen, as well as to rely on indigenous capabilities. Some additional materials, equipment and technologies were received by Iraq in 1989 and 1990. In late 1995 and early 1996, Iraq provided to the Commission substantial documentation, including contracts with suppliers, to support its declarations on the BADR 2000 project. UNSCOM was unable to verify Iraq's declarations with the original supplier Government.

Iraq declared that it had never been successful in commissioning the production or integration facilities it had been building, nor in manufacturing any complete BADR 2000 missiles, nor had it received from abroad any operational missiles of this system.

In response to resolution 687 (1991), Iraq declared three facilities which had been under construction in Iraq as part of the BADR 2000 infrastructure as well as some of the equipment and materials procured for the program. The Commission supervised the destruction of all declared items. In February 1992, the Commission also identified, for destruction in accordance with resolution 687 (1991), additional critical equipment and buildings at these facilities. Initially, Iraq refused to comply with this decision. Following Iraq's disclosure of the unilateral destruction in March 1992, Iraq relented and the equipment and buildings at the BADR 2000 facilities were destroyed under the Commission's supervision. In 1996, Iraq declared that it had diverted critical tools and materials from the BADR 200 program and buried them in a hide site. These items had been declared unilaterally destroyed and were shown to the Commission in May 1992. 

These are the only missiles known to have had chemical and biological warheads. Iraq declared that it had imported 819 combat warheads for proscribed missiles of SCUD/Al Hussein class and that 121 combat warheads of the same type had been produced indigenously or had been under production at the time of adoption of resolution 687.

There is no evidence Iraq ever successfully tested a 900 kilometer missile based on the Scud. It did successfully test the booster for the Al Abid. The maximum range of Iraq's surviving missiles, therefore, is 650 kilometers.

The 30 CW combat warheads (16 filled with sarin and 14 with the alcohol component) were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision in 1991-1993. Iraq's declarations on the disposal of the remaining 45 combat special warheads out of the 75 declared as produced, stated that they had been unilaterally destroyed in early July 1991. The assessment of the warhead remnants excavated since August 1997 allows for the identification of 43-45 special warheads coming from the sites of the declared unilateral destruction.

Iraq's declarations and supporting documents include a specific distribution, by their type and warfare agent filling, of the 45 special warheads unilaterally destroyed in July 1991. According to Iraq's declarations, 20 of them were chemical weapons and contained only the alcohol component of the CW binary system. Analysis at the laboratories designated by the Commission has detected the presence of degradation products of nerve agents, in particular VX, on a number of warhead remnants which were excavated. A meeting of international experts, including representatives of the three laboratories, which was held on 22-23 October 1998 concluded that "the existence of VX degradation products conflicts with Iraq's declarations that the unilaterally destroyed special warheads had never been filled with any chemical warfare agents. The findings by all three laboratories of chemicals known to be degradation products of decontamination compounds also do not support Iraq's declarations that those warhead containers had only been in contact with alcohols." Clarification by Iraq of these issues as recommended by the meeting would allow the Commission to make a determination whether or not the current assessment of the quantity of special warheads identified amongst the remnants excavated, accounts for all special warheads declared to have been produced by Iraq and provides for the verification of their unilateral destruction.

Iraq described in detail the procedures and methods of unilateral destruction of the special warheads by explosive demolition. After examination of the relevant destruction sites and the special warhead remnants recovered from them, the Commission found that Iraq's explanations were, in general, plausible. However, in one aspect dealing with the destruction of BW warheads, the Commission, after consulting a group of international experts, assessed that Iraq's declaration that 15 warheads had been destroyed simultaneously conflicted with physical evidence collected at the declared location of their unilateral destruction. This finding indicated that not all BW warheads had been destroyed at the same time as declared by Iraq and that Iraq had retained some BW warheads after the declared July 1991 unilateral destruction date. The discrepancies between Iraq's current declarations on its unilateral destruction of the special warheads and the physical evidence collected at the destruction site need to be clarified. In addition, the Commission's investigations showed that Iraq had not provided the true locations of the hiding, prior to the declared unilateral destruction, of at least half of the special warheads including the above mentioned 15 BW warheads. In December 1998, Iraq again identified new locations of storage pits from where the warheads had been moved to the unilateral destruction sites. The Commission could not again confirm that the newly identified locations had been used for hiding warheads. Iraq's continuous inability to disclose hide sites of the special warheads has also prevented the Commission's verification of declared unilateral destruction of the special warheads.

