December 2, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Lauren Mladenka
A look ahead - “Now that the Obama administration has won its breakthrough first step nuclear deal with Iran, officials are planning strategy for the decisive second round that, over the next six months, will seek a broader and tougher comprehensive agreement,” writes David Ignatius for The Washington Post. “This ‘end state’ negotiation, as officials describe it, promises to be more difficult because the United States and its negotiating partners will seek to dismantle parts of the Iranian program, rather than simply freeze them. Another complication is that negotiators will be fending off even more brickbats from hard-liners in Israel, Congress and Tehran.”
--Administration strategists will have a more difficult time securing their end state priorities than last week’s limited agreement, which include a permanent halt in activities at the heavy water Arak reactor, dismantlement of 19,000 centrifuges, closure of the uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, Iran’s commitment in the interim deal to the inspection of possible weaponization and military activities at Parchin and other bases, and a structure for the next round of talks with its negotiating partners. Full article here. http://wapo.st/1bDVwXX [1]
Implementation meeting - “Envoys of Iran and six world powers will meet next week to start working out steps to implement a deal under which Tehran is to curb its nuclear program in return for some respite from sanctions,” write Isabel Cole and Fredrik Dahl. Despite years of mistrust, top Iranian officials expect negotiations to take place in within the coming week in Vienna or Geneva. Reuters reports. http://reut.rs/1dLq4IQ [2]
Anxious critics of the deal - “The opposition to the new agreement on Iran's nuclear program has been predictable but still puzzling. Here's what would have happened had there been no deal: Iran would have continued to build up its nuclear program, with no constraints or inspections,” writes Fareed Zakaria. Such a scenario has already occurred; Iran developed nearly 19,000 centrifuges after its offer to negotiated with the U.S. was rebuffed in 2003.
-- “So what explains the fevered rhetoric and opposition? I think the fear is less of this deal than of what it might bring in its wake. Many imagine that this is the start of a rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran, which would fundamentally change the geopolitical landscape,” Zakaria argues. Full article in Time. http://ti.me/18y856O [3]
More money - “The U.N. atomic watchdog will probably need more money to verify the the implementation of a landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers,” reports Fredrik Dahl on the IAEA’s expanded responsibilities. While not everything can be covered by the IAEA’s tight budget, the organization can “mobilize expertise and staff from within the organization for an increased workload in checking whether Iran is complying with the interim accord with the major powers to curb its nuclear program.” Read the full story at Reuters. http://reut.rs/18b3bKg [4]
More problems - “Key lawmakers said Sunday they expect to press forward with an Iran sanctions package that can be imposed quickly if the interim accord to freeze Tehran's nuclear program fails to lead to a long-term deal,” Lisa Mascaro reports. “No action is likely in Congress for at least another week, as the Senate shelved the potentially heated debate for a Thanksgiving recess. The White House had cautioned against adding more sanctions as high-level talks led by Secretary of State John F. Kerry were underway in Geneva last month.” The Los Angeles Times has the story. http://lat.ms/IAVFP2 [5]
Broader perspective - “It is often said that stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and persuading countries with them to reduce what they have are two sides of the same coin. Iran proves the point,” writes Joe Cirincione in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times. Limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment is urgent, “but rolling back Iran's program would also open the way to reducing even greater nuclear threats.”
-- “Stopping Iran would not just eliminate the most discussed nuclear threat facing the United States, it would also bring us closer to the end of nuclear proliferation,” Cirincione argues, and “could make it easier to persuade North Korea to make a similar deal and other nations not to begin programs. It would also help create the security conditions necessary for the eight nuclear-armed states to consider cuts in their arsenals.” Full article here. http://lat.ms/1eHY8lx [6]
INF compliance - Recent allegations about Russian compliance with the INF treaty are technically and legally unfounded. Such allegations, usually intended to cast Russian in the most sinister light and undermine the perceived value of arms control, are counterproductive because they stoke a conversation among Russian officials about redrawing INF treaty definitions or even abrogating the treaty. Nikolai Sokov at Arms Control Wonk explains the INF allegation and the pandora’s box of Russian politics that they threaten to open. http://bit.ly/IoM9yH [7]
Lessons - “If carefully crafted, agreements with rogue states -- even with North Korea -- can serve the national interests of the United States. Indeed, the history of dealing with Pyongyang highlights a number of potential landmines that the Obama administration will encounter -- and must avoid -- as it moves down the diplomatic road,” writes former State Department official Joel Wit.
