How Hawks Could Scuttle an Effective Iran Deal

On the radar: Previewing the opposition; NGOs support diplomacy; Extension murmurs; Uncertainty over sanctions; BUFF upgrades; Pyongyang delivery vehicle rumors; Goodbye Yoda; and China’s boomers.

October 27, 2014 | Edited by Jacob Marx and Will Saetren

The coming sanctions scrum - “If you prefer war with Iran over a deal with Iran – even one that would prevent it from building a bomb — your best and possibly last opportunity to kill the deal is immediately after the nuclear talks have concluded,” writes Trita Parsi in a column for Reuters. “That’s when distrust of Iran’s intentions will remain pervasive and when its commitment to carry out its side of the deal will still have to be demonstrated.”

--Upon reaching a deal, congressional opponents to the negotiations are seeking a quick vote on lifting sanctions on Iran’s economy. Their hope is that they will have enough votes to kill any agreement that is reached by the P5+1 talks. “Ironically, Iranians, too, seek an immediate vote on lifting the sanctions, though for reasons quite different from hawkish lawmakers in Congress. The hawks want a quick vote the better to kill the deal. The Iranians want a quick vote the better to get permanent sanctions relief sooner.”

--“In the middle is the Obama administration, which is seeking a path that would make the deal durable by offering Tehran reversible economic relief at the outset of the deal with a promise to make it permanent once Iran has fully delivered on its end of the bargain. And that is precisely what congressional opponents fear...Such a scenario would undermine congressional opposition because the Iranians would be allowed to prove over at least the course of a year that they are a trustworthy partner living up to their commitments under the deal. A vote soon after a deal is struck in November would keep distrust alive.” Read the full column here.http://reut.rs/1wC9b8p

NGO’s react - “Congress may lean hawkish but progressive groups in the beltway are throwing their weight behind the White House’s efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and are urging Congress to stay out of the way.”

--“A letter signed by thirty-seven organizations and sent to members of Congress on Thursday, offers some indication that many foreign policy groups in the beltway are concerned by Congress’ latest effort to meddle in the final weeks of sensitive diplomacy before the November deadline.” Read Eli Clifton’s full piece in The Nation. http://bit.ly/ZTlnag

--Read the letter here: http://bit.ly/1yFP8aF

Extension? - With less than a month to go before the deadline to conclude nuclear negotiations with Iran, “officials say they believe a deal is still possible... but recognize that the odds are long and want to avoid a collapse of talks that could heighten tension,” writes Paul Richter for the Los Angeles Times. “’Our priority is still to work hard and try to reach an agreement,’ said one Western official, who declined to be identified because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the subject. ‘But clearly, it would be extremely, extremely challenging.’" Read the full story here. http://lat.ms/1tz9wtI

Chilling uncertainty - “American and Iranian negotiators are racing to cobble together a nuclear deal before a late-November deadline and both sides are signaling cautious optimism that an agreement could finally be in sight. Even if the Obama administration inks a deal, however, many companies will wait to see whether U.S. lawmakers try to derail the agreement before rushing back into Iran,” writes Jamila Trindle for Foreign Policy.

--Although the White House retains the authority to conduct negotiations, it only has the power to temporarily suspend sanctions. Permanently lifting them would require Congressional approval, and uncertainty over their willingness to do so will almost certainly restrain companies from investing in Iran if a deal is reached. "That sort of ambiguity about what the sanctions program will look like in the future will have a real chilling effect on business entering Iran," said Elizabeth Rosenberg. Full article here. http://atfp.co/1pQmdLA

B-52 engines - “The U.S. Air Force is taking a serious look at overhauling the nearly 60 year-old B-52 bomber—including a new engine for the ancient plane. The question is not whether it makes sense, but why it hasn’t been done before. The answers include poor planning, budgetary procedures that defied economic logic, and at least one bone-headed accounting error.” Read Bill Sweetman’s full article in the Daily Beast. http://thebea.st/1sufBSM

North Korean warhead rumors - “The top American military commander in South Korea said on Friday that he believed North Korea had most likely completed its yearslong quest to shrink a nuclear weapon to a size that could fit atop a ballistic missile,” reports David Sanger in The New York Times. “His assessment, if correct, could change American calculations about the vulnerability of the United States and its allies, and the North’s ability to sell nuclear weapons to others.”

--Even if the intelligence is correct, “it does not mean that the North is ready to threaten the United States with a nuclear-tipped missile. While the North has successfully tested its medium-range missiles, and equipped them with re-entry vehicles, it has not achieved its goal of successfully test-flying an intercontinental ballistic missile. Its biggest accomplishment has been popping a tiny satellite into space. And even if the North could mount a weapon on top of a missile, experts note, there would be no assurance it could deliver a warhead to a target.” Read the full story here. http://nyti.ms/1DaXzeJ

MOX saga drags on - “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider extending a construction deadline by a decade for an already beleaguered nuclear recycling project at the Savannah River site, the agency announced Thursday.” As Tonya Maxwell reports for Greenville Online, “Construction for the mixed-oxide fuel project...was part of a 2000 treaty agreement with Russia to convert plutonium originally intended for weapons into fuel suitable for nuclear reactors. Cost overruns into the billions of dollars have, in recent months, turned the project into a political football.” Read the full story here. http://grnol.co/1uMNKiC

Office of arms racing - Andy Marshall, the nonagenarian Director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment is retiring from government after 41 years. Some have called him the Yoda of the Pentagon, and Donald Rumsfeld called him, “his brain.” As Jeffrey Lewis writes in Foreign Policy, “that’s a telling compliment.”

