Sen. Robert Menendez’s (D-NJ) decision yesterday to postpone voting on a new sanctions bill that would have disrupted U.S. negotiations with Iran was a strong step to preserve the diplomatic process to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The bill, which is still scheduled to go through mark-up tomorrow, is opposed by U.S. negotiating partners because it would push Iran away from the talks and jeopardize the international coalition that has enforced sanctions so far. While postponing a vote is good news for diplomacy, it only defers what will continue to be a threat to undo the negotiations, and other congressional proposals require urgent attention. Congress should focus on constructive legislation that reinforces U.S. negotiators’ work rather than proposals that undermine it, and should not be distracted by tendentious narratives about Iran that misinterpret events in the Middle East for political expedience.

Congress made the right move this week to postpone considering new sanctions legislation.

U.S. negotiating partners have stressed that new sanctions would sink the talks. Members of the P5+1 have taken the unusual step of appealing directly to Congress to not pass new sanctions legislation against Iran. As four foreign ministers from the P5+1 wrote in the Washington Post last week, “Maintaining pressure on Iran through our existing sanctions is essential. But introducing new hurdles at this critical stage of the negotiations, including through additional nuclear-related sanctions legislation on Iran, would jeopardize our efforts at a critical juncture. While many Iranians know how much they stand to gain by overcoming isolation and engaging with the world, there are also those in Tehran who oppose any nuclear deal. We should not give them new arguments. New sanctions at this moment might also fracture the international coalition that has made sanctions so effective so far. Rather than strengthening our negotiating position, new sanctions legislation at this point would set us back.” British Prime Minister David Cameron voiced a similar opinion in a press conference with President Obama the week before. Congress should respect the opinion of our negotiating partners. [Laurent Fabius, et al via Washington Post,1/21/15]

Sanctions brought Iran to the table, but it’s the negotiations that are keeping its nuclear program frozen. In remarks at the University of Louisville earlier this month, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power acknowledged the coercive power of the U.S. sanctions regime, saying that “sanctions did indeed help to bring Iran to the negotiating table. But sanctions did not stop the advance of Iran’s nuclear program. Negotiations have done that, and it is in our interest not to deny ourselves the chance to achieve a long-term, comprehensive solution that would deny Iran a nuclear weapon.” Ilan Goldenberg, Senior Fellow and Director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, explained this yesterday in a NSN press call. “In 2012, we needed to demonstrate to [Iran] that we could hurt them economically, and they didn’t believe it. Until they believed it, they weren’t going to negotiate with us in a real fundamental way,” Goldenberg said. “But now the problem is that we need to demonstrate we can credibly unhurt them. And they don’t believe that, they don’t believe we can ever lift the sanctions.” In fact, Goldenberg said the postponement of the proposed sanctions bill could actually strengthen the U.S. hand in negotiations. “Now we have had this big confrontation and if the President wins that confrontation, if no bill comes to the floor or proponents of sanctions aren’t able to get to a veto-proof majority…then the President looks a lot stronger in the eyes of an Iranian negotiator.” [Samantha Power,1/12/15. Ilan Goldenberg, 1/28/15]

Negotiations will likely still be ongoing in March, and Congress shouldn’t bind itself to artificial deadlines. Many supporters of the proposed sanctions legislation, including its co-sponsor, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), said in a letter on Tuesday that they will postpone taking up the legislation until late March. Menendez wrote that “we will only vote for this legislation on the Senate floor if Iran fails to reach an agreement on a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement.” This is a positive step, but it’s a mistake to fix the bill to the U.S. self-imposed deadline in March. As Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, the P5+1 is hoping to reach a framework on “key elements” by the end of March, but “the actual deadline is June.” Even then, Blinken noted that the Administration could ask for an extension to finish working out the technical arrangement. “If we get to June, and we have the core elements in place…and it turns out we need a little more time to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, we may seek it,” he said. As Dr. Edward Levine, retired Senior Professional Staff Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted in the NSN press call yesterday, “when you are in the midst of a negotiation, you don’t want to take up legislation that the other side, and indeed your allies, would see as undermining the negotiation.” Those negotiations will likely be continuing past Sen. Menendez’s artificial March deadline. “The reality of the negotiations shows that patience and forbearance is what is needed now, not more sanctions,” wrote NSN Executive Director John Bradshaw and Amb. John Limbert, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran and former Iranian hostage, today in The Hill. [Antony Blinken, 1/27/15. Ed Levine, 1/28/15. John Bradshaw and John Limbert via The Hill,1/28/15]

Congress has a role to play in the nuclear negotiations, but it should focus on constructive proposals instead of proposals that undermine U.S. and other P5+1 negotiators. Members of Congress have pressed for a greater role in the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and they will have a critical role to play if a deal is reached and sanctions must be repealed. Some proposals, though, would undermine U.S. negotiators’ efforts. Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are considering a bill to require any deal that comes out of the P5+1 negotiations to receive immediate congressional consideration and a potential vote of disapproval. This sends a message to Iran’s hardliners that the U.S. government will not be able to follow through on the commitments it makes in the nuclear talks, and as Blinken said in his testimony yesterday, “Anything we do that reinforces the hand of those who absolutely don’t want a deal under any circumstances is going to weaken [the negotiators’] hand and make it less likely that we will get to an agreement.”

Other, more constructive approaches are being worked on in the Senate. On Monday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) proposed a resolution that “states that the Senate is prepared to enact additional sanctions against Iran if current diplomatic efforts fail, but refuses to prejudge the outcome.” Another proposal being worked on by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) would tie renewed sanctions to verified violations of the Iran’s commitments under the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) and under any final nuclear settlement. (The International Atomic Energy Agency has consistently reported that Iran has abided by its JPOA obligations.) This would unequivocally be an enforcement measure, not a threat to the ongoing negotiations, and comes from “a concern that reaches across party lines that some colleagues are pushing to enact new sanctions while our negotiators are still at the table,” Sen. Boxer said. [Antony Blinken, 1/28/15. Barbara Boxer, 1/21/15]

Iran hawks are trying to distract from the nuclear negotiations by constructing a dire – and misleading – narrative about Iran. As support for proposals that would derail the nuclear negotiations has waned in recent weeks, hawks have turned toward attacking not a potential deal, but the idea of negotiating with Iran at all. Conservative pundits like Charles Krauthammer have written recently of Iran as a rising hegemon in the Middle East, with the resignation of Yemen’s government under pressure from Shia rebels as the latest example; this was echoed repeatedly by senators at yesterday’s Senate Banking Committee hearing. This narrative is exaggerated, ignoring Iran’s strapped economy and the mostly speculative nature of its relationship to the Houthi rebels. “What is depicted [by critics of the negotiations] as a grand Iranian scheme for achieving regional hegemony is instead a matter of diverse conflicts with many different causes and instigators and in which any Iranian roles have been largely reactive,” Paul Pillar wrote this past weekend for the National Interest. This misinterpretation of events serves the purpose of distracting from what Pillar identifies as the most important question: “Will Iranian policies and behavior be better for our interests with such an agreement or without it?”

