Senate Panel Worried About ‘Significant’ Nuclear Vulnerabilities July 25, 2014 by John Donnelly A new Senate Appropriations Committee report warns in stark terms that the Obama administration is not doing enough to address “significant quantities of nuclear and radiological materials” that are “still unsecure and vulnerable to theft” — including in the United States. The […]
Negotiators agree to extension, additional measures on Iran interim deal
Last week brought official news of an extension of nuclear talks with Iran.
While ideally one would have hoped to bring things to a close by the original July 20 deadline, many analysts expected at the outset of the deal to see an extension of some kind, given that the possibility was built in as part of the November Joint Plan of Action.
The extension agreed to Friday puts a new, and more final, deadline on negotiations of November 24, 2014. And, realistically, this gives negotiators approximately 3 months and 3 and a half weeks to drag their feet. While some lawmakers are sure to decry such stalling, they should look only as far as their own halls for example upon example of working down to the deadline. This poker-faced practice is common in any negotiation, and there is no reason we should expect any more or less from this one.
Those who would throw in the towel now, expecting negotiators to walk away at crunch time, would all but doom the process to breakdown and an eventual decision over the use of military force.
“Diplomacy takes time, and persistence is needed to determine whether we can achieve our objectives peacefully,” Secretary Kerry said Friday. “To turn our back prematurely on diplomatic efforts when significant progress has been made would deny ourselves the ability to achieve our objectives peacefully.”
The four-month extension does place some additional limits on Iran’s nuclear program, however, meaning that progress won’t be brought to a halt while the conversation continues.
In addition to a series of measures already implemented as part of the interim deal, Iran will convert all of its 20% oxide material into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). This makes it more difficult for Iran to someday convert the material for use in building a weapon, and will go far to address concerns over the speed with which Iran could “break out,” were it to choose to do so.
As of yet, Iran’s compliance with the terms of the JPOA has exceeded expectations. The IAEA’s report this week confirms that Iran has completed its obligations under the six-month deal on schedule, leading one to expect Iran’s continued cooperation on conversion of its oxide material.
In return, the P5+1 will grant Iran access to an additional $2.8 billion in restricted assets, a small concession given the billions Iran’s economy continues to lose with the majority of sanctions still in place.
And while there are still many issues that remain unresolved, negotiators remain positive about the possibility of a final deal.
“We have a text, a draft, of [possible comprehensive deal] solutions,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday. “We have discussed the details of each and every question. We know possible solutions much better. On each and every issue, all the parties are very serious.”
And that is far more than anyone could have hoped for at the outset of this process. In four months, we will know whether a deal is possible. Until then, the great progress that has been made in securing Iran’s nuclear material over the past six months is cause for celebration.
War on the Rocks Publishes Story on P5+1 Iran negotiations by Laicie Heeley & Gen. Robert Gard
Iran Negotiations Cannot be Based on “Breakout” Alone By Laicie Heeley & Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Negotiators from the P5+1 and Iran have agreed on four more months, beyond the original July 20 deadline, to ensure that they are able to negotiate the best deal on Iran’s nuclear program. But some of the toughest […]
Iran Negotiations Cannot Be Based on “Breakout” Alone
Gen. Gard and I are over on War on the Rocks today talking about Iran’s breakout capacity and its relationship to ongoing negotiations.
Some snips below:
Why have we chosen breakout as the one defining metric of a good deal? The purpose of each constraint, taken as a whole, is to limit Iran’s nuclear program to the point that the international community could detect any attempt to build a nuclear weapon, and even more importantly, react. A good nuclear deal will include a combination of elements that address Iran’s past, present, and future nuclear activities, including monitoring and transparency, possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program, and former U.N. Security Council resolutions.
[snip]
With thorough and unimpeded monitoring by IAEA, to include the ability under the “Additional Protocol” to inspect any suspicious location for nuclear activity, we would know almost instantaneously if and when Iran makes a decision to produce weapons-grade fissile material, convert it to metallic form, and construct an explosive device, a process that would require considerable time. But we would not have to wait until then to consider a response.
[snip]
Iran’s nuclear capacity must be restrained — that’s the point of the negotiations — but agreement on a final deal shouldn’t be hampered by maximalist demands on either side. While Iran should not expect to leave the table without compromising on the size of its nuclear program, the P5+1 should also not focus so myopically on one element of Iran’s nuclear program to the extent that it might cloud the possibility of obtaining a solid deal.
Head over to War on the Rocks to read the rest of the piece.
War on the Rocks Publishes Story on P5+1 Iran negotiations by Laicie Heeley & Gen. Robert Gard
Iran Negotiations Cannot be Based on “Breakout” Alone July 24, 2014 by Laicie Heeley & Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Negotiators from the P5+1 and Iran have agreed on four more months, beyond the original July 20 deadline, to ensure that they are able to negotiate the best deal on Iran’s nuclear program. But some […]