The Iran Sanctions Debate: Assessing Arguments for and Against

February 18, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Assessing arguments - The recent congressional push for adding sanctions against Iran has become a polarizing political discourse and “revealed the shape of the American domestic debate for and against the Obama administration’s intentions to reach a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran,” write Steven Heintz, Jessica Mathews, Paul Pillar, James Walsh, and Ambs. William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner in a new report by the Iran Project.

--“Continuing this debate will be essential to prepare Americans and their elected representatives either for a new era in U.S.-Iran relations or for what failure to achieve a diplomatic solution might mean for future U.S. policy in the Middle East, including renewed conflict. Understanding this debate is also important in enabling Americans to assess any final agreement that emerges from the negotiations.”

--The authors provide a balanced assessment of the arguments made by proponents of new sanctions and the arguments made by those who oppose adding sanctions at this time. Read the full report here. http://bit.ly/1bIG1zd

Getting practical - “If the upcoming negotiations become framed simply as the United States seeking to reduce much of Iran's current nuclear infrastructure and Iran seeking to preserve it, the talks could soon reach an impasse,” writes Robert Einhorn in a new report for Brookings. “Iranian opponents of an agreement will charge the U.S. with pressuring Iran to compromise its nuclear rights, negate what the nation has proudly achieved at great expense, and undermine its future civil nuclear energy plans. Iranian negotiators would be under strong pressure to dig in their heels.”

--“Focusing on the practical needs of Iran's civil nuclear program could create a less confrontational atmosphere and perhaps elicit a less defensive Iranian reaction. It could encourage the Iranians to take a hard look at their current nuclear facilities and capabilities and, if they are genuinely interested in using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, to consider what would best serve the interests of their future civil nuclear program,” Einhorn says. “No matter how the parties approach the upcoming talks, reaching agreement will be hard. But focusing on practical needs could lead to some productive exchanges and reduce the likelihood of early stalemate.” Read the full piece here. (pdf) http://bit.ly/O49YPD

Brief - “Final Phase P5+1/Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Key Issues and Challenges” by Daryl Kimball in Arms Control Now. http://bit.ly/1gelxeA

MOX costs soar - “A confidential study by the U.S. Energy Department has concluded that completing a controversial nuclear fuel factory in South Carolina may cost billions of dollars more than the department has previously promised,” report Douglas Birch and R. Jeffrey Smith for The Center for Public Integrity. “The study, conducted for Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, also found that finishing and then operating the factory to help get rid of Cold War-era plutonium as part of a nonproliferation arrangement with Russia would likely cost a total of $25 billion to $30 billion on top of the $4 billion spent on its construction so far.”

--“That amount is so high, the officials said, that Barack Obama's administration is leaning toward embracing what one described as "some other option" for dealing with the 34 tons of weapons plutonium that the so-called Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at Savannah River was supposed to help eliminate.” Read the full story here. http://bit.ly/1fpGTEa

Tweet - @nukes_of_hazard: "'15 MDA Request Ignite Old Debate On the Cost of Success" by @ABAviationWeek http://ow.ly/tInEk

Compromise is key - “As a new phase of nuclear talks begins between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) in Vienna on February 18, one thing is clear: From here onwards, diplomacy depends primarily on the ability of the presidents of Iran and the US to absorb and sell compromise,” writes Trita Parsi in Al Jazeera. “The stars could not be better aligned for a US-Iran breakthrough. Regional developments - from the instability following the Arab spring to the civil war in Syria - have significantly increased the cost of continued conflict, as has the escalation of the nuclear issue with steadily growing Iranian capabilities and ever tightening economic sanctions.”

--”That doesn't mean, however, that negotiations will be easy. On the contrary, the hard part begins now,” Parsi says. “Both sides may be exaggerating their fears and putting forward maximalist opening positions for what is likely to be very tough negotiations. One thing is certain, however: Compared to the interim deal, the compromises both sides will have to embrace this time around will be of a very different order.” Read the full piece here. http://aje.me/1bi3BCr

Preserving dignity - “U.S. diplomats preparing for a new round of nuclear negotiations with Iran this week are pondering an important question: How can they make the Iranians feel like the winners?” writes Paul Richter in the Los Angeles Times. “Diplomats know that the deal will work only if ordinary Iranians believe it preserves the country's dignity as it manacles their treasured nuclear program. They have been trying to shape a deal that will look like a victory for both sides.” Get the full article here. http://lat.ms/1fvATcU

Tweet - @margbrennan: US & Iran just began a 1-on-1 mtg in Vienna about 10 minutes ago. US's Wendy Sherman & Iran's Ali Aragchi leading bilat to talk nuke deal

