November 11, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke, Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

What happened - Expectations were high this weekend that Iran could reach a nuclear deal with the U.S. and five world powers. Secretary of State John Kerry and foreign ministers from the P5+1 came “only a handful of words” away from securing an interim agreement with Iran on its nuclear program. Then, after a marathon negotiating session, Iran balked at the deal, which was reportedly too tough for them to accept and did not recognize a right to enrich.

--“There’s no question in my mind that we are closer now, as we leave Geneva, than we were when we came, and that with good work and good faith over the course of the next weeks, we can in fact secure our goal,” said Sec. Kerry after the talks. Michael Gordon, Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren of The New York Times report. http://nyti.ms/1aOKnD6 [1]

An evolving story:

--”Iranian Nuclear Talks End Without a Deal” from Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick of The Washington Post. As of Saturday. http://wapo.st/19WpvIe [2]

--”Kerry Defends Proposed Iran Nuclear Deal; Israel Objects” by Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post. As of Sunday. http://wapo.st/17ZBynG [3]

--”Kerry: Iran deal unfinished because Iranians need to consult with leaders in Tehran” by Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post. As of Monday morning at 10:00am. http://wapo.st/1dhkSIm [4]

--“Kerry sees Iran nuclear deal in months, will protect allies” report Lesley Wroughton and John Irish for Reuters. http://reut.rs/17P9PrO [5]

Tweet - @nukes_of_hazard [6]: Kerry: "The French signed off on it, we signed off on it....There was unity but Iran couldn't take it" http://t.co/9nrwIyWNhk [7]

Outlook - “The outlines of the deal are clear. Iran will take initial steps to freeze its programs in place. As you said, we will take very minor steps to release some financial assets and it'll be done in a phased agreement over the next six or seven months, each step building on the last. We're very, very close. They come back again in 10 days. I expect we'll get a deal very soon,” said Joe Cirincione in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and Ken Pollack of Brookings.

--Watch the full interview here: http://bit.ly/17P3cWt [8]

Expert view - “The talks succeeded in closing many–if not most–of the remaining gaps between the two sides,” write Daryl Kimball and Kelsey Davenport in an analysis of the Geneva negotiations. The authors remind that the Arak reactor, a sticking point for France in talks, is not a near term proliferation risk, is under constant IAEA monitoring and can be dealt with in later phases of negotiations. Full post at Arms Control Now. http://bit.ly/1hzNAKB [9]

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email [10] or follow us on twitter [11].

--Have a tip or feedback for the editor? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org earlywarning@ploughshares.org [12]. Want to support this work? Click here [13].

Pursuing a deal - “Yes, there are risks in an interim agreement. Iran might renege on its assurances or drag out negotiations...But these uncertainties must be weighed against the indications that Iran is willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions in exchange for an end to economic isolation. It would be irresponsible for the U.S. and its partners not to pursue that possibility,” writes the LA Times in an editorial. http://lat.ms/19WhRgY [14]

IAEA deal - The IAEA and Iran struck an agreement to allow expanded monitoring of Iran’s uranium mines and heavy water production plant, along with greater information about Iran’s planned reactor and nuclear power facility plans. AP reports. http://n.pr/17qmzF0 [15]

--Full IAEA text: ”Joint Statement on a Framework for Cooperation” between Iran and the IAEA. November 11, 2013. http://bit.ly/19WdulW [16]

Time to deal - “Now is the moment of truth for Washington. A potential deal would be the first step on a path that will help make America safer. It could also be the best deal we will get. And we would not have given up either the architecture of our current sanctions or our military pressure on the Islamic Republic. But we very well may get a rock-solid verifiable commitment that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon,” writes Joel Rubin for Think Progress. http://bit.ly/1hYAbcL [17]

What’s your alternative? - The argument from hawks “is that Iran should make significant concessions, but that the West should make none at all. That's not negotiations, that's a requirement that the other side surrender. Which makes one wonder, do the critics of this negotiating process want a better deal or do they really want no deal at all so that it opens up another path to deal with the problem, which is war,” says Fareed Zakaria. http://cnn.it/1eE4ndh [18]

Saboteur is a French word - In a last minute display of diplomatic pettiness, France helped block an interim deal with Iran - asserting it wanted more controls over Iran’s yet unfinished but internationally monitored Arak nuclear reactor. As a result, France endangered a deal to control Iran’s most urgent proliferation risk - Iran’s ongoing uranium enrichment - to posture over a more distant, secondary risk - the possibility of plutonium reprocessing.

