The Potential of a Deal with Iran

On the radar: Humanitarian move, strategic benefits; Advancing U.S. interests, even with Putin; The tool of diplomacy; Iran’s inferiority; Russia botches ICBM test; Breaking down the Iran timelines; Updated PF working paper on nuclear budget; and the test ban is still comprehensive.

September 29, 2011 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

An offer worth considering - “Ahmadinejad recently proposed that Iran suspend production of some uranium-enrichment activities in exchange for fuel supplies from the United States. Whether the offer is an olive branch or an act of necessity, it is an unprecedented opportunity for Washington and its allies,” write Ali Vaez and Charles Ferguson in the IHT.

--Such a deal to help meet Iran’s medical isotope production needs would be “a humanitarian gesture with strategic benefits: curtailing Iran’s enrichment activities and potentially cutting the Gordian knot that has stalled the West’s nuclear negotiations with Iran,” the authors write. http://owl.li/6Ir2J

--For greater detail on the parameters of a deal with Iran and steps towards enhanced safeguards, see Ferguson’s March article in Arms Control Today. http://owl.li/6ItcF

Managing U.S. interests with Russia, Putin - “The Obama administration has generally done a good job of “resetting” and managing the relationship with Moscow, working productively on Iran and Libya, concluding a new nuclear weapons agreement and increasing Russian logistical support to American forces in Afghanistan. Those interests will continue. That means President Obama will have to find ways to continue working with Mr. Putin,” writes The New York Times. http://owl.li/6IuIr

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

The value of talk - The purpose of diplomacy “is not to bestow rewards but instead to advance the interests of the state wielding the tool,” writes Paul Pillar. “To forgo use of the tool doesn’t put anyone else in his place; it only handicaps the statecraft of the government that doesn’t fully use the tool.” With Iran, diplomacy also allows for advancing U.S. interests through deal-making and reduces the chance of misunderstandings spinning out of control. http://owl.li/6IuvN

Iran blusters but Israel has the edge - “Don’t let the hot air from Tehran confuse the reality on the ground,” writes Bruce Riedel. “Iran is a dangerous country, but it is not an existential threat to either Israel or America.”

--The strategic balance is in Israel’s favor, both in terms of nuclear and conventional capabilities, thanks to the U.N. arms ban on Iran, U.S. assistance to Israel, and the fact that Iran’s only ally is Syria. That strategic balance won’t change, even if Iran gets the bomb. http://owl.li/6Ip0O

Rocket science is hard - Russia just reminded itself of that fact as its recent test of an ICBM, likely a modified version of a solid-fuel Topol-M/RS-24 varieties, failed a few minutes into flight. Danger Room has the story. http://owl.li/6Is3h

--”Why on the earth would Russia need another type of ICBM? The only explanation I can see is that the society is too weak and the political leadership is too incompetent to rein in the military and the defense industry who keep asking for more money to build more useless stuff,” writes Pavel Podvig. http://owl.li/6Is5i

How close is Iran to the bomb? - Some experts (with faulty assumptions) argue as little as eight weeks. Others, like IISS’ Mark Fitzpatrick, say less than two years is possible, but “Suggestions that Iran will be able to produce weapons in a matter of months are irresponsible.” Fredrik Dahl explores the different estimates. http://owl.li/6ImCQ

--The point to keep in mind, from Greg Thielmann: "A nuclear-armed Iran is neither imminent nor inevitable." http://owl.li/6IoCr

$700 billion in nuclear spending - An updated working paper from Ploughshares Fund details how much the U.S. is likely to spend on nuclear weapons and related programs. Full paper here with a blog that puts it in political context. http://owl.li/6IwuR

Carroll on budget - “We spend roughly $50 billion a year on the weapons and the weapons systems that deliver them. Do we need to be spending that money?“ said Ploughshares Program Director Paul Carroll in an NPR interview. “We don’t have any kind of a threat or nation-state out there today that our nuclear weapons are actually deterring...we can deter traditional threats by conventional means, and you can’t deter what the actual threats are today by nuclear means.” http://owl.li/6IulU

Zero means zero - “All states understand and accept the CTBT as a zero-yield treaty.” State’s new CTBT factsheet. http://owl.li/6Iq6o