Don’t Hesitate to Extend the Iran Negotiations

July 17, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Don’t give up the fight - “Despite six months of negotiations, it seems unlikely that Iran and the major powers will complete an agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program by a self-imposed July 20 deadline,” writes The New York Times editorial board. “But they have left open the possibility of extending talks for up to six more months.”

--“They should not hesitate to do so. The whole point of this exercise is to ensure that Iran cannot produce a nuclear weapon. That goal is within reach, and it would be irresponsible not to make the maximum effort to bridge the final gaps.”

--“Weekend talks in Vienna involving Secretary of State John Kerry; the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif; and their European counterparts suggested enough movement, so far, to justify an extension. This will enrage Iran’s fiercest critics in Congress. But if talks are allowed to collapse on Sunday, the interim agreement reached in November, with which Iran has complied, would dissolve… there are risks in any deal. But there are many more if there is no deal, Iran’s program resumes unchecked and an opportunity to work with Iran on other regional challenges slips away.” Read the full piece here. http://nyti.ms/1qhXJQN

Tweet - @plough_shares: Some in congress want to make an #irandeal harder. 61% of Americans want a deal. #LetDiplomacyWork pic.twitter.com/jjD0L4dFWW

Extending talks - “President Barack Obama said he is considering extending talks aimed at curtailing Iran's nuclear program, a move that could exacerbate tensions between the White House and Congress over a top foreign-policy priority,” write Carol Lee and Laurence Norman in The Wall Street Journal. “Senior U.S. officials said Mr. Obama hadn't made a final decision on pushing back the July 20 deadline for reaching a long-term nuclear agreement with Iran, which would replace an interim deal secured in November.” Full story here. http://on.wsj.com/1rtKlG8

Tweet - @KelseyDav: State Dept. Official says still don't know when talks will finish up. Announcement could come on Friday but maybe not until Saturday.

Lets make a deal - With the Iran negotiations quickly approaching the July 20 deadline, failure would be very costly, “and not just because of the nuclear issue,” writes Paul Pillar in Politico. “If the two sides come to agreement and Iran is helped out of isolation, its unshackling could be immensely beneficial to America and the West. A more engaged Iran will be less likely to support terrorism and more likely to collaborate with the United States in ways that will serve American interests and the cause of peace and stability in the Middle East.”

--“Some consequences of more normal, post-nuclear-deal relations with Iran would be felt beyond the Middle East. Full resumption of Iranian oil exports would, for example, serve the Western interest of lowering the cost of oil and also of weakening the influence that Vladimir Putin’s Russia gets from its oil revenues. And the end of major sanctions would end the economic dislocations that sanctions bring to countries that impose them, including lost jobs in American and European export industries.”

--“Even with the rehabilitation that would come from a successful nuclear agreement, Iran will not suddenly become a Western ally. Being free to compete peacefully for influence as a normal state means being exactly that: a competitor. But this is a small price to pay for gaining some help—critical help—from an important country that sits smack in the middle of America’s biggest foreign-policy problems.” Full piece here. http://politi.co/1oMQBFn

Avoiding war - “If you don't want Iran to have the bomb and you don't want to bomb Iran, a diplomatic agreement is the solution. Yet some on Capitol Hill are already trying to wreck negotiations,” writes Jon Soltz in the Huffington Post. “There's reason to be optimistic. All sides appear committed to getting an effective deal and making progress toward getting one. But some in Washington are preparing to trash the deal -- even before it is finished.”

--“Senators Robert Menendez and Lindsey Graham are moving a letter around the Senate, setting out impossible demands upon our negotiators and positioning themselves for opposing the deal. This is shortsighted and unhelpful. People in Congress who root for the deal to fail have not thought through the alternatives: an Iranian bomb or starting a war to prevent one.”

--“As an Iraq war veteran who served two tours, at the beginning and end, I can tell you that I understand the alternatives,” Soltz says. “A nuclear Iran would trigger a new arms race in the region… The United States would almost certainly get sucked in… So, Congress has the responsibility to do everything it can before putting American troops in harms way -- as a last resort. Right now, that means letting diplomacy work and not undermining our negotiators.” Read the full piece here. http://huff.to/1p07W0h

Tweet - @AliVaez: Iran's Highly Enriched Bargaining Chip by @ColinKahl http://www. http://atfp.co/1l8qszv

Put PMDs in the past - “Iran’s past nuclear efforts are among the many thorny issues in the continuing Iran nuclear talks,” writes Greg Thielmann for Reuters. “But focusing on the past is a mistake. Instead of insisting on knowing all about what Iran’s nuclear program looked like 10 years ago, the United States and its allies should focus on preventing Tehran from building a nuclear weapon in the future.”