“To some extent the anti-agreement forces try to make an argument that letting Iran out of its international penalty box will enable an ill-intentioned state to do even more ill-intentioned things,” Pillar wrote. “But to a large extent the appeal is simply an emotional, non-intellectual one that relies on popular distaste for doing any business with people we don’t like. It is the sort of appeal that tacitly rejects the principle that the need for diplomacy and doing business with other states is at least as great with one’s adversaries as it is with one’s allies.” The United States must take the opposite approach. As Bradshaw and Amb. Limbert wrote this morning, “To create a long-lasting, verifiable deal, the parties need to see each other as partners, not players in a zero sum game.” [Paul Pillar viaNational Interest, 1/24/15. John Bradshaw and John Limbert via The Hill, 1/28/15]

Photo Credit: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Paris, France continue their negotiations over the future of Iran’s nuclear program. [State Department, 1/16/15]

The post More Legislative Threats to Iran Negotiations Loom appeared first on National Security Network.

Last night, President Obama in his State of the Union address touched on a host of national security issues of critical importance to the United States and international community. While his discussion of national security was broad, a key theme running through his address was the forward-looking need to reinforce America’s global position and security in the 21^stcentury by emphasizing diplomatic and economic power. This “smarter kind of American leadership” applies to a number of issues, but the President’s comments on Asia, Iran, Cuba, trade strategy, and climate security in particular demonstrate the value of careful and relentless global engagement to producing results. Now armed with a clear agenda, the Administration and Congress need to work together to implement policies with sustained and coordinated follow-through. Only by getting the details right can the big picture come together.

Successfully implementing the Asia rebalance requires deeper follow-through for effective diplomatic engagement with the core region of the 21^st century. The President renewed his commitment to sustain rebalancing American resources and attention to the Asia-Pacific. While strong foundations have been set down, more is ultimately needed. A major report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee explained, “The United States has successfully moved forward with the initial phases of implementing the military aspects of the rebalance. But given the broader strategic and policy goals, it is essential that the non-military elements also move forward with equal speed and weight. An ‘unbalanced’ or under-resourced approach to the rebalance threatens to undermine the goals of the policy and, consequently, the prospects for greater prosperity.” Despite increased high-level diplomatic attention towards the region and the creation of new programs, the report notes, “the State Department has not substantially increased diplomatic engagement resources to its Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Department of Commerce staffing levels have not significantly increased, hindering the ability of U.S. businesses to take full advantage of new prospects. U.S. development assistance to the region, which saw a modest increase in the administration’s FY 2015 budget proposal, is still below levels from several years ago, and the U.S. development approach needs updating and upgrading.” [SFRC, 4/17/14]

The United States has the opportunity to make a deal with Iran to promote nuclear security and non-proliferation in a volatile region, but it’s up to Congress to allow diplomacy to work. President Obama last night emphasized the value of nuclear negotiations with Iran and the need to allow diplomacy the full chance to succeed. This diplomatic initiative has the potential to prevent not only an Iranian nuclear weapon, but proliferation throughout the Middle East and would reinforce the international community’s staunch opposition to nuclear weapons development. But it will come down to Congress to allow this process to work, and hawks in the House and Senate have pushed for new sanctions legislation that would derail the talks. Members of Congress agree with the President’s warnings about the sanctions proposals. “New sanctions now would violate the interim agreement, collapse the negotiations and take us out of lockstep with the international community,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in a statement last night. “We have a responsibility to support the diplomatic negotiations and see them through.” And U.S. partners in the P5+1 are urging Congress to refrain from passing this legislation. British Prime Minister David Cameron said last Friday that “as a country that stands alongside America in these vital negotiations… it’s the opinion of the United Kingdom that further sanctions or further threat of sanctions at this point won’t actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion and they could fracture the international unity that there’s been, which has been so valuable in presenting a united front to Iran.” If Congress scuttles the negotiations, the international community will blame the United States, undermining not only the U.S. effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but the international coalition to enforce nuclear non-proliferation around the world. [Dianne Feinstein, 1/20/15. David Cameron, 1/16/15]

Sustained international engagement is crucial to tackling the threat that climate change poses to global society and American national security. President Obama underscored the need to address climate change, which the Pentagon considers a national security risk that threatens military operations and worsens global security challenges. This year could prove pivotal for climate security as negotiations in Paris are set to take place in November in an attempt to reach the first global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. American leadership will be critical to reaching a strong agreement, as it was last year with negotiations in Lima, Peru that outlined some broad contours for follow-up at the Paris talks. In particular, American engagement can help sort out some of the messy details under consideration to reach a final, strong agreement in France. Reuters reports, “The talks [in Lima] agreed on a 37-page document of ‘elements’ that will form the basis of a negotiating text for Paris next year. But the range of options is very wide.” American engagement can also help ensure individual countries prepare adequate plans for what reductions they are willing to make. Robert N. Stavins, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, explained in December that, “within the next six months the other industrialized countries will announce their own contributions, and – more importantly – so will the other large, emerging economies – India, Brazil, Korea, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia. Coverage of 80% to 90% of global emissions can be anticipated, although major questions remain regarding what can be expected from some key countries, including India, Russia, and Australia.” [Reuters, 12/14/14. Robert N. Stavins, 12/14/14]

New trade deals are necessary to maintain America’s global position, but must balance geopolitics with middle-class economics. President Obama highlighted ongoing negotiations over trade deals to sustain American economic advantage. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) would be powerful agreements if successfully concluded. The TPP encompasses roughly 40% of global trade and the T-TIP encompasses about half of global GDP. Beyond immediate economic benefits, these deals are of strategic significance. In the case of the TPP, Patrick Cronin of the Center for a New American Security explains, “Security is rooted in trade. This is particularly true in the Asia-Pacific region, the locus of global economic power in the twenty-first century…Either the United States needs to find a way to establish high trade standards across the Pacific, or another power will fill the vacuum with its own standards. Strategy in this sense is inseparable from the question of who makes the rules,” for which TPP provides an opportunity. But strategically valuable deals have to be balanced with what President Obama repeatedly referred to during his State of the Union as “middle-class economics.” He acknowledged the need for the deals to “protect American workers,” adding “I’m the first one to admit that past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype.” [Patrick Cronin,11/12/14. President Obama, 1/20/15]

