Iran Sanctions Hawks, Losing Support, Put Off Vote Until March

On the radar: Senate stays torpedoes, negotiations get reprieve; the Road ahead with Iran; Bibi’s blunder; Strikes can’t “work”; Air Force wants another nuclear budget buster; the Unfortunate demise of nuclear cooperation with Russia; and Top 5 myths about the nuclear arsenal.

January 28, 2015 | Edited by Jacob Marx and Will Saetren

Hawks step back - “Ten Senate Democrats who have advocated putting more sanctions on Iran gave the White House a two-month reprieve on Tuesday, saying they would wait until after the late-March deadline for completing the outlines of a deal to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program before voting for a bill that President Obama has said would undermine any chance of reaching an agreement,” writes David Sanger in The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/1LhodcN

Letter - Sen. Menendez (D-NJ), the leading proponent for new sanctions on Iran, announced his intentions in a letter to the White House. “After March 24, we will only vote for this legislation on the Senate floor if Iran fails to reach agreement on a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement,” reads the letter, co-signed by nine other Senate Democrats. Full text of the letter here. http://1.usa.gov/1zXCnfN

--Local Reaction: Menendez move “comes as a relief,” editorializes the Newark Star-Ledger. http://bit.ly/1uAOS9U

Einhorn testimony - What are the prospects for a deal with Iran? What might it look like? What are the alternatives? And what should the U.S. do - or not do - to prepare for the conclusion of nuclear negotiations? See Robert Einhorn’s written statement to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for answers on all of the above. (pdf) http://1.usa.gov/15IEqqH

Bibi’s miscalculation - “Legislating new sanctions—even delayed, triggered sanctions—would give the Iranians the excuse to quit negotiations and blame the U.S. Such a situation would not help Obama maintain the strong international sanctions regime that has stayed in place through the past year of talks, (Actually passing legislation now also seems superfluous; only the most obtuse Iranian leader would fail to realize that a failure in the negotiations process will lead to more sanctions.)” writes Jeffrey Goldberg in an article on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ploy to seek more Iran sanctions with his controversial speech to Congress. Full story. http://theatln.tc/1JXyxTO

The alternative to a deal - War game-style exercise to examine the feasibility and effects of an American preemptive surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities determined that such a strike could not possibly "work." As James Fallows writes in an addendum to Goldberg’s column, “Israel doesn't have the military capacity to ‘stop’ Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and neither does the United States, at least not in circumstances short of total war.” http://theatln.tc/15Te71R

Plan B - “The United States must reorient its diplomatic efforts to confront the likely shortcomings of the achievable deal [with Iran] and prepare a fallback in the event that Khamenei does not ultimately come through. For both scenarios, it must urgently contemplate complementary steps that the parties to the negotiations, the UN Security Council, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could take to build confidence that Iran’s future nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful,” writes Ariel Levite for Arms Control Today. Analysis and recommendations here. http://bit.ly/1z6fOSY

Don’t need, can’t afford - “The Pentagon is embarking on an ambitious new plan to develop and build a next generation nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile.” However, as Dave Majumdar writes for The Daily Beast, “experts question if the U.S. military really needs to spend billions of dollars on a new missile when the service’s current Minuteman III could easily be refurbished and used for decades to come.”

--“There is no need to build a new ICBM,” said Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association. “RAND did a report last year showing that the United States can maintain the ICBM leg of the [nuclear] triad [of bombers, ballistic missile submarines and land-based missiles] for decades to come by simply pursuing refurbishment...That would be much cheaper.”

