Nov 22, 2009
- Oct 28, 2009
There was a lot of discussion about nonproliferation and disarmament last week. In addition to Clinton's speech and the Arms Control Association's Iran panel (discussed here), both the Hudson Institute and the Elliot School's new Institute for Security and Conflict Studies hosted panels.
On Wednesday morning (10/21), two different Hudson panels discussed "U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Fron 32,000 to Zero" and "Enlisting Other States and international legal regimes to strengthen nuclear security--Nonproliferation and Arms Control" respectively. Panelists included Jack David, Paula DeSutter, Douglas Feith, Christopher Ford, William Hartung, Abram Shulsky, Walt Slocombe, and Ashley Tellis.
On Thursday evening (10/22), the Elliot School panel discussed "Nuclear Futures: The Prospects for Nuclear Arms Control and Disarmament." Panelists included Ambassador Abdallah Baali, Ambassador Bonnie D. Jenkins, Joe Cirincione, and Charles Glaser.
Within and between the events, there were a diversity of viewpoints, but one important question emerged: What is the connection between disarmament and non-proliferation? Is it possible, in the short-term, for the U.S. to demonstrating that it is fulfilling its obligation under Articles VI? Will U.S. nonproliferation credibility lead to tangible benefits in the nuclear nonproliferation regime?
- Oct 28, 2009
FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran set to respond to atomic deal this week
Reuters by Reza DerakhshiIran backs uranium plan outline, but seeks changes
AP by Nasser Karimi and Brian MurphyUS making plans for Iran nuke strategy
AP by Robert BurnsEx-US diplomat: Russia balks at zero nuke talks
AP by Douglas Birch - Oct 27, 2009
FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran to accept nuclear fuel deal: TV
AFP by Jay Deshmukh and Farhad PouladiIran officials appear split on nuclear plan
WP by Thomas ErdbrinkWhy it's sane for Kim Jong-il to be mad
Reuters by Andrew MarshallConcern mounting in U.S. over Japan's foreign policy
Kyodo News - Oct 27, 2009
Panel 3’s topic of “preventing nuclear proliferation” spurred an interesting discussion among participants about some of the relevant tools that can be used to stop nuclear proliferation.
- Oct 27, 2009
Panel 2 looked at “Responding to the Spread of Dangerous Materials and Technologies.” Speakers and guests delved into thinking about what type of verification efforts would be needed for a FMCT and whether it would be possible to draw on existing measures to help craft these guidelines.
- Oct 26, 2009
FISSILE MATERIAL
Korean Envoy Meets with U.S. Official
Chosun IlboBoth Iran and West Fear a Trap on Deal
NYT by David E. SangerUN inspectors visit once-secret Iranian site
AP by Ali Akbar DareiniTurkish PM exposes nuclear rift in Nato
Guardian by Robert Tait - Oct 23, 2009
- Oct 22, 2009
Today, administration officials and Iran watchers wait to hear whether Iran's leadership will agree to ship a substantial portion of its nuclear fuel to Russia, where it would be converted to fuel rods and returned for use in a medical research reactor. A successful deal could have a number of advantages. It would delay Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon by decreasing its stock of enriched uranium. The deal might also serve as a confidence building that could pave the way for future agreements limiting Iran's nuclear program. While there was agreement in principle, the Iranian delegation had to get approval from Tehran, which, they admit, is not certain. Iran has until tomorrow to approve the agreement, and analysts disagree about the likelihood that Tehran will accept.
The proposal is an important test of Iranian intentions. If they say no, White House officials have said that would show they aren't interested in real negotiations. If they say yes, officials would be cautiously optimistic that an agreement that resolves the dispute over Iran's nuclear program might be possible. Either way, it's important to remember that these negotiations are only a stepping stone. Whatever Iran's reaction to this proposal, there will be months, if not years, of negotiations to come.
Future negotiations and the appropriate long-term policy for dealing with Iran was the topic of an Arms Control Association (ACA) panel this morning. The event, hosted at Carnegie, featured Paul Pillar of Georgetown, Greg Thielmann of the ACA, and James Dobbins of RAND and was moderated by Peter Crail of ACA. In an hour and a half, the panel discussed intelligence, Iran's capability and intentions, and the appropriate role of negotiations. There were a few important takeaways.
- Oct 22, 2009
After a bit of an extended absence, PDI live debates are back with a bang. Debate 5 will feature John Steinbruner of UMD fame and Walt Slocombe from Caplin and Drysdale debating the timely subject of de-alerting. Details as a follows:
Date: Thursday, November 5
Time: 6:00 – 8:00 pm (a bit later than previous events)
Topic: Physical de-alerting
Location: CSIS B1 Conference Center (1800 K St NW)To RSVP, contact Chris Jones via e-mail here or phone at (202) 775-3234.