Full normalization of relations with Cuba and ending the embargo reinforces American leadership in Latin America, but there are many steps ahead to get there. President Obama renewed his calls for normalizing relations with Cuba and ending the embargo – policies which have isolated the United States and complicated relations with Latin America. But there is a long road ahead before the embargo is fully lifted – which requires congressional actions – despite some extremely positive steps in the right direction. This week, U.S. officials will conduct face-to-face talks with Cuban counterparts on the way forward, including reviewing Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism as called for by President Obama. While the review is not yet complete, there is reason to take Cuba’s potential removal from the state sponsor of terrorism list seriously as a constructive step forward towards greater bilateral ties. Reuters reports, “In its latest annual ‘Country Reports on Terrorism,’ the State Department cited Cuba’s support for the Basque separatist group ETA and Colombia’s left-wing FARC guerrillas. But ETA, severely weakened by Spanish and French police, called a ceasefire in 2011 and has pledged to disarm, and the FARC has been in peace talks with the Colombian government for the past two years, with Cuba as host. ‘There was no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups.’” [Reuters, 1/20/15]

Photo Credit: President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015, in Washington, as Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio Look on. [Flickr, NASA/Bill Ingalls, 1/20/15]

The post Implementing Obama’s “Smarter Kind of American Leadership” appeared first on National Security Network.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Geneva today ahead of the start of the next round of negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program. Negotiators are working to reach a political agreement by March and a technical plan for implementation by July, in accordance with an extension of the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), which has facilitated the talks. Under the JPOA, Iran has allowed international inspections, frozen its nuclear program, and reduced its stockpile of enriched uranium. Negotiators now have a real chance to strike a deal that would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. However, some members of Congress are pushing legislation that would impose new sanctions on Iran or require congressional approval of a deal. These actions would scuttle negotiations, lose the JPOA’s gains in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, and squander this critical diplomatic opportunity.

Congress is pushing forward with new proposals that would derail the talks. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) are preparing to reintroduce legislation from December 2013 that would impose new “triggered sanctions” against Iran should the nuclear negotiations falter. The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on new sanctions next Tuesday, January 20, and the bill is expected to be considered soon after. Additionally, the Senate is considering a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to require any deal that comes out of the P5+1 negotiations to receive immediate congressional consideration and a potential vote of disapproval. While the bills’ sponsors claim that these are designed to ensure a good deal, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) says that the goal of the legislation is to prevent a deal. “The end of these negotiations isn’t an unintended consequence of congressional action. It is very much an intended consequence, a feature, not a bug, so to speak,” he said at a conference at the Heritage Foundation yesterday. [Tom Cotton, 1/13/15]

Congress’ focus on sanctions is myopic; it’s the negotiations that have kept Iran’s nuclear program frozen and rolled back its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Speaking at the University of Louisville on Monday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power credited the role of sanctions in bringing Iran to the table, but “at this time, increasing sanctions would dramatically undermine our efforts to reach this shared goal,” she explained. “Sanctions did indeed help to bring Iran to the negotiating table,” she continued. “But sanctions did not stop the advance of Iran’s nuclear program. Negotiations have done that, and it is in our interest not to deny ourselves the chance to achieve a long-term, comprehensive solution that would deny Iran a nuclear weapon.” Focusing on new sanctions at the expense of the negotiations threatens to unravel the progress the United States and its partners have made in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. Under the JPOA, Iran has been compelled to freeze its nuclear program and dilute its stockpile of 20%-enriched uranium or convert it to forms that cannot easily be used in a weapon, all while allowing extensive and intrusive international monitoring and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States has done this at comparatively little cost: as Laicie Heeley, Policy Director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, noted yesterday, the framework for U.S. sanctions against Iran remains in place, and the limited relief the United States has given in accordance with the JPOA has resulted in less economic benefit to Iran than the U.S. Treasury Department estimated. [Samantha Power, 1/12/15]

The legislation is dangerous political brinksmanship with the negotiations that the United States wouldn’t tolerate if it came from Iran. Paul Pillar posed the question last week: What if Iran were to pursue similar legislation, saying that they would unequivocally resume its nuclear program and remove international inspectors, returning to the pre-JPOA state of affairs, should the talks fail? “Just like the American hardliners, the Iranian hardliners would justify their legislation as a conditional measure that would help to provide an incentive to the other side to negotiate seriously and not to drag out the talks indefinitely,” Pillar wrote. The result would clearly be to derail the talks. “Americans of various political stripes would denounce the action of the majlis as a major show of Iranian bad faith. The talk in Washington would not be about making more U.S. concessions but instead about what the United States could do to pressure Iran in return. Those who had openly questioned Iran’s seriousness about wanting an agreement would say, ‘We told you so.’ Even those in the U.S. administration with high confidence in the good will of Rouhani would have their faith shaken in his ability to implement the terms of an agreement.” Conservative proposals for new sanctions for congressional approval of a deal are ill-conceived gambits that jeopardize the negotiations, and if Iran did the same to the United States, Congress would not be so cavalier about its consequences. [Paul Pillar, 1/9/15]

Congress’ actions could unravel the international coalition that has been critical to pressuring Iran and allow the United States to be blamed for the talks’ failure. “The negotiations have worked so far in large part because we have remained united on our side of the negotiating table with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China,” Power said on Monday. “Other countries have also supported the international sanctions regime that we, the European Union, and the UN Security Council have built. If our international partners believe that the United States has acted prematurely by adding new sanctions now – as they most surely would – their willingness to enforce sanctions collectively is likely to wane. And broad international enforcement is what has made our sanctions exponentially more effective than bilateral sanctions alone. We have made great strides in bringing the international community together in isolating Iran and imposing significant costs on Tehran for pursuing a nuclear program that has raised profound concerns. That consensus is what gives us leverage with Iran. If we pull the trigger on new nuclear-related sanctions now, we will go from isolating Iran to potentially isolating ourselves. We go from a position of collective strength to a position of individual weakness.” If the international coalition were to collapse because of congressional action, Iran would gain a benefit in global opinion by being able to cast blame on the United States for the failure of the process.  [Samantha Power, 1/12/15]

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is taking a large political risk by continuing to pursue a potential deal, and the United States should not squander this moment. Rouhani’s efforts have come under increasing pressure in Iran. He has had to defend the talks in speeches, threaten to circumvent the Iranian legislature by appealing to a popular referendum, and legislators called a vote of no confidence against Zarif (he retained the support of the majority of the majlis). The New York Times cautioned last week against Congress taking actions that could derail the negotiations at a critical moment. “A deal that is verifiable and significantly limits Iran’s nuclear activities can succeed if it both enhances regional security and benefits Iran,” the Times stated in an editorial. “There will still be some risk for all sides. But the bigger risk is squandering this moment and leaving Iran free to pursue an unconstrained nuclear program. This would invite more sanctions, new tensions and perhaps even military action and a cyberattack.” [New York Times, 1/10/15]

Photo Credit: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sits down with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif before resuming negotiations. [Flickr, State Department, 1/14/15]

The post Misguided New Iran Measures in Congress would Scuttle Negotiations appeared first on National Security Network.

