The Best Available Option for Dealing with Iran
On the radar: Consider the deal and the alternatives; Moving to 8 boomers; Sanctions could torpedo negotiations; Sidestepping “right to enrich”; a Bureaucratic, radioactive mess; Hagel at STRATCOM; and a Chinese survivable deterrent.
November 18, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Lauren Mladenka
Good enough - The kind of agreement on the table with Iran right now “should be more than adequate to remove the Iranian nuclear program as a source of fear and instability in the Middle East,” writes Kenneth Pollack. “Of course, it still wouldn’t be perfect. It would not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. It would probably allow Tehran to continue some enrichment.” Despite the deal’s imperfection, argues Pollack, it is still vastly better than the alternatives of waiting for the unlikely event that Iran fully capitulates, containing Iran or going to war.
--”But if Tehran is willing to give up all but a minimal enrichment capability, if it accepts comprehensive and intrusive inspections, and if we can be confident that the sanctions would be reimposed if Iran were ever caught cheating, such an agreement would meet our strategic needs and those of our allies. It may not be perfect, but it would be better than our other options.” Full article in The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/183PkrG
Boomers - “The Navy could and should reduce its SSBN fleet from 14 to eight boats as proposed by [the Congressional Budget Office]. Doing so would shed excess capacity, help prepare the nuclear force level recommended by the new nuclear weapons employment policy, better match the force levels of other countries, and save billions of dollars,” writes Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.
--The recent CBO study showed that the U.S. could save $11 billion through 2023, with $30 billion more saved in the 2030s, if the Navy reduced to a fleet of eight submarines. Full analysis here. http://bit.ly/1f8N3NH
Welcome to the new Early Warning - We upgraded our layout, making it easier to read, share, tweet and subscribe. We’ll be including the same great content as before, just with more white space now. Hope you like it.
Bad timing - “With exquisitely bad timing, a group of House members is urging the Senate to approve new sanctions against Iran in the middle of negotiations on a deal in which the Islamic Republic would suspend its nuclear program,” writes The Los Angeles Times editorial board. But with no guarantee that the current talks between Iran and the six world powers will bear fruit on the Iranian nuclear impasse, another round of sanctions could undermine the already delicate negotiations.
--”If Congress were to unilaterally move to raise sanctions, it could break faith with those negotiations and actually stop them and break them apart,” warned Secretary Kerry this week. See the full article here. http://lat.ms/1amuG4j
Recognition unnecessary- “Iran sees no need for world powers to publically acknowledge its ‘right’ to uranium enrichment, its foreign minister said Sunday, offering a potential way to sidestep another sticking point on a possible nuclear deal when talks resume later this week.” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif argued that Iran’s right to enrich is self-evident as Iran is a party to the NPT, making public recognition of that right unnecessary. AP has the story. http://abcn.ws/1jh1fSh
Iran commentary:
--”Deal With Iran is Possible and Close” by Matt Duss and Larry Korb in The Hill. http://bit.ly/1aNlkdG
--“Nuclear Rights and Wrongs: Why One Legal Term Stalled Negotiations With Iran” by Gary Samore in Foreign Affairs (paywall). http://fam.ag/1bJPrY8
--”Kennedy Showed How to Contain Iran” by Kenneth Pollack in Bloomberg. http://bloom.bg/1ee0vx1
--”Stay the Dogs of War on Iran” by Les Gelb in The Daily Beast. http://thebea.st/1daYW5F
--”Why Democrats beating Tehran down with additional sanctions and zero enrichment guarantees could backfire, badly,” writes James Traub in an article titled “Et Tu, Menendez?” for Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/1fPgJwO
Analysis - “ISIS Analysis of IAEA Iran Safeguards Report” by David Albright, Christina Walrond, and Andrea Stricker of ISIS. November 14, 2013. (pdf) http://bit.ly/1gYxV6l
Hanford - “The government’s multi-billion-dollar effort to clean up the nation’s largest nuclear dump has become its own dysfunctional mess,” writes Rebecca Laflure in a long form article on the bureaucratic problems plaguing the Hanford Nuclear Site.
--”For more than two decades, the government has worked to dispose of 56 million gallons of toxic nuclear and chemical waste stored in underground, leak-prone steel tanks at the Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington State. But progress has been slow, the project’s budget is rising by billions of dollars, and a long-running technical dispute has sown ill will between members of the project’s senior engineering staff, the Energy Department and its lead contractors.” Full article from The Center for Public Integrity. http://bit.ly/1gYDRw4
No room for errors - “The hallmark of America’s nuclear forces has always been the professionalism and uncompromising standards of its dedicated personnel...As you all know, this close scrutiny, and the most rigorous evaluations that we have within the Department of Defense, have recently exposed some troubling lapses in maintaining this professionalism,” said Sec. Chuck Hagel in a speech at STRATCOM last week.
--“To our STRATCOM professionals, I would say, you have chosen a profession where there is no room for error. That’s what the American people expect from you, from all of us,and you must deliver,” Full remarks here. http://1.usa.gov/1aNkMoj
China’s SSBNs - China’s development of a sea-based nuclear deterrent raises difficult questions about how capable China’s subs might be, if China is organized to effectively deploy them and how the U.S. might respond. Christian Conroy explores these questions in an analysis of China’s new Xia-class submarines.
--Takeaway: ”Washington will eventually have to craft nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities and force posture to account for mutual nuclear vulnerability with China in the Asia Pacific. The question is whether the U.S. will respond to the prospect of mutual nuclear vulnerability with denial, by uniformly investing in retaliatory naval capabilities, or with acceptance, by reexamining what extended deterrence means in the Asia Pacific,” writes Conroy. Full piece in The National Interest. http://bit.ly/HZJZpd
Tweet - @wellerstein: 1986 Soviet Civil Defense manual – beautiful, colorful, hi-res end of the world. HT @najtaylor http://bit.ly/1fPdKo8
Events:
--”Rouhani’s First 100 Days.” Discussion with Yasmin Alem, Clifford Kupchan, Hadi Semati, and Greg Thielmann at the Atlantic Council, 1030 15th St. NW, 12th floor. Nov. 20th at 9:30am. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1dOq72x
--”Flawed Logics: Strategic Nuclear Arms Control from Truman to Obama.” Discussion with James Lebovic at George Washington University, Linder Family Commons, Room 602, 1957 E St. NW. Nov. 20th at 1:30pm. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/HNBBsK
--”Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy.” Discussion with Benjamin Friedman, Christopher Preble, and Laura Odato at B-369 Rayburn House Office Building. Nov. 25th at 12:00pm. http://bit.ly/1bVpEKg