Iran Deal: Building Confidence and Enhancing Security

November 26, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke, Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Confidence - ”What is most significant about the current deal is its potential to overcome that mutual mistrust. Both sides demonstrated a willingness to make concessions on the issues that the other side needed them to -- and that is ultimately what will be necessary if there is going to be a successful final agreement,” writes Kenneth Pollack.

--“Now both sides can tell their domestic audiences that the other side demonstrated a willingness to make the kind of painful concessions that will be required for a final deal. And that should give everyone some confidence that it is possible to get a more comprehensive agreement, one that would finally end the threat posed by Iran’s existing nuclear program.” Full article at Foreign Affairs. (paywall) http://fam.ag/1aVJB4K

Ignatius’ take - “The world is safer from the Iranian nuclear threat today than it was a week ago,” writes David Ignatius about the effects of the Iran deal. Ignatius explains the benefits of the deal, its fragility, and how secret diplomacy with Iran lead to the deal’s success. Full article at The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/1aVH7Dx

Nuclear reductions - “Treaties have been an important, but not the only, means by which the United States has reduced the number and types of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. In fact, treaties have been the exception rather than the rule,” write Usha Sahay and Kingston Reif in a new report. This history challenges the partisan push by opponents of nuclear reductions and/or treaties to require the president to conclude a treaty to reshape the U.S. nuclear arsenal. ”Republican Presidents – George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush – have been particularly prone to cutting nuclear weapons without treaties pursuant to the authority of the Commander and Chief to set nuclear force levels.”

--”While treaties have focused on the deployed portion of the U.S. strategic nuclear stockpile, presidents have routinely exercised broad authority over non-strategic or ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons and non-deployed or ‘reserve’ nuclear weapons, which together comprise the majority of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.” http://bit.ly/1jG2afj

--Full Report: “Non-Treaty Cuts to the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile” by Usha Sahay and Kingston Reif of The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. November, 2013. (pdf) http://bit.ly/1enBMFY

Getting up to speed - “9 Questions About Iran’s Nuclear Program You Were Too Embarrassed to Ask,” by Max Fisher of The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/1cqjjHp

Joe on the deal - “This deal doubles Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear weapon and makes it much more likely that we would see them doing it. It also freezes the program in place. And while we're watching them they can't substantially enhance their capabilities. So we don't lose anything in this deal,” said Joe Cirincione in an interview with Ezra Klein of The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/IkHjmm

--See also: Joe talks with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last night about the Iran deal. Video here. on.msnbc.com/1aPqASr

The expert community weighs in - “Action plan: Keeping Iran from the Bomb.” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists invited top nuclear experts to share their perspectives on the recent Iran deal.

--Authors: Olli Heinonen, Mark Hibbs, Pervez Hoodbhoy, Scott Kemp, Larry Korb, Emily Landau, Andreas Persbo, Amb. Thomas Pickering, Greg Thielmann and Ivanka Barzashka. http://bit.ly/1fG7WjE

”Pretty darn good” - “Upon close examination, the interim agreement between the P5+1 and Iran provides meaningful and verifiable constraints on Tehran's nuclear program, and it does so in a way that sustains momentum and leverage for further progress. If implemented, the deal will buy precious time to negotiate an enduring, peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge. Although no diplomatic agreement is perfect, the one reached in Geneva is pretty darn good,” writes Colin H. Kahl in a piece for Foreign Policy. Full article here. http://atfp.co/1c52d3D

First step - “For now, the Iranian nuclear program has been halted, and the possibility of a military conflict between Iran and the United States has diminished. Additionally, the suffering people of Iran will have a bit more space to breathe. Nevertheless, an ideal Iran -- a country at peace with its own people and the world -- is still a distant reality. We can hope Geneva is the first step in that direction,” writes Alireza Nader for Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/IqFiV5

Sanctions timeline - “Leading Democratic and Republican senators are crafting legislation to reinstate the full force of sanctions and impose new ones if Iran doesn’t make good on its pledge to roll back its nuclear program, brushing aside the Obama administration’s fears about upending its diplomatic momentum,” writes Bradley Klapper for AP. The bill will likely be considered when the Senate returns from Thanksgiving recess. http://yhoo.it/184Uez5

