Deadline Priorities

As promised last week, PDI set out to digest the new CFR report.  The report does a good job summarizing and providing a succinct background on many of the key nuclear issues.  It makes for a great nuclear primer, particularly because its recent release takes into account major developments like the Prague speech.  One initial takeaway, admittedly not one of key points of discussion in the report itself, is the ordering of the nuclear agenda moving forward.  The conclusion of the report notes

Many competing interests demand President Obama's attention, but the impending expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in December 2009, the upcoming congressionally mandated nuclear posture review, and the preparation for the 2010 Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference offer the new administration an opportunity to begin to review existing treaties, revive negotiations, strengthen the global nonproliferation system, and promote best nuclear security efforts.

While these three priorities are certainly important in their own respect, part of the reason they sit atop the nuclear agenda is the deadlines associated with them (late 2009 for START/NPR, May 2010 for the RevCon).  Why does this matter?  Because time constraints may artificially alter priorities.  Take START for example.  There seems to be a growing consensus that both sides are interested in further cuts but does it receive the same degree of attention right now if the treaty doesn't expire in 2009? Probably not. Attached to the report were some "Additional or Dissenting Views" to help clarify some specific positions. Ronald Lehman's entry made an interesting point when he said:

In a world of rapid political and technical change, governments are having difficulty making realistic risk assessments, to say nothing of finding workable solutions to complex political and technological dilemmas. Failure on Iran and North Korea now will have great implications for the future. Other issues may be secondary but remain important.

While Iran and North Korea represent ever looming threats the administration needs to tackle, the lack of specific timeframes associated with them may undermine the amount of attention they receive.  That is not to say they don't receive attention but that the importance of quickly brokering an Iran solution, for example, may be of much greater strategic importance than quickly concluding a super START but the government will have to invest a heavy amount of effort in negotiations with Moscow for throughout the year (and beyond).  Deadlines force results but with everything on the Obama administration's plate, both in the nuclear realm and in general, it is important to keep an eye on what are the most pressing issues that must be dealt with due to their strategic significance not just their expiration date.