Tomorrow, the new Congress is set to begin its first session amid a flurry of near- and mid-term foreign policy challenges that it will have the ability to affect for better or worse. Issues looming large include negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program as conservatives once again consider new counterproductive sanctions, the war against the Islamic State as American forces are being exposed to increased risk, the fate of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility as the transfer of prisoners picks up pace, managing America’s security interest in sustained nonproliferation cooperation with Russia even as Moscow misbehaves in Eastern Europe, and potentially divisive trade agreements under negotiation. On all of these issues, an effective relationship between Congress and the Obama Administration could prove the difference between success and failure.

Heading into 2015, the top issues are:

Reaching a nuclear deal with Iran and avoiding congressional action that would lower the prospects of successful negotiations: As the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran continue, further extending the freeze of Iran’s nuclear enrichment, members of Congress are threatening again to derail the talks by imposing new sanctions. “I think we’ll have a supermajority, a veto-proof majority, to impose additional sanctions on Iran and to require the administration to come before Congress for approval of any deal,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told NPR last week. This weekend, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) also urged new sanctions if the talks fail, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said last week that the Senate could vote on new sanctions legislation this month. The push for sanctions comes despite the warnings of the Obama Administration, which has consistently stressed that such a bill could eliminate the chances of reaching a deal. As National Security Advisor Susan Rice warned last month, new sanctions would “blow up” negotiations. “The P5+1 would fracture, the international community would blame the United States rather than Iran for the collapse of the negotiations, and the Iranians would conclude that there’s little point in pursuing this process at the negotiating table,” said Rice. [Marco Rubio via the Hill, 12/31/14. Susan Rice via the Hill, 12/2/14]

Debating and voting on an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as operations against the Islamic State escalate and expose U.S. troops to risk: Last week, it was reported that Iraq’s Ayn al-Asad airbase in Anbar Province came under repeated attack by Islamic State militants. Approximately 300 U.S. forces were stationed at the facility and were withdrawn by helicopter without incurring any casualties. The event, however, highlights the need for Congress to deliberate and vote on an AUMF so that U.S. forces exposed to risk are operating fully within the rule of law and with maximum political legitimacy. NSN has repeatedly outlined options for a responsible and effective counter-Islamic State AUMF that would be specifically tailored for the conflict, and experts and policymakers have picked up on or cited this work. During debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) at the end of last year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said,“Many have made the argument that we’ve added too many limitations, there should be no limitations, they’ve argued historically that we haven’t done this. Well, the National Security Network looked back at all of the uses of authorization of force since the beginning of the republic, and they found that 60% of those actually did have a geographic limitation on them.” At the end of last year, the Democrat-led SFRC did pass a resolution containing limitations but the process must now start over in the new Republican-controlled Congress.

Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and stopping its needless damage to American power and wasting of resources: The transfer of 15 cleared detainees to three countries in December brought the total number of transfers in 2014 to 28, and the Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration is looking to accelerate the transfer of the 59 remaining cleared inmates in 2015. This is long overdue and a strong step towards closing down the prison. As Adm. James Stavridis (Ret.) wrote last month, “For a variety of reasons, we should close the detention facility…While the facility today is thoroughly inspected (including frequent visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross, media, legislators), it retains a highly negative reputation around the world. With fewer than 200 detainees remaining, it is increasingly difficult to justify the manpower and expense of keeping the facility open.” [James Stavridis via Foreign Policy, 12/19/14]

Managing an increasingly complex relationship with Russia and preventing backsliding on critical nonproliferation agreements: In addition to Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, concerns in Washington are likely to continue to focus on Russia’s apparent violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which bans ground launched ballistic and cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads that have ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles – a class of weapons that are cheap, precise, and effective. Russia has apparently violated the INF Treaty by limited testing – but not producing or deploying – a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile. In the last Congress, a number of conservatives called for the United States to potentially abandon the INF Treaty. However, as James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment explains, “If the United States were to withdraw from the treaty now – or develop its own prohibited weapons and thus hand Russia the perfect excuse to abrogate – it would be doing Moscow a big favor. With the INF Treaty out of the way, Russia would probably go on to deploy its new cruise missile, causing serious alarm amongst U.S. allies in Europe and possibly in Asia, too.” Instead, as the New York Times editorializes, “the Obama administration should continue pursuing a diplomatic solution to the treaty dispute and resist the growing pressure in Congress for quick retaliation, which could make the situation worse. And it should explore other forms of pressure, like economic punishment and deployment of new defenses against cruise missiles.” [James Acton, 8/6/14. New York Times, 1/1/15]

Modifying and approving trade deals likely to arise during this Congress, and ensuring that any deals effectively address domestic concerns about growing income inequality: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) are the flagship initiatives of the Obama Administration’s economic statecraft strategy towards sustaining American global economic advantage. The trade and investment agreements are broad, with the TPP encompassing roughly 40% of global trade and the T-TIP encompassing about half of global GDP. While both agreements are still being negotiated, final deals would require congressional approval. But a good deal that strengthens America’s economy will require significant labor protection. It’s unclear that the Administration is negotiating with U.S. labor fully in mind – but it’s even more doubtful that a conservative Congress can advocate on labor’s behalf, though the room for constructive engagement remains. Speaking on the T-TIP, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka voiced his union’s point of view, “Trade policy for the privileged few must end. TTIP must work for the people, or it won’t work at all.” On the TPP, the AFL-CIO has laid out that they have “provided the administration with ideas about how to improve the U.S. trade positions so they work for the 99%, not just the 1%… And while negotiations are not yet complete, the publicly available information is concerning for workers.” The AFL-CIO has expressed more specific concerns about the TPP as well, for example, that “It is not yet clear that all the TPP countries will commit to enforceable labor standards. But America’s workers can’t go backward: we expect labor commitments that significantly improve upon the Bush-era deals.” [Richard Trumka, 5/21/14. AFL-CIO statement on labor rights and the TPP, accessed 1/5/15]

Photo Credit: [Flickr, Architect of the Capitol, 12/15/14]

The post Top Five Foreign Policy Challenges for 2015 appeared first on National Security Network.

