Making Sanctions Relief Work in a Final Iran Deal

June 6, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Sensible sanctions relief - “Now that we are nearing the July 20 deadline for P5+1 and Iran nuclear talks, it is important that we have a sober understanding of the difficulties the White House will have tailoring sanctions relief so as to secure and sustain a lasting nuclear agreement,” writes Tyler Cullis in The National Interest. “While the legal obstacles to sanctions relief—which remains an underappreciated aspect of the ongoing negotiations—pose a significant hurdle to the conclusion of a final agreement, the real danger might well stem from U.S. ‘sanctions hawks’ who threaten to convince the White House to construct sanctions relief on such a narrow basis that Iran’s benefit under a deal is negligible at best, thereby unraveling the long-fought agreement.”

--“While limited and carefully-tailored sanctions relief might have been the right policy during the duration of the interim deal—designed as it was as a mere placeholder for the parties to negotiate a final agreement—the White House will need to reconsider its objectives and the means by which it pursues them both before and over the course of a final deal. This will mean recognizing what should be a truism in Washington: sanctions were not an end in and of themselves, but a means to impose limits to Iran’s nuclear program. In other words, the administration shouldn’t be afraid to trade in sanctions relief upon conclusion of a final deal and satisfy the sanctions logic.”

--“In the end, Tehran might be the gold rush that no one is, in fact, rushing to. In that case, we should expect Iran to do as we would do if Iran’s nuclear concessions did not end up satisfying our core concerns with its nuclear program: renege on the bargain struck and start the conversation from ground zero. If that sounds as unpromising as I expect it does, then we better take into account Iran’s goals at the negotiating table and shape sanctions relief so as to both maintain leverage while also providing Iran meaningful reprieve. Especially if we want a final nuclear deal with Iran to stick.” Read the full article here. http://bit.ly/1hDypRm

Getting hung-up on breakout - “‘Breakout’ is the theoretical time it would take Iran to reconfigure its cascades of centrifuges at its declared enrichment sites and then make enough highly enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon,” writes Jeffrey Lewis in a piece for Foreign Policy. “The theory goes that a ‘short’ breakout time -- on the order of weeks -- makes it somehow more likely that Iran will build a nuclear weapon. This is completely wrong. Breakout is precisely the wrong measure of whether a deal is successful. If Obama lets this deal slip away over a breakout calculation, he'll earn the dismal reputation that pundits have been trying to hang on him.”

--“The Iranians are extraordinarily unlikely to break out using a facility that is under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection, even if they are able to do so very quickly… [Therefore] any deal, no matter how many centrifuges it permits, depends fundamentally on the quality of the verification measures. Every ounce of leverage the United States and its partners spend on limiting the known centrifuge program is leverage they have wasted by not using it to win the best possible verification measures.” Read the full piece here. http://atfp.co/1nnwrUp

Joining the club - “China will probably begin conducting naval nuclear-deterrence patrols this year, the U.S. Defense Department said on Thursday. Beijing has never before had a credible submarine force that would give it the capability to launch submerged long-range nuclear missiles. The Asian power last year was officially assessed to be fielding three Type 094 Jin-class strategic submarines. However, a fleet comprising at least four nuclear-armed submarines is generally understood to be the minimum quantity necessary for a country to be able to maintain around-the-clock deterrence patrols.”

--“In a congressionally mandated annual report on the People's Liberation Army, the Pentagon concludes ‘China is likely to conduct its first nuclear deterrence patrols with the JIN-class SSBN in 2014.’ The 87-page report notes the Chinese navy ‘places a high priority on the modernization of its submarine force.’ The Pentagon estimates that China could expand its Type 094 fleet to as many as eight vessels before it starts constructing a next-generation Type 096 vessel. The Jin-class submarines are understood to be armed with the new JL-2 long-range ballistic missile, which has an estimated range of nearly 4,600 miles. A November 2013 report by a congressionally established committee forecast that the JL-2 missile could be put into initial operational use before the year was over.” Read the full report from Rachel Oswald of Global Security Newswire here. http://bit.ly/1jZP248

Tweet - @armscontrolnow: On this day in 1980: bug in @NoradNorthcom computer triggers alert for USSR missile launch, #nuclear forces scrambled http://1.usa.gov/1tObjYi