--“Marshall's main contribution is something called ‘competitive strategies’...The notion that the long-term strategic competition with the Soviet Union -- the nuclear arms race -- was inevitable. [Marshall] ultimately believed that international politics is a steel cage match. Two will enter, one will leave...I am sorry, but I don't see a genius at work here.”

--“Missing in Marshall's 1972 and 1988 accounts of arms racing during the Cold War is any sense that nuclear weapons pose a shared danger that compel us to cooperate, even with our adversaries. The notion of competitive strategies is all about winning an arms race, without any emphasis on simply finishing it alive.” Read the full column here. http://atfp.co/1txUm7W

Tweet - @FASscientists: Kristensen Blogs: Polish F-16s In NATO Nuclear Exercise In Italy http://bit.ly/1t9m8pK

Treaty renewal - “The U.K. is poised to quietly ratify a defence treaty that critics say will see it become more dependent on U.S. expertise for its multi-billion pound Trident nuclear weapons programme, without the agreement being scrutinised by MPs.” According to The Guardian, “Under revised terms, existing cooperation on the design of the U.K.s nuclear warheads will be extended to allow similar collaboration on the nuclear reactors that power the new fleet of submarines carrying the U.K.’s Trident ballistic missiles.”

--“Dr. Nick Ritchie, a lecturer in international security at the University of York, said the sharing of nuclear weapons technology between the U.K. and the U.S. was a form of ‘legalised proliferation’ that raised questions about the relationship between the allies. ‘It’s controversial with some parts of the electorate because of the extent to which it gives implicit and explicit leverage to Washington,’ Ritchie said. ‘It means the U.K. has to buy in to U.S. security strategy, come what may, even if it has proved disastrous in some parts of the world.’” Read the full story by Jamie Doward here. http://bit.ly/1tzbYjH

China’s triad - Last December, the China passed a major military milestone with its first long range deployment of a nuclear powered attack sub. As Jeremy Page writes in The Wall Street Journal, “China is expected to pass another milestone this year when it sets a different type of sub to sea—a ‘boomer,’ carrying fully armed nuclear missiles for the first time.”

--”Even a few functional Chinese boomers compel the U.S. to plan for a theoretical Chinese nuclear-missile strike from the sea. China’s boomer patrols will make it one of only three countries—alongside the U.S. and Russia—that can launch atomic weapons from sea, air and land. ‘I think they’ve watched the U.S. submarine force and its ability to operate globally for many, many years—and the potential influence that can have in various places around the globe,’ says Adm. Thomas, ‘and they’ve decided to go after that model.’ Read the full story here. http://on.wsj.com/1w8BQUE

China’s subs and how to snoop for them

--“When Sub Goes Silent, Who Has Control of Its Nuclear Warheads?” http://on.wsj.com/1pQr7IB

--“As China Deploys Nuclear Submarines, U.S. P-8 Poseidon Jets Snoop on Them” http://on.wsj.com/1t9fAYn

--“Underwater Drones Join Microphones to Listen for Chinese Nuclear Submarines” http://on.wsj.com/1v4trxo

Quick Hits:

--Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks on arms control and foreign policy at Valdai Discussion Club. Full transcript available here. http://bit.ly/1nJGua7

--“Richardson says 'US-North Korea relationship in bad shape',” by Rachel Huggins in The Hill. http://bit.ly/1yFOJ8c

--“Time for Senate to ratify Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,” from the editorial board of Utah’s Deseret News. http://bit.ly/1t9exHS

Events:

--"Preventing Nuclear Terrorism Globally: Results and Remaining Challenges," featuring Deepti Choubey. Oct. 29, 9:00 -11:00 a.m. at the Foreign Policy Institute,1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Room 500, Washington. Register online. http://bit.ly/1yaVfn3

--"US-Iranian Religious Leaders’ Dialogue: The Relevance of Moral Questions Related to Nuclear Weapons." Featuring John Steinbruner of the University of Maryland; Richard Pates from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; and Stephen Colecchi from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Wednesday October 29, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Sponsored by Arms Control Association. located at the Carnegie Endowment, Choate Room, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC. RSVP online. http://conta.cc/1rrAePi

--“A nuclear deal with Iran? Weighing the possibilities,” featuring David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security and George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Thursday, October 30 from 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. at AEI located on the 12th floor of 1150 17th Street, Washington, DC, 20036. Register online http://bit.ly/1yZauTe

--"Challenges in Nuclear Verification: The IAEA’s Role on the Iranian Nuclear Issue," Featuring Yukiya Amano, Director General of the IAEA. Friday October 31 from 10:30 a.m. - 12:00p.m. Located at the Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington. RSVP online. http://bit.ly/1uKAOtu

--"Charting the Navy’s Future in a Changing Maritime Domain," featuring Adm. Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations. Nov 4. 9:00-10:00 a.m. at the Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington. RSVP online. http://bit.ly/1ty1UsI

--Book talk by Eric Schlosser, the author of “Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety.” Nov. 8, 10:00-11:00 a.m. Sponsored by the Chicago Humanities Festival. At University of Illinois at Chicago, 725 W. Roosevelt Road, Main Hall AB, Chicago.