Negotiating a Deal with Iran: Overcoming Remaining Obstacles 

DISCUSSION DETAILS:

Using the United Nations General Assembly and the P5+1 sideline talks as a hook, National Security Network pulled together a panel of distinguished experts with unique professional perspectives on the P5+1 negotiations for a press luncheon. Our panel included foreign policy expert Dr. Les Gelb, Amb. John Limbert, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran and former Iranian hostage, Amb. Ken Taylor, the former Canadian Ambassador to Iran during the Iran hostage crisis, and nuclear expert Dr. Jim Walsh of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Gelb’s remarks highlighted areas of U.S.-Iran cooperation after 9/11 and similarities and touched on Iran’s strategic regional importance and the consequences for Zarif and Rouhani if a deal isn’t struck. Amb. Limbert discussed areas of common interests between Iran and the U.S., his experiences as the first DAS on Iran in setting up the initial groundwork leading up to the current state of negotiations, and addressing both nuclear and non-nuclear issues with Iran. Dr. Jim Walsh spoke about the Joint Plan of Action’s success and possible creative solutions at work on Fordow and Arak, as well as continued outlying issues, like the past possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program, and the flawed-but-continually-used metric of breakout time. Amb. Taylor honed in on his experiences liaising with the Shah and the revolutionary regime and compared that to the present détente between the two countries, which was unimaginable in the recent past.

TIME AND LOCATION:

Tuesday, September 23, 2014
12:30 – 2:00 PM
The Broadway Suite, The Roosevelt Hotel
45 East 45th St. New York, NY 10017

SPEAKERS: 

Ambassador Ken Taylor

A graduate of Victoria College of the University of Toronto (BA) and the University of California, Berkeley (MBA), Ken Taylor served in the Canadian Foreign Service from 1959 to 1984, with diplomatic responsibilities ranging from trade development in Guatemala,  Detroit and London;  foreign aid-related matters in Pakistan;  crisis management in Iran and the enhancement of Canada’s image in New York. Since his resignation from the Foreign Service in 1984, his private sector experience has included six years as a Senior Vice President of both Nabisco Brands and RJR Nabisco.  He was Chancellor of Victoria University in the University of Toronto from June 1998 to May, 2004. In recognition of his role as Canadian Ambassador to Iran and providing safe haven to American embassy employees as depicted in the film Argo, he has received many U.S. and Canadian honors, including the United States Congressional Gold Medal, the Order of Canada (Officer), keys to the Cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas and Las Vegas, the New York International Press Club’s “Man of the Year” award and honorary degrees from Universities in Canada and the United States.

Dr. Leslie H. Gelb

Dr. Leslie H. Gelb is among America’s most prominent foreign policy experts. A Pulitzer Prize winner, former correspondent for the New York Times, and senior official in state and defense departments, he is currently president emeritus and board senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He served as president of the organization from 1993 to 2003. From 1977 to 1979, Dr. Gelb was an assistant secretary of state in the Carter administration, serving as director of the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs. He was director of Policy Planning and Arms Control for International Security Affairs at the Department of Defense from 1967 to 1969, where he also served as director of the Pentagon Papers Project. He was executive assistant to U.S. Senator Jacob K. Javits from 1966 to 1967, and an assistant professor at Wesleyan University from 1964 to 1966. Dr. Gelb received his BA from Tufts University in 1959 and his MA in 1961 and PhD in 1964 from Harvard University.

Dr. Jim Walsh

Dr. Jim Walsh is an expert in international security and a Research Associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program (SSP). Dr. Walsh’s research and writings focus on international security, and in particular, topics involving nuclear weapons and terrorism. Dr. Walsh has testified before the United States Senate on the issue of nuclear terrorism and on Iran’s nuclear program.  He is one of a handful of Americans who has traveled to both Iran and North Korea for talks with officials about nuclear issues. Before coming to MIT, Dr. Walsh was Executive Director of the Managing the Atom project at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a visiting scholar at the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He has taught at both Harvard University and MIT.  Dr. Walsh received his Ph.D from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Ambassador John Limbert

Ambassador John Limbert was appointed Distinguished Professor of International Affairs at the U.S. Naval Academy in 2006 after retiring from the Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor. Ambassador Limbert was president of the American Foreign Service Association (2004-2005) and Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania (2000-2003).  Earlier he had been Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism in the U.S. State Department; member of the State Department’s Senior Seminar; Deputy Chief of Mission at the United States Embassy in Conakry, Guinea; and Director of Orientation at the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute in Washington. His overseas tours include: Algeria, Djibouti, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. He holds the Department of State’s highest award — the Distinguished Service Award and the Award for Valor, which he received after fourteen months as a hostage in Iran. Ambassador Limbert holds his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from Harvard University, the last in History and Middle Eastern Studies.

MODERATOR:

John Bradshaw

John C. Bradshaw, J.D., is the Executive Director of the National Security Network. Prior to joining NSN, Bradshaw served as the Executive Director of the Enough Project at the Center for American Progress. Bradshaw served as Washington Director of Physicians for Human Rights. Previously, Bradshaw was a Foreign Service Officer, serving in Venezuela, Brazil, and Burma, as well as in the State Department’s East Asia and Human Rights bureaus. He also served as a foreign policy advisor to Senator Paul Wellstone and to Senator Robert Torricelli, both members of the Foreign Relations Committee. Earlier in his career, he was a Peace Corps volunteer in the Philippines. Bradshaw received his B.A. in Political Science from Yale University and his J.D. from New York University School of Law.

Photo Credit: Secretary Kerry Calls An End to News Conference in Vienna Following P5+1 Nuclear Negotiations With Iran [State Department, 11/24/15]

The post NSN Luncheon: Negotiating a Deal with Iran appeared first on National Security Network.

By John Bradshaw, Executive Director of the National Security Network
July 30, 2014 | Washington Monthly

Progressives who gathered in Detroit two weeks ago for the Netroots convention were not very focused on national security issues, but when those issues did come up there was one loud and clear theme: No more wars in the Middle East. This anti-war sentiment has long been an animating force for progressives and is now understandably heightened by a war weariness shared by a large percentage of the American public. But progressives can contribute more to the national security debate than just a strong voice in opposition to reflexive military solutions. There is a need for a positive progressive vision that supports alternatives to military solutions and finds an appropriate and sustainable role for American national security policy. On one current issue, the effort to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, apprehension about being sucked into another futile Middle Eastern war has motivated many on the left, but there has been less focus on the possible longer terms benefits of a diplomatic agreement in getting U.S. policy in the region on a better track.