--Lessons from dealing with Pyongyang: “the United States should avoid the ‘problem solved’ mentality that inevitably follows landmark agreements...without a thawing of bilateral political relations, nuclear deals ultimately fail...plan for disputes and cheating...Finally, domestic political buy-in is essential to ensure that agreements last.” Full post at Foreign Policy. link [8]
Yongbyon - “Steam, water may show North Korea trying to restart reactor: IAEA” reports Fredrik Dahl of Reuters. http://reut.rs/IAsk7g [9]
Political context - “Obama has room to maneuver on the nuclear initiative not because Americans trust the new Iranian government, or the president's diplomatic skills, or are particularly confident that diplomacy will succeed. Obama's advantage, rather, is that the alternative has been discredited,” writes Ron Brownstein of the National Journal.
--”Amid widespread disillusionment over the American military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama is benefiting from the shattered public belief that American force can pacify the Middle East.” Full article at Defense One. http://bit.ly/1cNER0M [10]
Iran task force - “We believe that the joint plan of action signed by Iran, the United States, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, will constrain Iran's nuclear advances in return for modest proportionate sanctions relief…Realizing the difficulties that lie ahead in achieving a final agreement, we applaud the efforts of the many diplomats from all seven nations and the European Union as well as the hosts of negotiations for bringing us to this promising potential turning point. We hope the signatories will now implement their promises and achieve a comprehensive agreement in six months,” say members of the Atlantic Council’s Iran Task force in a statement. Full text here. http://bit.ly/1isAuix [11]
Speed reads:
--“The President Who Went Nuclear: How Barack Obama's fixation on ridding the world of nuclear weapons is transforming the Middle East” by David Kenner in Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/IoLbm5 [12]
--”The Red-Zone Theory of the Iran Nuclear Deal” by Graham Allison for The Atlantic. http://bit.ly/1dLpJWC [13]
--”Saved by the Deal: How Rouhani Won the Negotiations and Rescued His Regime” by Suzanne Maloney for Foreign Affairs. http://fam.ag/1bDSF0Z [14]
Events:
--”The Future of America’s Strategic Nuclear Deterrent.” Discussion with Evan Montgomery at SVC-215 Capitol Visitor Center. Dec. 5 at 10:00. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/18US48R [15]
--”Making Sense of Nuclear Negotiations with Iran: A Good Deal or a Bad Deal?” Discussion with Alireza Nader, Daryl Kimball, and Paul Piller at 2168 Rayburn House Office Building. Dec. 10 from 2:00-3:00. RSVP by calling Kurt Card at (703) 413-1100 ext. 5259 or online. http://bit.ly/18hj5jc [16]
--”Avoiding Future Irans: A New Course for U.S. Nonproliferation Policy.” Discussion with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Rep. Brad Sherman, Sen. Ed Markey (invited), Mark Wallace, Daryl Kimball, Kingston Reif, Christopher Paine, and Robert Zarate at B338 Rayburn House Office Building. Dec. 11 from 11:45-1:30. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1cUWprv [17]
--”Critical Mass: Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East.” Discussion with Rep. Jim Cooper, Rep. Mac Thornberry, and Andrew Krepinevich at 2218 Rayburn House Office Building. Dec. 12 at 10:00. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1863IPJ [18]
--”Key Policy Issues for U.S. Nuclear Cooperation.” Discussion with Rose Gottemoeller, Daniel Poneman, Thomas Moore, Mary Beth Nikitin, Miles Pomper (possible), Leonard Spector (possible), and Steve Rademaker at the Atlantic Council. Dec. 12 from 3:00-5:30pm. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1cUX6kw [19]
--Deterrence Stability and Escalation Control in South Asia.” Discussion with Rose Gottemoeller, Robert Einhorn, Mansoor Ahmed, and Silakanta Mishra at Stimson. Dec. 13 from 11:30-2:00. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1dLltq3 [20]
Dessert:
Own a missile site - For about $2 million, you could own an Atlas D ICBM missile site in Washington County Nebraska. The site, which housed the first generation of US-based ICBMs, features 274 acres, three reinforced concrete sheds and launch pads. It’s mostly suitable for agriculture, but also served as “a pretty good backdrop” for playing paintball.
--Cole Epley for the Omaha World-Herald reports about the former missile site, the process of selling it and the recent history of finding new uses for defunct missile sites. Full story here. http://bit.ly/1gyuK2g [21]
Topic
- Early Warning [22]
- Iran Nuclear Program [23]
- Iran sanctions [24]
- Iran Negotiations [25]
- Russia [26]
- IAEA [27]
- North Korea [28]