--“Moreover, there are serious questions about whether the U.S. even needs a land-based ICBM—especially when the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the American taxpayer is on the hook for at least $348 billion over the ten years to pay for its range of air-, sea-, and land-based nuclear weapons.” http://thebea.st/1zXHtbG

CTR, RIP - “The most important post-Cold War initiative to reduce nuclear dangers undertaken by the United States has come to a quiet, unceremonious end,” writes Michael Krepon in Arms Control Wonk. The Cooperative Threat Reduction programs were designed to ensure that unsecured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union didn’t fall into the wrong hands. Think of it as a “Marshall Plan narrowly tailored to weapons of mass destruction,” and the return “in terms of preventing proliferation and nuclear terrorism.” That should give you a sense of what has now been lost. Full column here. http://bit.ly/1zys028

--See Also: “Klaatu, Where Are You?” by Jeffrey Lewis in Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/18ufRzA

LANL spying case - “A former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist who pleaded guilty to trying to help Venezuela develop a nuclear weapon is set to be sentenced.” Russell Contreras reports for the Associated Press. http://abcn.ws/1Cg5njs

Setting the record straight - With the U.S. poised to spend $1 trillion on its nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years, myths about the necessity of these doomsday weapons abound. In a new column for The National Interest, Robert Gard, Philip Coyle, Greg Terryn and John Isaacs set out to disarm five of the most prevalent myths about the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Myths:
--1. Nuclear weapons are the highest priority U.S. military forces.
--2. The threat of a nuclear weapons attack on the United States is as great as or greater today than it was during the Cold War.
--3. Nuclear weapons don’t cost much.
--4. Nuclear weapons are safe and secure, and accidents are rare.
--5. Money can fix the problems with our nuclear arsenal.

--Read all the mythbusting here. http://bit.ly/1BolkyG

Quick Hits:

--“North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un to visit Russia,” via the BBC. http://bbc.in/1uzQssu

--“U.S., Japan back Seoul's efforts for inter-Korean talks: envoy,” via Yonhap News Agency. http://bit.ly/1tojKz9

--“Iran Talks Give US More Options” by Barbara Slavin for Voice of America. http://bit.ly/1y5bKjc

--“Beat the clock: Scientists sound a new doomsday warning” by the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://bit.ly/1BxudZq

--“IAEA Chief Urges Govts To Ensure Safety Of Respective Nuclear Facilities From Potential Terror Attacks,” by Esther Tanquintic-Misa in the International Business Times. http://bit.ly/1yNk3UI

--“India nuke deals still thorny for US despite ‘breakthrough,’” from the Associated Press. http://wapo.st/1K4hWxB

Events:

--"Australia and the Bomb," featuring Christine Leah, Yale University; Christian Ostermann, Wilson Center; and Elbridge Colby, Center for a New American Security. January 28, 2:00-3:30 p.m., Wilson Center, Sixth Floor, Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington. RSVP http://bit.ly/1tGp8bD.

-- “Debunk the Myths of Iran Sanctions,” featuring Kate Gould, Legislative Associate for Middle East Policy, Friends Committee on National Legislation. Hosted by Physicians for Social Responsibility. Wed, Jan 28, 2015 8:30 PM - 9:30 PM EST. Register http://bit.ly/1sWA1uX.

--“An Assessment of Russian Concerns About Missile Defenses In Europe,” Featuring Timur Kadyshev, Center of Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies, Moscow. January 29 at Noon EST. Online webinar sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists. http://bit.ly/1BovLm3

--"Avoiding Disaster in a New Era of Superpower Tension." Featuring Nikolas Gvosdev, U.S. Naval War College; Fiona Hill, Brookings Institution; Ali Wyne, RAND; and Elbridge Colby, Center for a New American Security. January 29 from 6:30-8:00 p.m. Located at the FHI Conference Center, Eighth Floor, 1825 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington DC. Sponsored by PS21: Project for the Study of the 21st Century. RSVP. http://ow.ly/HHuLJ

--“Rally to Say No to a $1 Trillion Nuclear Arsenal.” Hosted by Global Zero, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. on January 31. Located at the Ellipse (south of the White House), Washington, DC. RSVP http://bit.ly/1BySK2Q.

--“The Nuclear Enterprise: Past and Future." Featuring Michael Elliott, Deputy Director for Strategic Stability Plans and Policy Directorate, Joint Chiefs of Staff. February 3 from 9:30-10:30 a.m. Located at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Second Floor Hess Room, 1616 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Washington DC. RSVP http://bit.ly/1xXGYaE.