Republican Precedents on Nuclear Reductions

On the radar: Lessons from Nixon and Bush; the Case against phase four; Obama on Iran’s timeline; Problems with proximal deterrence; Military option, off the table; Politicizing intelligence; and Recording the lost ships of Bikini Atoll.

March 15, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Alyssa Demus

History lesson - Republicans on Capitol Hill have expressed opposition to further nuclear reductions outside of a formal treaty process. Reductions, they say, must be codified in a senate-approved treaty. And yet, “over the past 40 years, there is plenty of precedent—set by Republican presidents—to the contrary,” says Amb. Steven Pifer of Brookings.

--Evidence: President Nixon submitted the interim offensive arms agreement on strategic weapons as an “agreement requiring a simple majority vote by both houses of Congress rather than as a treaty requiring two-thirds majority approval in the Senate. [H. W. Bush] made deep unilateral cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal,” and President George W. Bush sought parallel statements of national policy with Russia in place of a treaty. Full post here. http://owl.li/iWRdN

Phased and confused - The Pentagon is looking into whether to move forward with phase four of its missile defense approach in Europe and developing the SM-3 block IIB interceptor. The U.S. should scrap phase these four plans, says Tom Collina in Foreign Policy, because the SM-3 IIB would be unnecessary, costly, and technologically impractical. All while undercutting a new round of nuclear negotiations with Russia.

--What does impractical look like? To achieve necessary speeds, the proposed SM-3 IIB might need a larger missile diameter and hazardous liquid propellant. This would stretch the Navy - slated to deploy the interceptor - by requiring it to modify ships to accommodate the missile while overturning a 25-year-old ban on using liquid propellants. The Navy would also have to commit more ships and park them in the North Sea. Full article here. http://atfp.co/15Qndqg

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

--Have a tip or feedback for the editor? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Timeline update - “Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon,” said President Obama to an Israeli TV station yesterday.

--”There is a window, not an infinite period of time, but a window of time where we can resolve this diplomatically...They are not yet at the point, I think, where they have made a fundamental decision to get right with the international community,” said the President. Michael Shear and David Sanger of The New York Times have the story. http://nyti.ms/WLq2sk

They’re long-range for a reason - A recent article in a South Korean paper had some odd quotes attributed to a high-ranking South Korean official about the U.S. keeping or moving nuclear weapons closer to South Korea. Jeffrey Lewis unpacks the many problems with the story. Included: 1) the U.S. doesn’t need to move its bombers or sub patrols any closer to have North Korea in range and 2) the nonstrategic nuclear weapons that used to be on ships near South Korea are retired/scrapped.

--Such “nonsense” described in the story “leaves unaddressed the inaccurate belief on the part of many South Koreans that extended deterrence functions better if there are weapons ‘close by.’ These misconceptions hamper relations,” notes Lewis. Full post at Arms Control Wonk. http://bit.ly/10PYv6w

Tweet - @ColinKahl: Good piece on Khamenei's nuclear fatwa as foundation for #Iran nuke deal. Bottom line: "trust but verify" http://bit.ly/Za9s2A

Sanctions & diplomacy - “We strongly support a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis, but the only reason Tehran has come to the negotiating table is that tough sanctions have been imposed by the United States and the world,” write Representatives Ed Royce and Eliot Engele, respectively, chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter to The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/10XdjUN

Scoring US strategy - The United States’ Iran strategy, a mix of “increasingly punitive economic sanctions, threats to use force, and engagement in various acts of covert pressure,” is coercive diplomacy, argues Stephen Walt in Foreign Policy. He examines the Iran case to assess whether that strategy will yield the desired results.

--Conclusion: “it is hard to be confident that military pressure on Iran will yield a positive diplomatic outcome. Which is yet another reason why I think we would be better off taking the threat of force off the table (thereby making it look less like blackmail and reducing Iran's interest in a latent or breakout capacity) and making the acceptable terms of a deal more explicit,” writes Walt. Full article here. http://owl.li/iZg4W

Tweet - @KelseyDav: Interesting insight into Iranian political discussions on the merits of bilateral negotiations with the US. @lrozen http://bit.ly/ZFmKlI

Getting the facts straight - Senate Resolution 65, co-sponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions and Chuck Schumer, calls for the U.S. to “provide support for Israeli strikes on Iran in the form of military, economic, and diplomatic backing.” The resolution which is “being called a backdoor to war with Iran,” is based on questionable intelligence that runs counter to the administration and intelligence community’s assessments of Iran’s nuclear program, writes Jamal Abdi in The Huffington Post. http://owl.li/iZ6eI

Events:

--P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom and United States) technical experts continue talks with Iran on its nuclear program. Istanbul. March 18-19.

--"Globalizing Reagan’s INF Treaty: Easier Done Than Said?" David Cooper, U.S. Naval War College, March 19, 9:00-10:30 a.m. @ George Washington University, Lindner Family Commons, 1957 E. St., NW, 6th floor. RSVP here. http://owl.li/iVGMM

--”Sustaining U.S. Nuclear Forces on a Tight Budget.” Barry Blechman, Russell Rumbaugh, Tom Collina, and Daryl Kimball. March 19, 9:30-11:00 a.m. @ Carnegie. Details and RSVP. http://bit.ly/XUNrVs

--"2013 Public Policy and Nuclear Threats Winter Conference.” Linton Brooks, former administrator, NNSA, and 18 other speakers. March 22-23. @ Univ. of California Washington Center, 1608 Rhode Island Ave., NW. Details here (pdf). http://owl.li/iVIvo

--”The Impact of Sanctions on Tehran’s Nuclear Calculations.” Bijan Khajehpour, Atieh International; Reza Marashi and Trita Parsi, National Iranian American Council. March 26, 12:00-1:30 p.m. @ Atlantic Council. Details here. http://owl.li/iWWtD

Dessert:

Deep sea documentarian - US nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll sent naval vessels to the bottom of the Pacific where they have remained ever since. Nearly seventy years later, oceanic “wreck diver and videographer Adrian Smith has launched a Kickstarter project to fund an expedition to document the forgotten wrecks.” Boing Boing has his video pitch. View here. http://owl.li/iZmiY