Outlining the Next Round of Iran Negotiations

May 9, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Realistic strategy - By all accounts, the talks on the comprehensive Iran nuclear deal “that began in February have been serious and highly substantive. Both sides have given every indication that they are determined to reach agreement by the July 20 expiration,” writes Robert Einhorn in The National Interest. “So far, negotiations have taken the form of detailed exchanges of views in conceptual terms. At the upcoming round, the parties will start putting proposed texts of an agreement on the table and the process of reconciling positions will begin.”

--But on several critical issues, Iran and its negotiating partners remain far apart. “Nowhere is the gap greater than on the size and composition of the uranium enrichment program that Iran would be allowed to possess under the comprehensive agreement… Iran doesn’t need a large enrichment capacity in the near or medium term to pursue a technically sound, sensibly paced, and successful civil nuclear-energy program. It can achieve its civil nuclear goals with a much more limited capability consistent with the requirements of a deal acceptable to the EU/P5+1.”

--Instead of building an additional 30,000 centrifuges, “a wiser strategy is to use a relatively small number of its current centrifuges to meet near-term research-reactor requirements, rely on more cost-effective foreign suppliers to address the much greater enriched-uranium needs of its power reactors (as countries like Japan do), and make progress toward a more advanced civil nuclear program in the future through domestic research and development and collaboration with Russia and the West… Iran can achieve its declared goals in the negotiations—the lifting of sanctions and the preservation of a civil nuclear-energy program. It may even be able to reach an agreement that supports those goals before the interim deal expires. But first, it must adopt a more realistic position on the enrichment issue.” Full article here. bit.ly/1odIIgA

Tweet - @NIACouncil: House Defense Bill Calls for Conditions on #Iran Deal by @J_Pecquet for @AlMonitor http://bit.ly/1oxHBpl

NATO’s “Dear Colleague” - 136 parliamentarians from Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands as well as members of the EU Parliament have signed and sent a letter to Rep. Howard McKeon, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, expressing “their opposition to the continued stationing of the B61 nuclear bomb in their nations, and their opposition to a nuclear role for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.” Read the full letter here. (pdf) http://bit.ly/1odLBhs

Cost assessment - “House Democrats on Wednesday sought to include in the annual defense authorization bill requirements for formal studies and reports on the necessity of various nuclear weapons and how much it would cost to maintain them,” writes Douglas Guarino in Global Security Newswire. “The minority party in the House Armed Services Committee, however, had to settle for more narrow provisions requiring only less formal, oral briefings from the Obama administration on these issues. The Republican majority rejected Democratic amendments that went any further. The Democratic effort followed a January report by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies that asserted the current U.S. plan for modernizing the nation's nuclear arsenal is so expensive that it could not realistically be implemented.”

--“Representative John Garamendi (D-CA) offered an amendment that would require the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to analyze the justification for ‘the size of the nuclear triad. The three ‘legs’ of the triad are submarine-based ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles, and gravity bombs delivered by long-range aircraft. ‘Do we need all three?’ Garamendi asked while discussing the amendment during a full committee markup of the fiscal 2015 defense authorization bill. ‘Can we get by with one, for example, submarines only?’ Garamendi -- who called the U.S. nuclear arsenal ‘extremely expensive … to say nothing of dangerous’ -- said the last ‘serious’ GAO study that looked at the question of the size and justification for the nuclear arsenal was 20 years old. ‘We need that information to make a rational decision for how we're going to spend the taxpayer's money,’ he said.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1nvXxIH

Increasing funding - “A key House panel on Thursday approved a bill that would increase funding by at least $60 million for a homeland missile defense system,” writes Rachel Oswald in Global Security Newswire. “The chamber's Armed Services Committee in a unanimous vote just after midnight approved annual defense authorization legislation that included a number of missile defense-related measures, such as $20 million in funding to begin constructing a third domestic interceptor site. The bill also includes an extra $40 million for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. The Defense Department did not seek funding in its fiscal 2015 budget request for construction of a third interceptor site. The Pentagon is currently studying possible locations for the site on the East Coast. The department has not yet decided if it will move forward with building the facility, which is a favored defense project for Republicans who are concerned about a possible missile attack by Iran.” Read the full story here. http://bit.ly/QmgVMf

Giving the boss a tour - “Sandia National Laboratories showed off a $100 million makeover of its nuclear weapons testing facilities Thursday to Gen. Frank G. Klotz, the new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration,” reports Kevin Robinson-Avila for the Albuquerque Journal. “The facilities allow Sandia to test components in nuclear weapons under conditions ranging from intense fire and extreme vibration to the pressure of gravitational force as rockets re-enter the atmosphere and the shock of impact against targets at hundreds of miles per hour.” Read the full report here. http://bit.ly/Rx3V7h