Talks between Iran and the P5 + 1 nations have made considerable progress since an interim agreement was signed in November 2013. Tough issues remain to be resolved so negotiations have been extended beyond an initial July 20 deadline and now have November 24 as a target date for reaching an agreement. A good deal that prevents Iran from being able to construct nuclear weapons but allows a civilian nuclear poer program under strict inspections is within reach. In return for submitting to intrusive inspections and agreeing to limits on enrichment, Iran would get relief from international and U.S. sanctions. If a deal can be reached and can be effectively implemented, what are the possible positive consequences for U.S. policy in the region?

For decades, the U.S. has been trapped by perceptions of its role in the region that limit flexibility. The implacable hostility toward Iran, complex relations with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and the alliance with Israel have prevented the U.S. from being seen as an honest broker. Simply signing a deal with Iran, of course, will not ensure the U.S. a freer hand in the Middle East. But if the Iranians comply with the provisions of the agreement and the U.S. implements sanctions relief on its end, Iran would be on a path toward gaining status as a normal nuclear state under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

To continue reading, click here.

Photo Credit: Secretary Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif Sit Down For Second Day of Nuclear Talks in Vienna. [State Department, 7/14/14]

The post Progressives Need to See the Bigger Picture on Iran | John Bradshaw appeared first on National Security Network.

July 30, 2015

The NSN Daily Update will be on hiatus during the congressional August recess and return in September.

Hearings on Capitol Hill yesterday on the Iran nuclear talks produced serious testimony by Administration witnesses but also enabled considerable uninformed showboating by opponents of a diplomatic agreement with Iran. Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and David Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, presented testimony on the Hill yesterday to update Congress on the status of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. They noted that the talks in Vienna, which have been extended until November 24, have been productive: significant compromises appear within reach, and as Sherman noted in her prepared statement, “under the [Joint Plan of Action], instead of becoming more dangerous over time, Iran’s nuclear activities have been more constrained, more closely inspected, and more transparent. This is the first true freeze in Iran’s nuclear program in nearly a decade.” Cohen noted that not only does the structure of the sanctions regime against Iran remain in place, but the economic relief Iran has seen under the terms of the Joint Plan of Action has been less than anticipated. There is a constructive role for Congress to play as the negotiations continue, but the hearings also demonstrated a troubling lack of seriousness and political maturity from critics of diplomacy.

Don’t confuse political grandstanding for real, fact-based analysis. Several members of Congress at the hearings were clearly more interested in finding a soapbox for farcical tirades than actually forming sound policy. Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) used his time to conflate Iran’s nuclear program with other issues outside the scope of the negotiations and claim that Iran’s negotiators are too irrational to come to an agreement; similarly, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) lectured Sherman and Cohen about an animal fable and the inherent “nature” of Iran’s leadership. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) showed up to the hearing just long enough to call the ongoing and productive negotiations “a dangerous national security failure” and mischaracterize the talks, but did not stay to ask any questions. This grandstanding and statements like Rubio’s inaccurate hyperbolic assertion that “the only thing worse than war is crazy people with a nuclear weapon that can reach the United States on a rocket” are not only out of touch with the state of Iran’s nuclear program and the scope of the negotiations, but demonstrative of the political immaturity and troubling lack of seriousness with which critics of the talks approach this issue. [Randy Weber and Tom Cotton, 7/29/14. Marco Rubio, 7/29/14]

Congress can play a constructive role by supporting the negotiations and continuing to discuss the terms of a potential deal with the diplomatic team – but efforts to legislate new sanctions, though well-intentioned, would be counterproductive at this stage. Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) asked Sherman about the prospect of passing new sanctions that would automatically be triggered into effect if a comprehensive agreement is not reached by November 24, but as Sherman pointed out, in the long-term this could weaken international cooperation to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. “We believe that if this comprehensive agreement does not work, it should be because Iran cannot make the commitments it needs to,” she told Schneider. “We don’t want there to be any other basis, any other excuse; we don’t want them to say ‘We couldn’t get there because Congress pushed our hardliners to the wall,’ whatever kind of narrative they put on the table. We want it to be crystal clear to the world that we tried diplomacy as far as we could take it and Iran could not do what it needed to do because, if we do that, then the entire world will stay together in the enforcement, not only of the existing sanctions, but in sanctions to come.” Sherman also noted that passing sanctions now to be triggered later is unnecessary because Iran is aware of the consequences of unsuccessful negotiations: “There is no doubt in my mind that Iran understands the power and prerogatives of the United States Congress. The actions that you have taken, the actions that you would take – and if we cannot reach a comprehensive agreement, and we are sure that we cannot reach a comprehensive agreement, we have stated publicly as an Administration that we would expect there to be more sanctions.” [Wendy Sherman, 7/29/14]

A good deal is still possible. Both Iranian and P5+1 diplomats have expressed optimism about the potential to reach an agreement that would verifiably prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Announcing the extension of the talks earlier this month, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif noted that the extension “build[s] on the political momentum created by the adoption and smooth implementation by both sides of the Joint Plan of Action” and that the talks have achieved “tangible progress on some of the issues,” though “significant gaps on some core issues…will require more time and effort.” The four-month extension is the best chance to try to bridge those remaining gaps. “With so much at stake and a good deal within reach it makes sense to extend the talks and keep pushing toward an agreement,” said NSN Executive Director John Bradshaw. “A few more months is not a lot to ask to achieve an agreement that could have long-term positive impacts by ensuring that Iran does not build nuclear weapons and America does not get sucked into another war in the Middle East.” [Catherine Ashton and Mohammad Javad Zarif, 7/19/14. John Bradshaw, 7/19/14]

Wendy Sherman and David Cohen testify on the Iran nuclear talks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [C-Span, 7/29/14]

The post Seeing Past the Theatrics on the Iran Debate appeared first on National Security Network.

Secretary Kerry Addresses Reporters During News Conference Following Iran Nuclear Talks in Vienna, 7/15/2014

On Friday night, P5+1 and Iranian diplomats announced a plan to extend the nuclear negotiations past the July 20 deadline for the Joint Plan of Action that has frozen Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for modest sanctions relief. Under the terms of the extension, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program will remain frozen and it will continue to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, converting it into non-weaponizable forms. This will allow negotiators to continue to build on the progress that has been made toward a comprehensive agreement that could ensure Iran’s nuclear program will remain peaceful. The extension is a good deal, and those who have voiced opposition to it fail to understand the issues at hand.

