Nov 22, 2009
- Oct 1, 2009
Carnegie held an event Tuesday called "Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Posture" (video is now available here). Chris already covered Jeffrey Lewis's discussion of extended deterrence. The other half of the discussion featured Michael Gerson laying out the case for No First Use (NFU).
According to Gerson, U.S. nuclear policy, which maintains the option of nuclear first use as part of a policy of calculated ambiguity, is not credible and dangerous. Gerson argued that there are three main reasons other countries don't believe the U.S. would initiate a nuclear conflict: 1) The perception of the U.S. (especially under the Obama administration) as risk averse causes countries to question whether the U.S. would be willing to break the nuclear taboo 2) If the U.S. used nuclear weapons first it would do irreparable harm to its nonproliferation leadership 3) After the Gulf War, U.S. military planners revealed they had no intention of using nuclear weapons to counter chemical attacks.
- Oct 1, 2009
As the U.S. begins negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program there needs to be an honest assessment of how important a nuclear weapon is to Iran. Iran’s nuclear efforts, whether civilian or military, have to be viewed in context.
Why Iran wants nuclear energy for civilian use
There is a real argument that Iran’s primary goal is to pursue effective nuclear energy. Although Iran has the third largest oil reserves and the second largest gas reserves they lack a domestic refining ability which forces Iran to rely on imported gasoline. A domestic nuclear energy capability would diversify their economy away from oil, establish energy independence, reduce Iran’s susceptibility to fluctuations in oil prices, and enhance a growth rate that while impressive, significantly trails their neighbors on the south side of the Persian Gulf. Further, nuclear energy would establish a national industry that would bolster Iran’s 12.5% (probably grossly understated) unemployment rate, a weak point for Ahmadinejad in the Presidential elections.
- Oct 1, 2009
FISSILE MATERIAL
Iran to propose third-party uranium enrichment: Ahmadinejad
AFP by Jay DeshmukhU.S. Opens Door To Bilateral Talks With Iranians
Washington Post by Glenn KesslerIran broke law by not declaring atom site - ElBaradei
Reuters by Mark HeinrichTime for diplomacy to end the stand-off with Iran
Financial Times by John Kerry - Sep 30, 2009
Carnegie hosted an event yesterday titled "Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Posture" featuring panelists Michael Gerson and Jeffrey Lewis that was moderated by James Acton. Gerson's remarks centered around establishing the case for a No First Use pledge and Lewis centered his attention on extended deterrence. The discussion of extended deterrence was split into two main topics: Japan and NATO. To close the session, policy recommendations were provided for each. In the case of Japan, Lewis argued consultations can help us "hold hands" with Japan in an effort to begin to pare down what may be currently considered necessary capabilties or positions in the name of extended deterrence. For NATO, the recommendation was to consolidate the TNW's located in Europe to two sites (and perhaps reduce numbers). Both proposals begin to tug at a core question with regards to extended deterrence: how should the United States go about the consultation process with its allies when discussing extended deterrence?
- Sep 30, 2009
FISSILE MATERIAL
N. Korea Rejects 'Grand Bargain' Nuke Offer
Korea TimesIran assembly could advise quitting NPT if talks fail
ReutersOil, Ideology Keep China From Joining Push Against Iran
Washington Post by John PomfretForget the Nukes
Washington Post by Robert Kagan - Sep 29, 2009
On Friday morning, President Obama announced the existence of a previously undisclosed Iranian enrichment facility near Qom. Obama's announcement has altered the debate over Iran's nuclear program and might create momentum for a new round of sanctions. However, the question people have been asking is: why the slow play? If Obama has known about the facility since before he took office, why did he wait until now to make the information public?
Part of the answer is readily apparent. Iran sent a letter to the IAEA last Monday disclosing a "pilot facility" near Qom, forcing Obama's hand. According to Laura Rozen in Politico, Iran's letter was the primary trigger:
- Sep 29, 2009
FISSILE MATERIAL
How to Press the Advantage With Iran
NYT by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann LeverettGeneva talks on Iran may fizzle, more sanctions loom
Reuters by Louis Charbonneau and Mark HeinrichNuclear Debate Brews: Is Iran Designing Warheads?
NYT by William J. Broad, Mark Mazzetti, and David E. SangerU.S., Allies Seek New Ways to Sanction Iran
WSJ by Joe Lauria, Jay Solomon, and Farnaz Fassihi - Sep 29, 2009
Even as October 1st approaches, marking the beginning of international negotiations with Iran, as well as the first direct talks between the U.S. and Iran in thirty years, the Obama administration is rushing to prepare a new set of economic sanctions to provide further leverage against the Islamic Republic. According to SecDef Gates, there’s “a pretty rich list to pick from,” and potential targets include energy equipment and technology. The biggest target pushed for by lawmakers, and the most difficult to reach an international consensus on, is an embargo on gasoline shipments to the Islamic Republic. Proponents of this step hope that, with forty percent of its gas imported from abroad, an embargo will put domestic pressure on the Iranian government to negotiate.
- Sep 29, 2009
Last Thursday, I had the chance to listen to Carnegie Endowment’s James Acton discuss "Deterring Safeguards Violations," about nuclear safeguards, noncompliance, and the role they should play in the upcoming 2010 NPT Review Conference.