Hearsay - “Canada is revisiting a decade-old decision not to join the US ballistic missile defense program, a top official in Ottawa said on Thursday. James Bezan, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defense, told a defense summit in Ottawa that the issue has come up again before both Senate and House of Commons committees… Bezan said there has been some concern about the “accuracy” of missiles being developed by some rogue countries that could target Canada’s neighbor, the United States, and end up striking Canada… A change in policy would require political consensus, however, which appears elusive… Bezan predicted that the status quo would prevail.” Read the full story from the AFP here. http://bit.ly/Rx3V7h<

Losing ground - “The former head of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission Brigadier General (res.) Uzi Eilam just dropped a bombshell (no pun intended): ‘The Iranian nuclear program will only be operational in another 10 years,’ he told the Israeli paper Yediot Ahronoth. ‘Even so, I am not sure that Iran wants the bomb.’ And he added that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is employing needless fearmongering about Iran's atomic aspirations in order to further his own political aims,” writes Trita Parsi in a piece for The National Interest.

--“Mindful of the ongoing—and thus far successful—nuclear talks with Iran, and Netanyahu’s vocal opposition to them, Eilam’s statement must be music to the ears of the Obama administration. It further embarrasses those in Washington who so uncritically swallowed Netanyahu’s talking points hook, line and sinker—and repeated the Israeli prime minister’s arguments as their own… Many in the Israeli establishment are genuinely worried that Netanyahu’s unreasonable position will further isolate Israel and compel the US to ignore Israeli demands because ‘nothing will please Netanyahu anyways.’ The face saving exit for Israel is to do precisely what Eilam has signaled: There is a different narrative in Israel about Iran and Tel Aviv can adjust to a US-Iran thaw—Netanyahu and his neoconservative allies’ rhetoric notwithstanding.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1oxKwhH

Proliferation concerns - “The Obama administration on Thursday submitted to Congress a nuclear trade accord with Vietnam after a reported Tuesday signing ceremony. The pact could potentially proceed into force later this year,” writes Elaine Grossman in Global Security Newswire. “The 30-year bilateral agreement -- under which the United States could share nuclear materials, technologies and information with the Southeast Asian nation -- could be implemented if lawmakers do not act to block it within 90 days of continuous legislative session.”

--“Numerous nonproliferation experts and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle also have criticized the U.S.-Vietnam pact for lacking binding provisions aimed at preventing Vietnam from undertaking sensitive nuclear fuel-making activities that could contribute to building nuclear weapons.” Read the full article here. bit.ly/1kXsFNw

Russian nukes 101 - “Today, nuclear weapons have retained not only their pride of place but an actual role in Russian military planning,” writes Tom Nichols in The National Interest. “Unlike the Americans, who see little use for nuclear weapons in the absence of the Soviet threat, the Russians—wisely or not—continue to think about nuclear arms as though they are useful in military conflicts, even the smallest. Some of this might only be the bluster of officers who have never overcome their Soviet training, but some of it is also clearly based on the Russian General Staff’s understanding of Russia’s military weakness against far superior adversaries, including the United States and NATO.

--“[The] outlook for Russia’s nuclear forces is less important than the serious improvements Russia is seeking to make in its conventional forces, especially in Europe. The Russians have relied on nuclear arms to compensate for conventional weakness, a practice even Moscow realizes is unsustainable and dangerous. The real threat to NATO will occur if Western military forces on the ground continue to be hollowed out by budget cuts and a lack of purpose, while Russian forces continue to improve and to recover from the disarray of the Soviet collapse.” Full piece here. bit.ly/1l7xKpj

Quick-hits:

--“Report: Iran’s Missiles and a Final Deal” in The Iran Primer. bit.ly/1nw4oSs

--“Draft U.N.-Backed Confab Statement Urges Speedier Nuclear Disarmament” by Global Security Newswire. http://bit.ly/1hCkTYi

Events:

--“The Countdown Begins: All You Need to Know About an Iran Nuclear Deal.” Discussion with Robert Einhorn, Alireza Nader, and Joseph Cirincione. Moderated by Colin Kahl. May 13 from 9:30 to 11:00 at the U.S. Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave., NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1o6UYwo

--“New Technologies on the Arms Control Front.” Discussion with Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller. May 13 at 5:00 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Auditorium, second floor, 1200 New York Ave. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1juJm5O

--“The Role of Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Responding to the Crisis in Crimea.” Discussion /with Peter Doran and Kingston Reif. May 19 from 6:00 to 8:00 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1616 Rhode Island Ave., NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1iUUxA6