Dirty tricks - Pictures from North Korea’s “Victory Day” parade could hint at North Korea’s plans for a radiological war. William C. Potter and Jeffrey Lewis analyze and discuss the history of the world’s dirty bombs. Full article in Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/1bIpOKg

Mission control - “The four words you never want to hear about nuclear weapons: lapses in security protocol. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last month ordered a review of U.S. nuclear forces after revelations of gross misconduct among some Air Force officers in the nuclear force… If the review only focuses on personnel issues, Hagel may be presented with temporary, insufficient fixes for what could be a broader issue with the mission of ICBMs in our national defense. The review panel should consider taking a portion of our ICBM force off 24-hour high alert status.”

--Furthermore, “senior leaders should not try to prove the importance of the mission by throwing money at the problem. Building a replacement ICBM, spending billions to refurbish the Minuteman III ICBM, offering monetary incentives to attract and retain airmen to missile combat crews or creating a new service medal to reward missileers may seem like an easy –albeit expensive – fix. A more effective course might be to reassess the operational arrangements of our land based nuclear forces and reduce the number of ICBMs on high alert status by two-thirds… What would this mean for national defense? A posture of 150 high alert ICBMs – 50 at each base – combined with submarine launched nuclear missiles would be available for immediate launch under the president’s command. That is more than enough to deter a nuclear strike on the United States.” Full article by Eric Tamerlani in The Hill. http://bit.ly/1fvxye0

If negotiations falter - “As of today, there is ample reason to hope that these negotiations [with Iran] will succeed. But they might fail. What then?... No one can say with certainty what the future may bring. But the bulk of political science specialist literature on the dynamics of nuclear proliferation indicates that the much-feared Middle Eastern proliferation nightmare scenario is just that—a bad dream. The accumulated findings of twenty years of political science research on this topic offer a generally hopeful story about the overall global trends in proliferation,” writes Jacques E. C. Hymans.

--“Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue for the international community, but there is no cause for panic. Moreover, unjustified and exaggerated fears of the proliferation threat lead to bad policy, as demonstrated by the unnecessary and tragic Iraq war. If we can right-size our perception of the threat, we will have much more success in achieving the nonproliferation results we want, at a price we can afford.” Read the full analysis for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://bit.ly/O48gh2

Events:

--“U.S.-Russian Relations in the 21st Century.” Discussion with Angela Stent, Fiona Hill, and Peter Baker. Feb. 18 from 2:00-3:30 at Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1bqFDTe

--“Reestablishing US Diplomatic Presence in Iran.” Discussion with Ramin Asgard, John Limbert, Morad Ghorban; moderated by Barbara Slavin. Feb. 19 at 10:00 at the Atlantic Council, 1030 15th St. NW, 12th floor. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1lp96QC

--“Dealing WIth Iran: Where Are We Now and How Did We Get Here?” Webinar with Robin Wright and Kate Gould. Feb. 19 from 2:00-3:00. Register here. http://bit.ly/1mcRAmA

--“A Preview of the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit.” Discussion with Graham Allison. Feb. 20 from 6:00-8:00 at George Washington University, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602, 1957 E St. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1iR0oZY

--“Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons Testing.” Discussion with Karipbek Kuyukov and Roman Vassilenko, Ambassador of Kazakhstan. Feb. 26 from 12:30-2:00, George Washington University, Funger Hall room 209, 2201 G Street NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1f9ozEl

Dessert:

Nuclear war, now on your iPad - “It was when I pressed the ‘First Strike’ button (the one with the skull on it, obviously) that I realised the true terror of global nuclear war. Sending ten huge missiles, packed with nuclear warheads, soaring across the sky towards Western Europe was shocking to me. Partly because I didn't know to expect that as a result of pressing that button, and partly because the roar from my iPad genuinely made me jump,” writes Chris Priestman in a preview of the new nuclear war game for Pocket Gamer.

--“First Strike is a game in which you control a superpower and attempt to destroy other countries before they can destroy yours… Your ridiculous battles turn landmass into embers. Sending a well-placed missile over to London led to a death count in the millions. It's terrifying because you've just committed genocide in seconds, but it's worryingly fun. The only way to win in that situation is to build more missiles than the enemy, and destroy as many of their territories as possible. I chased North Korea around the globe until it had nowhere else to go. Victory was mine. But, was it really? If I spun the globe all I could see was red and black countries; destroyed and burned. The Geiger counter was clicking faster than I could count. Victory for me meant destroying the Earth. That's where First Strike's underlying message comes in, making you understand the worrying and sudden consequences of another world war.” Full preview here. http://bit.ly/1h1u3y5