--“Though discussions between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are proceeding in parallel to the six-power nuclear negotiations with Iran, some argue that Tehran must ‘come clean’ on past military experiments before it can be trusted to make new commitments. But reaching and implementing a nuclear agreement should not be held hostage to resolving all the complicated questions about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s past nuclear programs.”

--“The success of the comprehensive deal in preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons depends first on the degree to which Iran’s future nuclear program is transparent and, second, on the extent to which its ‘breakout’ capability is limited. Achieving an Iranian confession of past sins is not going to happen, nor is it essential to preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons. What is essential are strict limits on Iran’s nuclear capability and intrusive verification and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities. Both these elements would be included in a comprehensive agreement.” Read the full piece here. http://reut.rs/1mXUSZl

From those who know - “Josh Fattal, one of the three American hikers held hostage in Iran, recited this poem while addressing the crowd during the Washington, D.C. stop of his book tour for A Sliver of Light: Three Americans Imprisoned in Iran. Together with his friends and fellow prisoners Shane Bauer and Sarah Shroud, Josh writes about their experiences being arrested at the Iraqi Kurdistan border and his more than two-year imprisonment.”

--“The three hikers undoubtedly understood that their imprisonment was a direct result of the long-standing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Josh's willingness to forgive and to push for a resolution to this long-standing conflict is needed at this historic moment more than ever. That is why, this week, Josh will come to the Hill to talk with members of Congress about the importance of supporting, not sabotaging a final nuclear deal.”

--“The most important point I'd like to impress on our negotiators and members of Congress is that this is a historic opportunity,” said Fattal. “Additionally, the human toll from decades of confrontation is immeasurable… A resolution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear capacity will finally lead us down a different path that no longer punishes the Iranian people for the actions of their leaders.” Read the full interview with Josh Fattal and Maiya Zwerling for The Huffington Post here. http://huff.to/1wxE9gS

Reality - “In addition to the domestic obstacles that each side faces, the fundamental barrier to an [Iran nuclear] agreement is the incompatibility of each side's core objective. For the United States (and possibly the rest of the P5+1 -- Britain, China, France, and Russia, plus Germany), the central goal is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, which means denying it a clear path to a weapon at any point in the future,” writes Stephen Walt for Foreign Policy. “For Iran, however, its nuclear program is an insurance policy against an American (or Israeli) effort at regime change.”

--“Obviously, reconciling these conflicting positions is not easy. In effect, it requires each side to be willing to live with less than its ultimate goal. The United States (and the rest of the P5+1) will have to live with the possibility -- however remote -- that Iran might be able to get a small nuclear weapons capability at some point in the future. Iran will have to live with the possibility that a future attempt to acquire an actual weapon might actually be thwarted by U.S. military action. It is within this gray area of mutual uncertainty in which a potential deal lies.”

--“And that's the real point to keep in mind. Iran knows how to enrich uranium, and it has the technical knowledge to build a nuclear weapon if it ever wants to. Unless the United States commits itself to bombing Iran repeatedly or to invading the country and deposing its government -- actions that would be completely idiotic as well as immoral -- it cannot physically prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. The only realistic approach, therefore, is to persuade Tehran that it is not in Iran's interest to go down that road. Trying to close off the path entirely is less likely to work than making that path less attractive than the alternative.” Read the full piece here. http://atfp.co/1rtPdeE

Self-harm - “By July 20, a historic deal may be reached to resolve the Iranian nuclear standoff,” write Jonathan Leslie, Reza Marashi, and Trita Parsi for CNN. “The choice America will face at that point is whether to lift sanctions on Iran in order to extract valuable and irreversible nuclear concessions from Tehran. Any debate over whether to exchange sanctions for limitations to Iran's nuclear program, however, would be incomplete at best and misleading at worst if it does not address the cost of this policy.”

