A Fact-Based Discussion of Options with Iran

On the radar: Pickering, Zinni, and Walsh; P5+1 proposal for Iran in the works; the Uncertain future of Nunn-Lugar; Blown red lines; the Bombs we left behind; Sen. Alexander on Y-12 security; and the fascinating, harmful world of Plutonium.

October 12, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke

Assessment - An attack on Iran could set back its nuclear program by several years, but, barring a large land invasion, it’s unlikely that air strikes will force Iran to capitulate to U.S. demands. Amb. Thomas Pickering, Gen. Anthony Zinni, and nuclear expert Jim Walsh assess the consequences of using military strikes against Iran.

--”In a time marred by hyper-partisan rhetoric, we believed the American people deserve a fact-based discussion of the objectives, costs, benefits, timing, capabilities and exit strategy that should govern any decision to use military force.” From the Chicago Tribune. http://bit.ly/QVAVTi

Diplomatic solution - The P5+1 is set to renew a diplomatic push in the coming months to resolve the crisis with Iran peacefully.

--”A ‘reformulated’ proposal will offer limited relief from existing sanctions and other incentives for Iran to limit the level of enrichment of its uranium stockpile. An attempt will be made to sequence the steps required to reach a deal to overcome the mutual distrust that helped sink previous rounds of negotiations, where each side appeared to wait for the other to make the first major concession,” writes Julian Borger at The Guardian. http://bit.ly/RlVfO3

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Tweet - @USAmbNATO Ivo Daalder: Clutch wins by @Nationals and @Orioles last nite keep possible #BeltwaySeries alive!

Watching the Orioles, not the VP debate? - Read the transcript of the debate here. Then tell friends that the only thing more impressive than the amount of smirking was Martha Raddatz’s professionalism. http://bit.ly/UPF9Qc

Nunn-Lugar - In the beginning of the Nunn-Lugar program, Russia had urgent security needs and an empty treasury. Accepting assistance from the U.S. was necessary, given the dangers loose WMD. As David Hoffman notes, “Today, a resurgent Russia can easily afford to carry on the dismantlement and clean-up with its own money. That is one reason for their decision to end the agreement. Another one surely has to do with pride and the desire to shed dependence on the United States for anything.”

--”What will matter now is whether, without U.S. assistance, Russia has the willpower and the determination to continue the mission on its own.”

--In the Foreign Ministry announcement, there was a suggestion that Russia might be open to a new agreement that would better fit Russia's situation today. No telling what will go into such a deal, or whether it is even possible given the recent tensions, but it is worth a try.” Full post at Foreign Policy. http://bit.ly/TjDAms

State - “We are still in talks...[Russia officials] have told us that they want revisions to the previous agreement. We are prepared to work with them on those revisions, and we want to have conversations about it," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. From CNN. http://bit.ly/QVAVTi

Line of red lines - Israel has issued seven red lines on Iran’s nuclear program, by Graham Allison’s count. From 1995 to today, there’s been a red line set for contracts on a civilian nuclear reactor, operational conversion plant, enrichment to 5%, mastery of enrichment, a bomb’s worth of 5% LEU, no covert facilities, and no enrichment above 5%. Iran blew past each of them.

--Allison talks about the effect of “crying wolf” on Israel’s credibility and deterrent threats. Ultimately, if Iran is to be kept from getting a bomb, all parties must focus on specific actions. Sanctions and a credible military threat are “part of the equation,” notes allison. “What remains missing from this equation are terms for halting Iran's nuclear progress that any Iranian government could plausibly accept.“ http://bit.ly/TbLpei

Bombs and budgets - “One of the first things the United States did as the Soviet Union dissolved was remove thousands of its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe. But they left a small stash, just in case. Now, the U.S. could spend $10 billion to overhaul those nukes it left behind,” writes your humble Early Warning editor at GOOD. http://bit.ly/SPLJCZ

--See Also: “The Half-Trillion Dollar Nuclear Budget” http://huff.to/TgSPMY

Y-12 security - Responding to a question about the recent break-in at the Y-12 nuclear facility in Tennessee, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said, “It's an indefensible incident, and I think we need to complete the review of how it happened.”

--Asked about if security at the site should be transfered to the U.S. military, as suggested by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), Sen. Alexander said, “I'm not ready to transfer all responsibility to the Defense Department at this stage.” Frank Munger has the story. http://bit.ly/Ot4v2s

Candidates & Crisis - “In thinking about these two [presidential] candidates, we need to imagine them in the cauldron of October 1962. Do they have the resolution to take the nation to the brink of war to deter an adversary? Do they have the creativity and humility to see events through their adversaries’ eyes, and find a path to peace?” asks David Ignatius at The Washington Post in an article on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. http://wapo.st/Q58uyn

Event - “50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Future Nuclear Security Nuclear Security Challenges” Dr. Martin Hellman of Stanford and Charles Ferguson of the Federation of American Scientists discuss the history of the crisis and ask, “With threats from North Korea, Iran, and other terrorist groups, could this happen again?”

--Thurs. Oct. 18th from 9:00 -10:00 am in Rayburn B-369. RSVP and details here. http://bit.ly/Qh7Cc9

Pu - “There’s something alluring to folks like me about the idea of a chemically irritable, glowing man-made element named after the god of the dead that catches fire on its own and can be used to blow up entire cities,” writes Alex Wellerstein about Plutonium.

--While Plutonium is scientifically interesting, it’s also highly toxic, and communities located near plutonium fabrication facilities in the U.S. were exposed to the element and its severe health risks. Wellerstein talks about Pu and Rocky Flats. http://bit.ly/Wbe4EZ