Obama’s Speech: Opening Diplomatic Path Toward Resolution with Iran

On the radar: Obama at the General Assembly; the End of Overkill; North Korea’s centrifuge clues; Senate GOP backs off missile defense; and Nuclear weapons designers’ predictable solution to asteroids.

September 24, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Alyssa Demus

Obama Speech - “I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship – one based on mutual interests and mutual respect,” said President Obama in his speech before the UN General Assembly this morning.

--”We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it is the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place...”

--”Given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government, in close coordination with the European Union, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China. The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.” Transcript prepared by The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/18VnDdK

Next step - “Iran’s foreign minister will meet later this week with representatives of other foreign powers, including Secretary of State John F. Kerry, marking one of the highest-level contacts between the United States and Iran in years,” report Colum Lynch and Joby Warrick for The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/1eEatKo

Perspective:

--”Here's the Deal the U.S. and Iran Should Make Right Now” by Kenneth Pollack in The New Republic. http://on.tnr.com/19AFo32

--President Rouhani’s charm offensive and signals for cooperation with the West come “as little surprise to former U.S. intelligence and national security officials, who see Rouhani as a known quantity, and someone the Americans can do business with.” Shane Harris of The Cable reports. http://atfp.co/16X7OXj

--"In terms of whether we are on the verge of a breakthrough, I would put it like this: I was struck by the energy and the determination that the foreign minister demonstrated to me," said EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton about her recent discussion with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. http://wapo.st/1eEatKo

--“Give Iran a Chance” by Hooman Majd in The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/1bDwaJj

--”Easing Sanctions No Easy Goal For Iran's President” reports AP. http://n.pr/15pL6ZJ

--”Will the US and Iran Give Peace A Dance?” by Joe Cirincione in The Huffington Post. http://ow.ly/pank1

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.

Overkill - The justification for building a nuclear triad of subs, bombers and ICBMs was flawed from the start and is even more dubious today, write Benjamin Friedman, Christopher Preble and Matt Fay in a new CATO report on the history of the triad. The authors examine the origins and strategic relevance of the triad. http://bit.ly/1dGitaR

--Excerpt: “Cold War stability never required a triad, a counterforce doctrine, and the massive nuclear arsenal we bought. Post-Cold War stability requires it even less. The stories used to justify our military posture, year after year, exaggerate the precariousness of great power peace and difficulty of deterring aggression. Even if one believes that peace depends on the United States’ ability to deter nuclear-armed states’ aggression by denuding them of their deterrent, there is no need for three costly delivery systems. A submarine-based monad, along with conventional capability, can provide all the deterrence we need, and save roughly $20 billion a year. A dyad of ICBMs and SLBMs saves much less, but has a better chance of enactment due the politics of bombers.”

--“Austerity and the declining utility of nuclear weapons in U.S. wars create a possibility that military leaders might agree to sacrifice a triad leg to preserve other capabilities. Policymakers should exploit that circumstance to improve strategic debate. Unity is necessary in war, but dissent is a reliable source of insight in preparing for war. A nuclear weapons policy that better serves the national interest may require the competition of parochial interests.”

--Full report: “The End of Overkill? Reassessing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy” by Benjamin Friedman, Christopher Preble and Matt Fay for the CATO Institute. (Big pdf) http://bit.ly/15pymlS

In-house production - North Korea likely has the capability to domestically build the centrifuge technology needed for uranium-based nuclear weapons, according to experts Joshua Pollack and Scott Kemp based on open source intelligence.

--Implications: “If Pyongyang can make crucial centrifuge parts at home, outsiders can't track sensitive imports. That could spell the end of policies based on export controls, sanctions and interdiction that have been the centerpiece of international efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear program over the last decade,” said Pollack in remarks at a Seoul symposium. Christopher Hill at AP has the full story. http://ow.ly/pa6qe

Tweet - @BBCWorld: China bans several arms-related exports to North Korea which could be used in development of nuclear weapons. http://bbc.in/1gVOJ9q

Leave it to the House- Senate Republicans are signalling they may not fight to fund an East Coast missile defense shield site in the Senate’s defense authorization bill, as originally planned. Instead, proponents of the site say “the fight for the shield is better left to conference committee, since the House has already approved $140 million for an East Coast missile interceptor site in its authorization bill.”

--Democrats are largely opposed to a new East Coast site because the military has said the site is unnecessary and because the interceptors have had a poor test record. Jeremy Herb has the story for The Hill. http://ow.ly/pabdi

Tweet - @ctbto_alerts: This day in 1996: Clinton, at U.N., Signs Treaty Banning All Nuclear Testing http://t.co/TE7sOmKXe3

Speed reads:

--”$3.9 Billion U.S. Defense Contract Includes Missiles For UAE” by Bill Chappell for NPR. http://n.pr/16EU0xA

--”Time to ratify ban on nuclear testing” by Jennifer Seelig for The Salt Lake Tribune. http://bit.ly/18VdldE

Events:

--President Hassan Rouhani addresses the U.N. General Assembly. September 24 between 3:00-8:00 pm. Webcast here. http://webtv.un.org/

--Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hearing on the nominations of Rose Gottemoeller to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Frank Rose to be Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance; and Adam Scheinman to be Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation. September 26, 10:00 am. Webcast here.

--Iran and the IAEA resume talks on Iran’s nuclear program. September 27.

--”The U.S.-Russia Relationship: Transcending Mutual Deterrence.” Gary Samore, William Tobey, and Pavel Zolotarev. Moderated by Steven Pifer. September 30, 2:00-3:30 pm @ The Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium. Details here. http://ow.ly/oZSM9

Dessert:

Nuking space rocks, treaties - The Department of Energy and Russia’s State Atomic Energy Organization recently signed an agreement urging cooperation in areas including asteroid defense. Translation: the U.S. and Russia want to discuss nuking space rocks - à la Michael Bay’s 1998 opus, Armageddon.

--A few small issues: “A mess of legal obligations stand between us and detonating a nuclear weapon in outer space. It's not entirely clear to me what there is to talk about with ROSATOM beyond how we absolutely, positively cannot do any of the things they are discussing..At best, this program is make-work with a couple of junkets to Russia and northern California for bored weaponeers. At worst, it threatens to undermine of the framework of important treaties that help stop the further spread of nuclear weapons,” writes Jeffrey Lewis. http://ow.ly/pahFO