--“Surprisingly, the U.S. government has not conducted any study to assess the cost of its two decades-long policy of sanctioning Iran. According to our study, based on an econometric gravity model that commonly is used to measure trade patterns, the United States is by far the biggest loser of all nations enforcing sanctions on Iran. From 1995 to 2012, the U.S. sacrificed between $134.7 and $175.3 billion in potential export revenue to Iran.”

--“These are astonishing numbers. But the human cost is even more surprising. Based on the Department of Commerce's annual report on jobs supported per billion dollars of exports, this lost export revenue translates into between 51,043 and 66,436 job opportunities lost per year on average. In 2008 alone, as many as 214,657 to 279,389 job opportunities were relinquished… If the Obama administration in the next few days manages to secure a deal over Iran's nuclear program, some in Washington will ask whether the deal is good enough to "give up sanctions." But the American public must also ask themselves if the cost of sanctions to the U.S. economy is worth shouldering if other options exist.” Read the full report here. http://cnn.it/1miQPT6

Can’t decide - “European Union leaders failed to agree on who should get the prestigious job as the 28-nation bloc's new foreign policy chief to succeed Catherine Ashton, who also chairs the international negotiations on Iran's nuclear program,” reports Juergen Baetz for AP. “Summit chairman Herman Van Rompuy said early Thursday the time was not yet ripe for a decision, and leaders will reconvene for another summit in Brussels to agree on their candidates late next month.” Full story here. http://apne.ws/1mQFr5N

Abysmal budget - As the uranium compounds recently stolen by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Mosul demonstrate, “Any loss or theft of enriched uranium, plutonium or other types of radioactive material is potentially alarming, as terrorist groups could try to use them to fashion a crude nuclear device or a ‘dirty bomb,’” writes Gabrielle Tarini in Nukes of Hazard. While many in the international community will be tempted to exhale a sigh of relief that the stolen material is not weapons grade and “focus their attention on the next crisis that will inevitably plague the region, the incident deserves attention because it sheds light on the larger and more important issue of nuclear security.”

--“Unfortunately, in its Fiscal Year 2015 budget request, the Administration shocked many by running completely contrary to its stated non-proliferation priorities. The White House made it overwhelmingly clear through its request that it would not accelerate the securing of nuclear and radiological materials around the globe despite the growing need to do so. Overall, the FY 2015 budget request cut $534 million in funding (relative to the enacted Fiscal Year 2014 funding level) for nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear terrorism prevention programs.”

--“So while the uranium seizure in Iraq last week was not a nuclear threat in and of itself, the incident once again underscores the need to make securing dangerous nuclear material around the globe—particularly in those areas of the world beset by instability and conflict—a top priority.” Read the full piece here. http://bit.ly/WjRcYz

Poor marks - “The Energy Department has given a key weapons lab an ‘inadequate’ rating for its latest safety record on ‘nuclear criticality,’ a measure of atomic stability,” writes Rachel Oswald in Global Security Newswire. “Los Alamos National Laboratory received the weakest nuclear criticality safety rating of all U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, though its performance is assessed to be getting better, according to a report released last week covering fiscal 2013.”

--“Nuclear criticality typically refers to a balance of neutrons in a reactor, with ‘subcriticality’ suggesting underproduction and ‘supercriticality’ suggesting overproduction. Nuclear criticality safety is the practice of preventing atomic chain reactions from taking place in fissile materials outside of reactors. The Los Alamos facility in New Mexico had 38 nuclear criticality safety infractions in the last fiscal year and received an overall performance rating of ‘does not meet expectations.’" Full article here. http://bit.ly/1zMrrPD

Tightening cooperation - “Dozens of officials and experts want to tighten global cooperation on analyzing atomic materials, partly to help identify perpetrators of possible nuclear strikes,” writes Diane Barnes in Global Security Newswire. “Participants in a landmark international conference said the world's ability to trace incriminating nuclear materials to their origins could improve substantially if governments work together on the matter, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Tuesday.”