Fix, not expand - “The next test of the U.S. Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) system will occur ‘very soon,’ Admiral James Winnefeld, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said May 28. And if that test is a success, he said, the Pentagon plans to add 14 interceptors to the 30 deployed in Alaska and California by 2017, increasing the total by almost 50 percent. This expansion will cost about $1 billion. But the next test, even if it hits, should not be used as justification to expand the system. As Philip Coyle, former director of operational test and evaluation at the Department of Defense, said in February, ‘Not another dime should be spent on more bad GBIs at Fort Greely [in Alaska] or anywhere else. Instead, a new GBI/EKV must be designed, built, and successfully tested to replace the old design.’”

--“Throwing good money after bad at missile defenses that may not defend is no solution. ‘Patching’ inherently unreliable interceptors is not the same thing as redesigning them so they will work. The United States should not field additional long-range missile interceptors on either coast until the current system is redesigned and-most importantly-tested rigorously against realistic targets.” Read the full piece by Tom Collina for the Arms Control Association here. http://bit.ly/1kGVNwg

Keeping options open - “Canada has not changed its position on not joining the U.S. missile defense shield, but said it is continuing to examine its stance given changing global circumstances, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Thursday.” He added that “it was our judgment in the past that Canadians did not need the security of participation in the anti-ballistic missile defense system, [but that] there are changes occurring in the world and we will continue to examine whether that does or does not serve Canadian interests and we'll make whatever decisions are in the best security safety interests of Canadians, but obviously at the moment we have not decided to revise the position." Full report from Reuters here. http://reut.rs/1mYmIC8

Uranium on order - “Canada has ordered more highly enriched uranium from the United States in what could be one of its last purchases of the material,” Global Security Newswire reports. “A license application has been filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to send approximately 15.5 pounds of weapons-grade uranium to the Canadian Chalk River Laboratories… Ottawa has pledged to cease all isotope generation at the research reactor by the end of October 2016.” Full article here. http://bit.ly/1kGOLrv

Tweet - @globalzero: If less than 1% of the #nukes in the world were used, the global climate would be in jeopardy. #WorldEnvironmentDay pic.twitter.com/un0DdJJNWh

Nuclear contraband - “Homeland Security officials said they are moving to tighten overseas checks of U.S.-bound cargo containers deemed likely to be hiding nuclear contraband,” writes Diane Barnes in Global Security Newswire. “Federal authorities hope foreign seaports will eventually scan all cargo they consider at ‘high risk’ of containing weapon-usable nuclear or radiological materials, according to Wednesday testimony by Kevin McAleenan, acting deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection. About 15 percent still is not checked before reaching U.S. shores.”

--“McAleenan discussed the focus on ‘high-risk’ cargo about a month after Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers his department would not meet a July deadline set by Congress for all U.S.-bound shipping containers to undergo screening at foreign ports for smuggled nuclear and radiological materials. Officials previously postponed the statutory screening deadline by two years.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1hk5IZo

Quick-hits:

--“How sanctions relief will impact Iran’s civil aviation industry” by Aaron Goldblatt and Roozbeh Aliabadi in The Hill. http://bit.ly/1hk3064

--“Bitten by sanctions, Iranians support nuclear compromise” by Parisa Hafezi in Reuters. http://reut.rs/1tO6bU3

--“New UPF project director replaces Strock, who is retiring” in Oak Ridge Today. http://bit.ly/1hk3tFq

Events:

--“Nuclear Flashpoints: U.S.-Iran Tensions Over Terms and Timetables.” Discussion with Stephen Hadley, Jon Wolfsthal, Daryl Kimball and Robert Litwak. June 10 from 9:30 to 11:00 at the Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, floor 6. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1tqM3Hk

--“War With Iran? Should the United States Use Military Force Against Iran if Nuclear Diplomacy Fails?” Debate with Georgetown University and University of Michigan students; comments by Colin Kahl. June 13 from 9:00-12:00 at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel, The Willard Room, 1401 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1gXWlOJ

--“How to Unwind Iran Nuclear Sanctions.” Discussion with Kenneth Katzman and Cornelius Adebahr; moderated by Barbara Slavin. June 16 at 2:00 at The Atlantic Council, 1030 15th St. NW, 12th Floor (West Tower). RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1h9DpN2