The extension of the Joint Plan of Action is a great deal that preserves the possibility of a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program.

The terms of the extension obligate Iran to eliminate its stockpile of 20%-enriched uranium in exchange for very modest economic relief. “The six-month halt in all significant advances in Iran’s nuclear program will remain in effect, as will the modest but worthwhile lengthening of the time it would take Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear weapon – the result of the neutralization of Tehran’s entire stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium gas,” Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Robert Einhorn wrote on Saturday. The terms of the extension will take these reductions even further, with Iran converting its remaining 20%-enriched uranium into reactor fuel, a process that makes it extremely difficult to ever be converted back to a weaponizable form.

As Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) noted while voicing his support for the extension, “Iran has received just enough sanctions relief to demonstrate the potential benefits of cooperation but not enough to rejuvenate its economy.” In fact, the Obama Administration has said that Iran’s economy has actually underperformed compared to its early estimates for sanctions relief. As a senior administration official told reporters in Vienna, “We estimated the total value of the relief in the Joint Plan of Action would be in the neighborhood of $6 to 7 billion, and I think it has actually come in less than that. Critically, the overwhelming majority of our sanctions, including the key oil, banking, and financial sanctions, all remain in place.” And though Iran will be allowed to access an additional $2.8 billion in previously restricted funds, more than $100 billion will remain off limits. [Robert Einhorn, 7/19/14. Lloyd Doggett, 7/18/14. State Department Briefing, 7/18/14]

The extension gives negotiators time and space to continue working toward an agreement at a critical moment. In announcing the extension, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif noted that the extension “build[s] on the political momentum created by the adoption and smooth implementation by both sides of the Joint Plan of Action” and that the talks have achieved “tangible progress on some of the issues,” though “significant gaps on some core issues…will require more time and effort.” The four-month extension is the best chance to try to bridge those remaining gaps. “With so much at stake and a good deal within reach it makes sense to extend the talks and keep pushing toward an agreement,” said National Security Network Executive Director John Bradshaw. “A few more months is not a lot to ask to achieve an agreement that could have long-term positive impacts by ensuring that Iran does not build nuclear weapons and America does not get sucked into another war in the Middle East.” [Catherine Ashton and Mohammad Javad Zarif, 7/19/14. John Bradshaw, 7/19/14]

The extension of the negotiations has the support of lawmakers who recognize what it will take to reach a good deal. “The P5+1 negotiations with Iran represent our best chance to peacefully ensure Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said on Friday. “Clearly there is momentum toward an agreement and we have a responsibility to see it through – as diplomacy must be the preferred course of action.” House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the “agreement to keep negotiating an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program will permit the Administration to continue its two-track approach to dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons capability and ensuring robust and aggressive verification of any agreement.” The Congressional Progressive Caucus also voiced support for the extension. “If negotiators need more time to reach a comprehensive agreement, we should support them,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN). “It is in America’s best interest to continue on the path of diplomacy.” [Dianne Feinstein, 7/18/14. Steny Hoyer, 7/18/14. Keith Ellison, 7/19/14]

Opponents of the extension don’t have a sound understanding of the issues. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) responded to the extension with a video in which he claims that “The administration policy is the quickest policy that leads to war, nuclear war,” going on to say “That is a horrible fate to condemn American children to witness.” Sen. Kirk’s fear-mongering could not be farther from the truth. Under the Joint Plan of Action, the International Atomic Energy Agency has conducted regular inspections and confirmed that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon – and in accordance with the terms of the extension, Iran will convert its weaponizable enriched uranium into reactor fuel that cannot be used in a bomb. The extended Joint Plan of Action will place Iran even further from having the material or means to build a nuclear weapon. Alarmist statements like Sen. Kirk’s simply have no basis in reality. [Mark Kirk, 7/18/14]

The post Iran Nuclear Talks: Extension Builds on Positive Momentum appeared first on National Security Network.

Secretary Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif Sit Down For Second Day of Nuclear Talks in Vienna. [State Department photo, 7/14/14]

Significant gaps remain between the negotiating positions of the United States and Iran, but there are still opportunities for compromise. The primary point of contention remains Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity after a deal. This has been framed in terms of how many centrifuges Iran will be allowed to continue operating, and also the efficiency of those centrifuges – some proposals have suggested Iran maintain a small number of highly-efficient centrifuges instead of a large number of less-efficient centrifuges. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said that the Iranian nuclear program requires a mix of centrifuges capable of 190,000 separative work units (SWUs) per year – a demand that P5+1 negotiators have found excessive – but the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, has clarified that the 190,000 SWU-capacity is not an immediate Iranian goal at the negotiations. “Maybe this will not be for this year, or two years, or five years,” he said, “but this is the final need of the country.” This suggests Iran may be willing to compromise on enrichment capacity in the near-term with a plan to increase production after it has demonstrated its program is peaceful and its nuclear program has been normalized. [Ali Akbar Salehi via Al-Monitor, 7/9/14]

Concerns about Iran’s “breakout capacity” are overblown and complicated by a lack of understanding about the term’s meaning. As many U.S. legislators have noted, a critical component of any agreement will be making it more difficult for Iran to build a nuclear weapon should Tehran decide to violate its commitment to a peaceful nuclear program. Iran’s ability to sprint toward a nuclear weapon is called its “breakout capacity,” which is measured as the length of time it would take to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb. But as Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, wrote, this does not include subsequent steps to build a bomb, such as converting the uranium into a usable form, and even then Iran must still “develop and assemble other components, and finally integrate the weapons package into a delivery vehicle.” While Iran’s breakout capacity is currently gauged to be about two months, “[estimates] used by the White House have this process taking up to a year,” and that’s if Iran “gets everything right the first time around, even if they are completing procedures they have never attempted before,” as one U.S. official said. Even in a worst-case scenario, the United States would have time to detect and formulate a response to an Iranian breakout. [Greg Thielmann, 6/18/14]

Any agreement will be backed by a rigorous IAEA inspection program. The Arms Control Association explains, “The two sides agree that a comprehensive agreement should include requirements for more-timely notification of Iranian nuclear activities to the IAEA under Iran’s current comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA and more-extensive IAEA inspection authority to guard against a secret weapons program under the terms of an additional protocol. An additional protocol would allow the IAEA to conduct inspections of non-declared sites without prior notification, which is a strong deterrent against any clandestine nuclear weapons work. In the first phase of a comprehensive agreement, Iran will likely be required to implement an additional protocol. At a later point, Iran would commit to ratify it. Once approved by the Iranian parliament, the duration of the additional protocol would be indefinite.”

