On the radar: Pyongyang’s new focus on Beijing; Pushback on the military option; Chinese tunnel report premiers; Coercive strategy with Iran; SM-3 data and McFaul; CFR on CBI sanctions; Right says pause on nuclear strategy; and Experts debate Iran breakout timeline.

December 8, 2011 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

North Korea’s new course - Pyongyang may be shifting its foreign policy focus from Washington to Beijing, argue Robert Carlin and John Lewis in The LA Times. If the shift is real, “we expect the North in the near to medium term to make far less overt trouble,” they write. This could have consequences the US has yet to feel, if North Korea keeps nuclear and missile advancements quiet and steps back from meaningful denuclearization talks. http://owl.li/7SYrD

On the military option - Secretary of Defense Panetta’s comments about the severe consequences of a strike on Iran got some pushback from the pro-strike crowd. Paul Pillar at The National Interest argues that the logic and assumptions of the pro-strike crowd are faulty.

--”It really doesn't matter to the pro-war crowd how feeble their arguments are as long as the idea of a war with Iran is kept prominently in play. Keep it in play long enough while continually repeating the further theme that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be absolutely unacceptable, and eventually there would be a time to declare that we have ‘no other option’ but to launch a crazy war, even when a case had never really been made for one,” writes Pillar. http://owl.li/7SYmP

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

The Karber report - Fresh off the presses and hotly contested, get your very own copy of Dr. Phillip Karber’s “China’s Underground Great Wall: Challenge for Nuclear Arms Control.” http://owl.li/7T1By

Coercing Iran -”The CIA’s use of surveillance drones over Iran reflects a growing belief within the Obama administration that covert action and carefully choreographed economic pressure may be the only means of coercing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions,” report Joby Warrick and Greg Miller in The Washington Post.

--The emphasis of confrontational approaches over engagement has its critics. “Considering the stakes involved, I can’t accept the idea that we should accept failure and move on to other options,” ACA’s Greg Thielmann said. http://owl.li/7SYpo

Quote - “I will ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State,” said GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich yesterday. http://owl.li/7SYyD

Data on McFaul hold - Michael McFaul’s nomination as U.S. ambassador to Russia is being held up based on possible plans to share technical data on the SM-3 interceptor. In response to senators’ questions, McFaul acknowledged that sharing information on the SM-3 burnout velocity is an option, but emphasized that this information “is readily observed and confirmed” and therefore not particularly sensitive. From Bill Gertz. http://owl.li/7SYtr

Central bank sanctions - A new CFR brief asks “Can Iran’s Central Bank Be Sanctioned?” The brief doesn’t offer an easy answer, but does outline the sanctions debate and lays out consequences of CBI sanctions on Iran and the global economy. http://owl.li/7SYw6

Weekly Standard on nuclear reductions - “Many experts believe the administration wants to quickly reduce U.S. force levels down to the mere hundreds. Structural changes to the national defense are also on the table,” writes Mark Davis at The Weekly Standard.

--”Senate Republicans should at least safeguard the budget for our deterrent and its modernization, whatever the budgetary consequences. At the very least they should let the administration know that until world conditions settle, we need a “pause and a plateau”—a pause on new nuclear agreements, and a plateau in force levels.” http://owl.li/7SYAu

Iran timeline debate - The analytical debate on Iran’s nuclear breakout timeline has resurfaced. Greg Jones at NPEC argues it could take 6 months for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Mark Fitzpatrick at ISIS says “This is not realistic.” Fredrik Dahl at Reuters has the story. http://owl.li/7SYHB

--For a deep dive into the wonky details, see Fitzpatrick’s and David Albright’s responses to Jones’ analysis.