Constructive Talks and Realistic Expectations with Iran

October 15, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke

Geneva talks - Iran tabled a new proposal today in ongoing negotiations with the US and other partners on the P5+1. The proposal, offered in a powerpoint titled “An End to the Unnecessary Crisis and a Beginning for Fresh Horizons,” included limits on uranium enrichment and increasing inspections and transparency, according to early reports. While no final deal to the Iranian nuclear impasse is expected by the end of talks tomorrow, the negotiations could help define the broad contours of a deal and the steps for a final agreement. George Jahn and John Heilprin of AP have the story. http://abcn.ws/194RLXv

Politics of a deal - “If Iran proposes an ambitious plan at Geneva, the P5+1 must be ready to respond in kind. Yet the U.S. political system seems unprepared, psychologically or politically, for that step. Can Washington find a solution that will progressively begin to relieve the most crippling sanctions in tandem with Iran’s movement toward a more transparent and limited nuclear program? Technically, the answer is yes. But politically, Congress may not be ready,” write Ambassadors William Luers and Thomas Pickering in Reuters.

--The authors assess that the world will expect the U.S. to lead the process to sanctions relief if Iran cooperates. If the US cannot agree to a viable deal or lead on sanctions relief, international support for sanctions may unravel. http://reut.rs/1fA0Pcb

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.

Zero isn’t viable - Hawks in Washington and Israel who generally oppose diplomacy with Iran are now setting unrealistically high goals for a deal with Iran - having Iran give up all uranium enrichment capability. “While a permanent end to Iranian enrichment would be ideal, it is also highly unrealistic,” write Colin Kahl and Alireza Nader in Foreign Policy.

--”Instead of pushing for an impossible goal, the United States and other world powers should push for a possible one: an agreement that caps Iranian enrichment at the 5 percent level (sufficient for civilian power plants but far away from bomb-grade) under stringent conditions designed to preclude Tehran's ability to rapidly produce nuclear weapons, including restrictions on Iran's stockpile of low enriched uranium, limitations on centrifuges, intrusive inspections, and halting the construction of a plutonium reactor that could open an alternative pathway to nuclear weapons.” Full post here. http://atfp.co/16KpAxD

Further reading on Iran:

--”Give and Take: Time to Get Real In U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks” by Greg Thielmann in Defense One. http://bit.ly/H1CbCc

--”Don’t Expect Miracles in Iran Nuclear Talks” by Ali Vaez in CNN. http://bit.ly/1anmsFq

--”A Nuclear Deal That Iran, and the World, Can Live With” editorial from Bloomberg. http://bloom.bg/16KrwGh

Positions:

--”Iran’s Commitment to Disarmament Must Be Tested Before Sanctions are Lifted” editorial from The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/1cpgdEx

--”Israel Warns Against Partial Agreement With Iran” by Isabel Kershner of The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/19L47ky

--”U.S. Congress calls for hard line on Iran sanctions” reports Patricia Zengerle of Reuters. http://reut.rs/19PvfEV

Nuclear spending cuts - Congressional gridlock is leading to significant budget cuts for the nuclear weapons labs, as the combination of continuing resolutions and sequester is trimming millions for expected nuclear spending.

--“The result could force the labs and the National Nuclear Security Administration to seriously consider steps nuclear weapons opponents have long advocated, including less emphasis on large nuclear weapon design and remanufacturing projects and multi-billion dollar buildings to do the work.” John Fleck of the Albuquerque Journal has the report. http://bit.ly/GWO6lf

--Forecasting: “Has the nuclear weapons budget reached an inflection point?” http://bit.ly/167PxbP

Nuke mini-CR - The House on Friday approved, on largely partisan lines, a bill to fund nuclear weapons and nonproliferation programs at last year’s levels despite most of the federal government remaining shut down. Pete Kasperowicz of The Hill has the story. http://bit.ly/15EL6D5

Cutting the triad - The Navy is testing the waters with Congress for an extra $60 billion to buy a fleet of for nuclear-armed subs. “Instead of skirting the rules to find funds for the program, the Pentagon should look elsewhere within the nuclear arsenal for the money it needs. Eliminating the other two legs of the nuclear triad -- intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, and nuclear bombers -- would save American taxpayers around $20 billion a year. Part of the savings could be put toward replacing the Ohio-class subs,” write Chris Preble and Matt Fay in Defense One.

--”The reliance on three nuclear delivery systems is a relic of Cold War bureaucratic politics, not the product of strategic calculation. A submarine-based monad is more than sufficient for America’s deterrence needs, and would be considerably less expensive to modernize and maintain than the current force.” Full post here. http://bit.ly/16dLvcW

Fired missileers - The firing of two top commanders of the US nuclear arsenal “spell trouble for a nuclear force doubted by some for its relevance, defended by others as vital to national security and now compelled to explain how the firing of key commanders this week should not shake public confidence,” writes Bob Burns of AP. Full story here. http://bit.ly/1ghTXkW

On banning bombs - “We got the Chemical Weapons Convention because we, collectively, decided to eliminate chemical weapons. It took 70 years to convince ourselves, collectively, that we didn't want to live with poison gas anymore. By contrast, we haven't even started that process with regard to nuclear weapons,” writes Jeffrey Lewis in an analysis of past steps taken to ban chemical weapons and the political steps today that could nudge the world toward banning nuclear weapons. Full post in Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/19L6zrf

Events:

--”A Discussion with Ken Pollack, Author of Unthinkable” Wed. Oct. 16 from noon-1:00 at the Middle East Institute. Details here. http://bit.ly/1b3xnX3

--”Minimum Deterrence: Examining the Evidence” discussion with Doug Feith, John Harvey, Amb. Robert Joseph, Adm. Richard Miles and Keith Payne at the Hudson Institute. Wed. Oct. 16th from 12:00-1:30pm. Lunch will be provided. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/17g8Dqg

--”The End of Overkill? Reassessing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy” Discussion with Benjamin Friedman, Elbridge Colby, Hans Kristensen, Matt Fay and Christopher Preble. Oct. 15th at noon at the CATO Institute. http://bit.ly/1hwKUYC

--”Securing The Nuclear Enterprise: What Nuclear Crises Teach Us About Future Security Threats” Discussion with Matt Stokes, Henry Sokolski and Brian Finlay at Stimson. Tues. Oct. 22 from 11:30-1:00. Details here. http://bit.ly/17dNvBY