Evidence has been recovered pointing to Iraq's attempts to design and produce non-conventional warheads for missiles other than Al Hussein. Despite available documentary evidence of work on non-conventional warheads for so called FROG short-range missiles in 1990, Iraq insisted that all such work was done only in 1988 without any success or follow-up attempts. Iraq denied any activities related to non-conventional warheads for Volga/SA 2 surface-to-air missiles that it was modifying for surface-to-surface application.

After the adoption of resolution 687 (1991), Iraq also retained specialized tooling and fixtures that had been used with production equipment for proscribed missile production. Only after the submission of its latest FFCD in the missile area in June 1996 and after the Commission presented its evidence, did Iraq declare that "most important" tooling for missile production equipment - in particular, for proscribed Al Hussein missile airframe and engine manufacturing - had been purposefully diverted from the earlier declared July 1991 unilateral destruction. According to Iraq, these tools and some missile components were then buried at a site of the Special Republican Guard in a manner such that they would be preserved for future use. Iraq claimed that the tooling hidden at this site had been excavated secretly by Iraqi personnel in March 1992 and had been subsequently unilaterally destroyed.

Iraq declared that, at the time of the adoption of resolution 687 (1991), it had also decided to retain components and assemblies of proscribed missiles but then unilaterally destroyed them in the second half of 1991. As reported above, Iraq stated that most of the items had been melted in secret.

Iraq also retained technological and know-how documentation required for the production of proscribed missiles, in particular of the Al Hussein class. Boxes of such documentation were obtained by the Commission in August 1995 at the so-called "Chicken farm." The documentation included detailed plans, procedure manuals and drawings for production of proscribed missiles and their components. It should be noted that technological documentation for the final assembly of Al Hussein missiles was not found either in the boxes of August 1995 or since.

Iraq retained, until late 1995, a parachute device for retarding Al Hussein warheads despite repeated questions posed by the Commission concerning such a proscribed device. Iraq has not provided technically consistent explanations for the procurement of such systems prior to adoption of resolution 687 (1991) nor for the retention of the set until 1995.

Work on proscribed key missile components and designs; importation of proscribed missile components and secret acquisition of items declarable under the Monitoring plan

The Commission has obtained evidence that Iraq continued work on some key proscribed missile components after the adoption of resolutions 687 (1991) and 715 (1991). In particular, this involved such areas as gyroscope instruments for prohibited missile guidance and control systems, a technology Iraq had not fully succeeded in developing itself prior to the Gulf war. Most of these prohibited activities were declared by Iraq only in late 1995 or early 1996.

After the adoption of resolution 687 (1991), Iraq continued to import components for gyroscope instruments until at least November 1991. These components had been ordered by Iraq prior to the Gulf war specifically for use in proscribed missiles. Iraq initially denied any dealing with the supplier of these components but, given the information obtained by the Commission, admitted extensive deals with the supplier. Iraq could not provide evidence to support its statements that, contrary to available evidence and documentation, only a single contract was signed with this supplier in May 1988 for the delivery of proscribed gyroscope instruments and their components had been in force.