Long road ahead - “In the short run, the deal agreed to by Western powers and Iran over the weekend accomplishes a great deal. In the long run, however, many key issues still must be settled,” writes David Albright for The Washington Post. “The Geneva deal should be lauded for the strong limitations it places on Iran’s nuclear capabilities for the next several months. But if there is to be a genuine, final settlement of the Iran nuclear issue, the real struggle is just beginning.” Full article here. http://wapo.st/1cm5biu

Nuclear deal gap - “Sunday's agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program contains an apparent gap that could allow Tehran to build components off-site to install later in a nuclear reactor where it has promised to halt work,” reports Frederick Dahl. While “any impact of omission is likely to be small if Iran follows other undertakings in the interim accord,” the gap in the nuclear deal could nevertheless be a potential loophole that tests Iran’s intentions. Full report at Reuters. http://reut.rs/17VNOaC

The scene - “Way past midnight at an upscale Swiss hotel, negotiations hit the nitty-gritty on a breakthrough deal about Iran’s nuclear program. There was a flurry of calls with the White House, pizza and talk about a tiny, but critical, asterisk in what became the final agreement. Throughout it all, a band was crooning Irish folk tunes that seemed to grow louder as the tedious negotiations continued into the wee hours of Sunday morning,” writes AP about the scene in Geneva last weekend. http://wapo.st/1a0iKky

The broader relationship - “Ultimately, the success of the nuclear negotiations will help determine who and what will define Iran for the next few decades,” writes Trita Parsi, arguing that a comprehensive deal, if successful, could help transform the U.S.-Iran relationship and broader dynamics across the Middle East. Full post at Reuters. http://reut.rs/18En398

New START reductions - “Discussions regarding nuclear reductions to meet the limits required by the New START treaty are ongoing, but no decisions have yet been made,” writes Jenn Rowell. Last week, a circulated Air Force timeline “indicated an environmental assessment would begin in December to determine how ICBMs would be eliminated under New START. The timeline indicated the Air Force would begin pulling missiles from silos in December 2014 and start to eliminate those silos in March 2016,” though “the Pentagon has not confirmed the timeline or if eliminating an ICBM squadron is the preferred option.” Full article from the Great Falls Tribune. http://gftrib.com/1bl17SL

Trident costs - “U.K. Trident Missile Life-Extension Annual Cost to Rise to $60 Million” from Global Security Newswire. http://bit.ly/17QFEhD

Speed reads:

--”A Convincing First Step On Iran's Nuclear Program” by Robert Einhorn of Brookings’ Saban Center. http://bit.ly/1bkYLTT

--”How to Think About Obama’s Deal With Iran” by Dennis Ross for Politico Magazine. http://politi.co/1cqgFkY

--”Israel's Iran Dilemma” by Roger Cohen of The New York Times. http://nyti.ms/1cMCCdX

Event:

--”New Hope for Nuclear Negotiations with Iran, or Further Disappointment?” Discussion with Trita Parsi and John Limbert at World Affairs Council of Washington, DC. Nov. 26 from 6:30pm-8:30pm. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1aT1X6r

Dessert:

Metaphorically speaking - “Skeptics of the agreement hashed out in Geneva see parallels between [the Iran] deal and, well, just about every bad, no good, awful, catastrophic moment in international politics since 1914. Meanwhile, its defenders have run out of breathless adjectives with which to describe a deal that just, maybe, might, possibly be similar to President Nixon's opening to China. In short, the debate over how to interpret the Geneva agreement has descended into a funhouse of dueling metaphors,” writes Elias Groll in a guide to the many terrible metaphors used by pundits about the Iran deal.

--Included metaphors: Munich, the Persian Empire, “Nuclear 1914,” Nixon to China, Libya, and football. http://atfp.co/1bSd3Gw

Onion goes rogue - “‘The Onion’ Vows To Carry On Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program Until The Job Is Done” quips The Onion in an editorial. http://onion.com/1hfRkzH

Scientists disappointed - “Standing in the dim subterranean facility in which he had spent the better part of his peak work years, deeply frustrated Iranian scientist Ali Khatami told reporters today that the recent Iran-U.S. nuclear accords have forced him to shutter the project he has wasted 12 years of his life… developing,” writes The Onion. http://onion.com/17VP1ia