Hayden: Attacking Iran Would be Counter-Productive

On the radar: The consensus against striking Iran; Budget savings from unnecessary nuclear weapons; Pollack on the consequences of current Iran strategy; Could North Korea pull a Burma?; Iran and the NPT; Diaspora views; and a Nuclear boondoggle in perspective.

January 20, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

Quote - “When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent -- an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret,” said former Bush administration CIA and NSA chief Gen. Michael Hayden.

--”Without an actual occupation of Iran, which nobody wants to contemplate, the Bush administration concluded that the result of a limited military campaign in Iran would be counter-productive, according to Hayden,” reports Josh Rogin of The Cable. http://owl.li/8AvaQ

Strategy reset, budget savings - “[Pentagon] programs that address low-priority threats must be scaled back to make room for more pressing national priorities and reduce the deficit. Smart reductions in spending on unnecessary new nuclear weapons systems would enhance US security,” write Daryl Kimball and Tom Collina in the Christian Science Monitor.

--“Congress can trim at least $45 billion from strategic nuclear force modernization programs over the next 10 years,” they write. Recommendations: Reduce the sub fleet from 14 to 8, and save $27 billion over 10 years; Delay the new strategic bomber and save $18 billion; for additional savings, consider cutting an ICBM squadron and forgoing a MMIII replacement. http://owl.li/8AvdK

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

Escalation and its consequences - “The more we turn up the heat on Iran, the more Iran will fight back, and the way they like to fight back could easily lead to unintended escalation,” writes Ken Pollack in The New Republic.

--Pollack argues that the latest sanctions on Iran could backfire: harming the U.S. economy, eroding ally support and sanctions implementation, and increasing the likelihood of inadvertent war. “If we don’t have the stomach to countenance the possibility of such an escalation [to war], we may want to reconsider our current course,” he concludes. http://owl.li/8AvfD

Tweet - @FrankMunger: “This is not how to report a fire at a nuclear weapons plant. http://bit.ly/yANaud #whatsthehurry”

Iran nuclear talks - Iran will send a letter, via Turkey, asking the EU to name the time and place for a new round of nuclear talks, Bloomberg reports. http://owl.li/8Avm9

Carrots and Sticks - “Negotiation must still be the aim of sanctions.” The Economist argues that a nuclear deal with Iran is possible, if the West offers a “grand bargain.” It may be tough sell for the American public, but necessary to avoid war, the authors conclude. http://owl.li/8Avor

The last Kim? - Myanmar has made a dramatic turnaround from international pariah to being on track for democratic reforms and warmed relations with Washington. Could North Korea after Kim Jong Il do the same? Daniel Kliman challenges the conventional wisdom at Foreign Policy. http://owl.li/8AwF1

Don’t rush to war - “Under the NPT, there is nothing illegal about stockpiling low-enriched uranium,” Yousaf Butt argues. “Whatever options and ambitions that Iranians leaders may hold in their heads, however worrying, cannot be illegal.”

--So what’s the solution to the standoff? ”If the United States and Iran hope to escape these sadly familiar episodes of heightened tension and warmongering, they need to reach a simple grand bargain that will cut through the sanctions' impossible conditions,” Butt concludes. http://owl.li/8Avqg

Iranian diaspora views - “There is no arguing that Iran must change. The Iranian government's human rights record is appalling...Few Iranian-Americans are calling for sitting idly by and waiting for the situation in Iran to improve on its own. But it's a rare voice indeed that is calling for war,” writes Reza Marashi in Foreign Policy. http://owl.li/8AvxK

Money & Pits - The U.S. stockpile of plutonium pits is roughly ten times larger than the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads the U.S. is allowed under New START. Yet NNSA wants to spend between $3.7 and $6.5 billion to quadruple its pit production capacity. POGO puts those numbers in perspective with this week’s second (really long) infographic. http://owl.li/8Avvt