In November 1993, "working groups" were established in Iraq tasked to work on gyroscope instruments of the proscribed missile. Iraq declared that the order to begin this effort was issued by Lt. General Hussein Kamil. To accomplish the task, samples of original SCUD-B gyroscopes were required. As Iraq's officials told the Commission, one engineer, of his own accord, had kept one set of three such gyroscopic instruments in his home as a "souvenir." The engineer then decided to turn these instruments over to the new working groups. In addition, a technician is said to have turned in microfilmed drawings of proscribed gyroscopic instruments done by a foreign supplier prior to the Gulf War. Iraq declared that the gyroscope project had been stopped after only two weeks of work. Drawings produced by the working groups, along with the gyroscopes themselves, were claimed to have been confiscated by Iraqi authorities in 1993, but it was decided not to hand them over to the Commission at that time. The microfilm with drawings was said to have been destroyed. Due to the lack of supporting documentation, the Commission is not able to verify Iraq's declarations on the nature and duration of these proscribed activities nor on disposal of all proscribed items and drawings involved.

Evidence available to the Commission shows that during the same period of time, in 1993, Iraq attempted to procure from abroad guidance components for proscribed Al Hussein missiles. This poses the obvious question why there was a need to procure, in 1993, components specifically used in proscribed missiles when all such missiles had been allegedly destroyed in 1991. A missile facility in Iraq signed a contract with a foreign middleman to acquire a key component (potentiometers) for proscribed SCUD-B/Al Hussein gyroscopes that Iraq stated it was not able to produce or procure before the Gulf war. Under the contact, the middleman purchased and brought to Iraq a number of components and samples of proscribed missile gyroscopes. According to Iraq, its officials learned of the content of the shipment and ordered it to be removed from the country. They warned missile establishments in Iraq not to deal further with this middleman. The shipment was declared removed from Iraq in May 1994. The Commission was not able to verify the content of the shipment nor its removal from Iraq.

In August 1994, two major missile facilities in Iraq signed new contracts with the same middleman whom they had been warned not to deal with. According to Iraq, the director of one of them included in his order a "secret list" detailing a wide variety of production and other technologies including missile gyroscope instruments that the middleman was to deliver. The "secret list" from this contract was worth several million dollars. After several months, the middleman obtained from a foreign supplier a cache of gyroscopes and accelerometers for long range missiles proscribed under resolution 687 (1991). The middleman managed to ship some of these proscribed items to Iraq in July 1995. A shipment of additional gyroscopes under the contract was intercepted in Jordan in November 1995. Iraq initially denied that it had been involved in this acquisition of proscribed items. When it admitted its involvement in December 1995, it stated that the middleman mistakenly purchased gyroscopes which Iraq had never ordered. The Government of Iraq declared that it had formally investigated this case. Documents related to the middleman's activities were provided to the Commission. The Commission has conducted an extensive investigation into this case. The investigations confirmed that Iraq's authorities and missile facilities had been involved in the acquisition of proscribed components.

At the end of 1994 or the beginning of 1995, an order was issued to design a multi-stage Space Launch Vehicle capable of placing a small satellite into a very low orbit. Such a missile system would be capable of carrying weapon payloads far beyond permitted ranges. According to Iraq's declarations, missile establishments started a feasibility study. Several designs based on Volga/SA2 surface-to-air missiles were simulated. The report on this study was prepared in February 1995, concluding that the idea was not feasible given the capabilities available to Iraq. Allegedly the project was stopped shortly thereafter. This project was declared to the Commission in August 1995. Simulations of the system's trajectory, some minutes of meetings and a portion of the final report were provided by Iraq as supporting evidence. The chief engineer involved in the project stated that he knew at the time that this subject was prohibited by the United Nations and that clustering and multi-stage techniques as well as separation techniques were proscribed under resolution 715 (1991).

Until late 1995, Iraq retained a number of original gyroscope instruments for proscribed SCUD-B/Al Hussein missiles. In October 1995, Iraq turned over to the Commission more than a dozen proscribed gyroscopes and related technical drawings. Iraq explained that, following Lt. General Hussein Kamil's defection, an "amnesty" order was issued by the Government. By this order, retained proscribed components could be turned over "anonymously" at various collection points. The gyroscopes appeared as a result of this campaign. The Commission asked for specific explanations regarding the reasons for retention of proscribed items, the "collection" sites, dates of collection of items, etc. Iraq has not provided complete clarifications of these events.