--France’s move signals an attempt to call attention to itself and step on the toes of the Americans after a frustrating U.S. about face on attacking Syria, argues Christopher Dickey for The Daily Beast. Read the full story here. http://thebea.st/1cfo3PJ [19]

The week ahead - “Failure to Reach Iran Deal Gives Opponents Time to Lobby” by Jonathan Tirone of Bloomberg. http://bloom.bg/HRxNWI [20]

Tweet - @DefenseOne [21]: How the Senate Is Complicating Negotiations With Iran, by @BarnesDi http://bit.ly/16VSJFG [22]

Hill perspective - “Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has repeatedly sponsored tough sanctions legislation, spoke of ‘the possibility of moving ahead with new sanctions, including wording it in such a way that if there is a deal that is acceptable, that those sanctions could cease upon such a deal.’”

--“All of us want to see diplomacy. We do. And we thank the secretary for the efforts that he’s putting forth. That is the best way to resolve this issue. But we’re also concerned about an administration that seems really ready always to jump into the arms of folks and potentially deal away some of the leverage we have,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). AP has the story. http://wapo.st/17P4IrD [23]

Hawkish view - Advocates for endless sanctioning downplay the value of negotiations and urge yet more sanctions while admitting doubt: “Even new sanctions may not be enough to stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions. But after the debacle of American policy in Syria, sanctions are really the only hammer the U.S. has left,” write Mark Dubowitz and Marc Gerecht for The Wall Street Journal. http://on.wsj.com/18lRKMq [24]

--So much for Freedom Fries: ”We never thought we'd say this, but thank heaven for French foreign-policy exceptionalism,” writes The Wall Street Journal in an article titled ”Vive La France on Iran.” http://on.wsj.com/19duaB3 [25]

Time to make the hard choices - The reality of defense cuts is sinking in for the U.S. military, as congressional budget pressure is expected to bring defense spending down to $475 billion for 2014 with $1 trillion in defense cuts slated through 2023. This is forcing the Pentagon to finally make hard choices about what weapons it really needs for American security strategy, writes The New York Times in an editorial.

--”One of the biggest decisions involves whether to spend about $300 billion — or, some experts say, as much as $1 trillion — over the next 30 years to modernize the submarines, bombers and missiles that carry nuclear weapons. That would seem especially ill advised given that nuclear weapons are being reduced and should be reduced even more.” Full article here. http://nyti.ms/1gDiIHG [26]

Russia also mired in nuclear modernization - “Russia is making new nuclear delivery systems a national priority, with a new ballistic-missile submarine class and missile in production; continued deliveries of a modern, road-mobile ICBM; and reports of a new silo-based heavyweight weapon,” writes Bill Sweetman in a profile of Russia’s nuclear modernization efforts.

--”Western experts across the hawk-to-dove spectrum tend to agree that Russia's motivation is a perception of conventional-force weakness relative to the U.S., NATO and China, which in turn stems from the Russian economy's inability to support rapid modernization of air, land and naval forces.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1gDiwIs [27]

Nuclear Tests and World Health - A new medical study, examining the serious harms inflicted on Norwegian pregnant women (and therefore Norwegian children) by Soviet nuclear testing in the late 1950s and early 1960s shows how the effects of nuclear tests can last decades.

--Researchers found that, amongst other health concerns, children whose mothers were exposed to soviet nuclear fallout faced, “reduced educational attainment, high school completion, and adult earnings.” Harold Pollack of The Washington Post has the story. http://wapo.st/19RMjbT [28]

Events:

--”Cost and benefits to US strategic interests from UK renewal of Trident.” Discussion with Paul Ingram and Peter Huessy at the Capitol Hill Club. Nov. 12 from 8:00-9:30am. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1aYdFNN [29]

--”The Nuclear Crisis at Plutonium Mountain: Two Journalists' Tale.” Discussion with Eben Harrell and David Hoffman at Harvard’s Belfer Center Library. Nov. 13th from 10:00-11:00am. http://hvrd.me/1cHk6Eg [30]

--”Examining Nuclear Negotiations: Iran After Rouhani’s First 100 Days.” House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing with Colin Kahl, Mark Dubowitz, and Danielle Pletka. Nov. 13th at 10:00am. Webcast available at committee website. http://1.usa.gov/1bokKaL [31]

--”Central Asia, Iran and the Nuclear Landscape in Asia.” Discussion at George Washington University, Linder Family Commons, Room 602, 1957 E St. NW. Nov. 14 from 9:00am-3:30pm. Register here.http://bit.ly/1akaijq [32]

--”Reporting on Iran.” Discussion with Laura Rozen and Barbara Slavin at American Security Project, seventh floor, 1100 New York Ave. NW. Nov. 14 from 12:30pm-1:20pm. RSVP by Nov. 12 here. http://bit.ly/1fwoIyK [33]

--”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 [34]

--”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 [35]