As Thielmann noted last week, the IAEA has proved more reliable than the U.S. intelligence community in investigating nuclear programs and has the trust of the international community. “The analysis of the IAEA inspectors during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq was excellent, in stark contrast to that of the U.S. intelligence community,” he explains. “It was the IAEA in January 2003, which detected the forgery behind the U.S. claim of Iraqi efforts to import ‘uranium from Africa.’ It was the IAEA which concluded definitively in early March 2003 that the high-strength aluminum tubes Iraq had imported were not being used for centrifuges to enrich uranium as the U.S. claimed. Not surprisingly, partly as a consequence of this record, the IAEA has more credibility with many countries than does the U.S. government. As a result of the IAEA’s past history with Iran and current access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is one of the best sources of objective information available on Iran’s nuclear program.” [Arms Control Association, 6/14. Greg Thielmann, 7/7/14]​

Legislators must be prepared to discuss a limited and responsible repeal of sanctions – not doing so risks scuttling a deal. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) sent a letter to the White House asking for the Administration to consult with Congress about any potential repeal of sanctions that might be part of a nuclear deal with Iran – something the Administration has already promised to do – and citing other non-nuclear concerns that have prompted U.S. sanctions. But as a coalition of pro-diplomacy groups has noted, this distracts from the deal at hand. “A comprehensive agreement that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon would be a major national security achievement that would greatly benefit the U.S., as well as its allies, and resolve the issue that Congress has consistently identified as the top priority regarding Iran,” these groups noted in a letter last month. “It would be a travesty if the very sanctions that Congress enacted under the premise of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons proved to be the obstacle that blocked a nuclear deal.” [Letter, 6/19/14]

The post Understanding a Potential Iran Nuclear Deal appeared first on National Security Network.

EU High Representative Ashton Speaks at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. [US State Department Photo, 11/24/13]

As the negotiations stand today, Iran has signaled that it is prepared to compromise on contentious issues, but U.S. negotiators don’t expect Iran to discuss final terms until closer to the deadline. As the talks resume in Vienna, Iran has signaled it is willing to compromise on the number of centrifuges it will be allowed to operate under the terms of an agreement, a persistent point of contention in the talks. Last week, Iran signaled that it would be willing to halve the number of centrifuges it would like to maintain, from 100,000 to 50,000. That’s still a long way from the 1,500 to 6,000 centrifuges for which U.S. experts have pressed, but it’s a start – and as Barbara Slavin, Washington Correspondent for Al­-Monitor­ and Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, notes, “Negotiators believe there are a variety of ways to resolve the centrifuge impasse.” Administration officials have noted that they don’t expect Iran to reveal their final negotiating position until closer to the July 20 deadline. [Barbara Slavin, 7/3/14]

Even in advance of a potential deal, hawks are trying to derail an agreement by suggesting unrealistic conditions for sanctions relief and casting doubts on the IAEA’s ability to verify Iran’s cooperation with a deal.

Don’t let hawks spoil a potential nuclear deal by moving the goalposts on sanction relief. Some critics of the negotiations, such as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz, have raised concerns that an agreement will not address other issues, such as Iran’s support for terrorism, its development of ballistic missiles, or the possible historical military dimensions of its nuclear program. But these issues, while still of concern to the United States, are not fundamental to reaching a deal that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. The possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program are currently under investigation by the IAEA, but “not all aspects of Iran’s past work are relevant to whether they can build a nuclear weapon in the future,” Jon Wolfsthal, Deputy Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, wrote last month, suggesting that the IAEA allow Iran to save face through a private investigation. “This does not mean Iran should be let off the hook for its nuclear past, however,” he wrote. “It is essential that in private, the IAEA is able to obtain information about the key parts of Iran’s past needed to quickly identify any future effort to recreate its nuclear weapons work.” Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) has also been critical of imposing additional conditions on sanctions relief. “This is a very bad idea,” he said in May. “It completely ties the hands of our negotiators…by setting out very specific criteria that have to be met before a deal can be achieved, going well behind the nuclear question.” [Jon Wolfsthal, 5/24/14. Adam Smith via Al-Monitor, 5/8/14]

Any deal will be verified by the IAEA, which has a proven track record for sound inspections and is trusted by the international community. Critics of a potential deal have questioned the ability of the IAEA to verify Iran’s compliance with the terms of an agreement. But as Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, notes, the IAEA has proved more reliable than the U.S. intelligence community in investigating nuclear programs and has the trust of the international community. “The analysis of the IAEA inspectors during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq was excellent, in stark contrast to that of the U.S. intelligence community,” he explains. “It was the IAEA in January 2003, which detected the forgery behind the U.S. claim of Iraqi efforts to import ‘uranium from Africa.’ It was the IAEA which concluded definitively in early March 2003 that the high-strength aluminum tubes Iraq had imported were not being used for centrifuges to enrich uranium as the U.S. claimed. Not surprisingly, partly as a consequence of this record, the IAEA has more credibility with many countries than does the U.S. government. As a result of the IAEA’s past history with Iran and current access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is one of the best sources of objective information available on Iran’s nuclear program.”

Congress will have a critical role to play in a final deal – and it needs to support diplomacy. The final deal with Iran will require congressional support, and Congress needs to continue to allow room for the negotiations to play out instead of cutting diplomacy short with new sanctions or counterproductive legislation.

Congress will be responsible for vetting and ensuring U.S. compliance with the terms of any agreement with Iran. In an April 8 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary John Kerry stressed that the Administration “[hopes] to be able to come to you with an agreement that has the most extensive and comprehensive and accountable verification process that can be achieved in order to know what they are doing.” He also made clear that the negotiators are cognizant of Congress’ role in any potential deal. When Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) inquired about the Administration’s intent to engage Congress in lifting elements of the sanctions regime, a component of any final agreement, Secretary Kerry responded: “Well, of course, we would be obligated to under the law, Mr. Chairman. We would absolutely have to. And so clearly, what we do will have to pass muster with Congress.” [John Kerry, 4/8/14]

In the meantime, Congress needs to allow diplomacy to play-out. Speaking on the floor of the House in May, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) defended the negotiations as a critical tool of U.S. foreign policy. “Our arsenal of democracy includes more than bombs – it includes tough negotiations and strong sanctions to reach a carefully monitored, verifiable agreement that will protect of our families and our allies,” Doggett said. “Given the high cost of failure, we certainly cannot afford to surrender to defeatists, who capitulate on the negotiations before they are even completed.” [Lloyd Doggett, 5/21/14]

The post Iran Nuclear Talks: Compromise Possible as July 20 Deadline Approaches appeared first on National Security Network.