In January 1996, a Commission inspection team discovered, during an on-site inspection of a missile facility, computer files with a missile simulation program. They contained evidence that in July 1992, a flight simulation of a 3-stage missile had been executed. The simulated missile was based on proscribed SCUD-B missiles. Iraq described the product of the simulation as a "Space Launch Vehicle" that was an effort of an unidentified engineer working on his own. The inspection team later determined that the input/output data, as well as the simulation program itself, had been copied to floppy diskettes in September 1992. Forensic examination also revealed that the diskettes obtained by the team were part of a larger collection of computer disks that were not found by the team nor provided by Iraq. Due to the manner in which Iraq interfered with the team's analysis of the acquired diskettes, a proper chain of evidence was not maintained, resulting in additional questions related to the nature and implications of the proscribed activities discovered.

In late 1995, Iraq declared that it had imported, in 1994, a large vacuum furnace without providing a notification to the Commission. According to Iraq, it ordered this equipment from a foreign supplier prior to the adoption of resolution 687 (1991) and specifically for production of engines for Al Hussein missiles. Pending results of its investigation of this illegal procurement, the Commission tagged components of the furnace and placed them under monitoring. In mid 1998, Iraq undertook to assemble the furnace and began its installation at one of its declared facilities for production of missile engines. The ongoing installation activities were under the Commission's monitoring.

In late 1993, a large shipment of ammonium perchlorate, a key ingredient of missile solid propellant, was intercepted in one of the regional sea ports outside Iraq. The shipment was intended for Iraq's missile programs. This attempt to import missile-related materials, explicitly covered under the Monitoring plan, was not voluntarily declared by Iraq until the Commission's knowledge of this attempt was revealed to Iraq by the Commission.

Concealment of ballistic missile projects and facilities specifically established for missile-related production

Available evidence revealed that after the adoption of resolution 687 (1991), Iraq operated in secrecy a facility for the production of liquid propellant missile engines. The facility known as the Sadiq factory was established by a team from Project 1728 (production of proscribed Al Hussein missile engines). The facility's activity was not declared to the Commission until December 1995. Iraq stated that the work on liquid propulsion missile engines began in early 1992. This effort was declared as directed at the reverse-engineering and production of the Volga/SA2 missile engine as well as the manufacture of certain components such as missile engine shut-off valves, which the original Volga/SA2 engine did not have, but which are required for a surface-to-surface ballistic missile. Specific measure were taken to conceal this effort from inspection teams.

A series of static tests under this project were conducted by Iraq in 1992 and 1993. The first five tests were not declared to the Commission and were thus not monitored by inspection teams. While the plan called for production of five sets of engine hardware, Iraq declared that a smaller number of parts and components had been actually produced but that no engine had ever been assembled. Some of these parts and components were later shown to an inspection team while others were declared to have been unilaterally melted. Little documentary evidence has been made available by Iraq to support its declarations regarding the nature of missile engine production activities at the Sadiq Factory.

Iraq had a project, prior to the Gulf War, to construct a dedicated facility to indigenously produce proscribed missile propellants for Al Hussein missiles (for details, see Section 2, above). The project continued after the adoption of resolution 687 (1991) in April 1991. After the Commission presented its evidence of such activities to Iraq, Iraq admitted in 1996 that such a project had existed and its construction had continued after April 1991. Iraq explained that the completion of the construction of the project's buildings had been accomplished as a part of the "reconstruction campaign" and the project had not been fully implemented due to technical difficulties in the procurement of some equipment. No supporting documentation has been provided by Iraq to support its declarations.

Available evidence shows that since the adoption of resolutions 687 and 715 (1991), Iraq has been seeking foreign assistance to support its declared and undeclared efforts in the missile area. The assistance sought ranged from the acquisition of particular missile parts and components, to the provision of comprehensive support for the development and production of missiles in Iraq. In most cases, Iraq did not declare these efforts or its foreign partners to the Commission until they were either fulfilled, declared abandoned by Iraq, or discovered by the Commission.