--“They argued such collaboration would prove ‘essential’ for nuclear forensics capabilities to keep up with the growing reach and sophistication of criminal and terror networks, the International Atomic Energy Agency added in a statement. Still, The Vienna-based organization offered few specifics on how meeting participants want to boost collaboration.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1jTqFvD

Fund reallocation - “The Pentagon is seeking congressional permission to reallocate funds to its program for homeland ballistic missile defense,” Global Security Newswire reports. “The Defense Department needs all four Capitol Hill defense committees to sign off on its request to redirect $187.5 million toward ballistic missile-defense activities. The majority of that amount -- $167 million -- would go to the Ground Based Interceptor program. The long-range interceptor is a critical component of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, which is the country's principal line of defense against a limited intercontinental ballistic missile strike.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1r6nkdn

MOX funding - “The Energy and Water Appropriations bill was debated last week, with members of the committee offering up various amendments,” writes Derrek Asberry in The Star. “The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility program made it through the amendment process with the funding request still intact. The $345 million is $149 million more than what appeared in President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. Obama’s budget request seeks to place the program in a cold stand-by.” Full article here. http://bit.ly/1mXI0Cx

New tools for non-proliferation - “Innovating Verification: New Tools & New Actors to Reduce Nuclear Risks is a four-report series outlining the recommendations from NTI's Verification Pilot Project, which involved more than 40 technical and policy experts from around the world. They explored new approaches to verification that could prompt near-term progress on non-proliferation and nuclear security and enable future progress on arms reductions.” Read the full reports from the Nuclear Threat Initiative here. http://bit.ly/1nApOuC

Quick-hits:

--“The P5+1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert, July 16” in Arms Control Now. http://bit.ly/Ucmhvf

--“Obama cites ‘real progress’ in Iran nuclear talks” by Kathleen Hennessey and Paul Richter in the Los Angeles Times. http://lat.ms/UdORNb

--“India Makes Small Non-proliferation Progress” by Brenna Gautam in Nukes of Hazard. http://bit.ly/1nAnGD3

--“Iran election tactics drive nuclear deal timetable” by Parisa Hafezi for Reuters. http://reut.rs/1neLfXM

--“Still Looking for Obama’s Rebalance to Asia? Support a Deal with Iran” by Scott Bates for The Diplomat. http://bit.ly/1tRfLe0

--“Why Tehran Loves Iran Hawks” by Zachary Keck for The Diplomat. http://bit.ly/UdoQ0C

Events:

--“Ready for an Iran Deal: No Nuke & No War.” Briefing call from the Truman National Security Project; moderated by Dave Solimini. July 17 at 12:30, call-in number and link provided in RSVP confirmation materials. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1zrGtdx

--“The Consequences of No Nuclear Deal with Iran.” Discussion with Trita Parsi and Jofi Joseph; moderated by Barbara Slavin. July 17 from 2:30 to 4:00 at the Atlantic Council, 12th floor, 1030 15th St. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1mhyKF1

--“Nuclear Centers of Excellence in Asia: Next Steps.” Discussion with Kazunori Hirao, Laura Holgate, and 11 other speakers. July 18 from 9:00 to 4:00 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 212-A/B Conference Room, 1616 Rhode Island Ave. NW. RSVP by email to Robert Kim at rkim@csis.org

--“Iran: Diplomacy or War?” Netroots Nation discussion with Ali Gharib, Heather Hurlburt, and Sen. Chris Murphy; moderated by Matt Duss. July 18 from 11:00 to 12:15 at COBO Center, Room 141, 1 Washington Blvd., Detroit, MI. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1jtO5rr

--“Progressive National Security in the 2014 Elections and Beyond.” Netroots Nation discussion with Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione, Mike Darner, and Megan Minnion; moderated by Emily Cadei. July 19 from 1:30 to 2:45 at COBO Center, Room 140 D, 1 Washington Blvd., Detroit, MI. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1jtO5rr

--“Iran’s Nuclear Chess: Calculating America’s Moves.” Discussion with Robert Litwak, Mitchell Reiss, and David Sanger. July 21 from 12:00 to 1:15 at the Wilson Center, 5th floor, Reagan building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1oVD4hv

--“The Future of WMD in 2030.” Off the record discussion with John Caves and Seth Carus. July 24 12:00 to 1:30 at the National Defense University, Lincoln Hall, Room 1119, Fort McNair, Washington. RSVP by email to Nima Gerami at nima.gerami@ndu.edu.

--“Nuclear Politics on the Korean Peninsula.” Discussion with seven speakers. July 28 from 3:00 to 5:15 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://ceip.org/1sTSpjA