Iran's Offer

On May 13, Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki delivered a letter and “Proposed Package for Constructive Negotiations” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The letter and offer was delivered just before European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana is set to travel to Iran to deliver a “not-so-new package of incentives” from the so-called P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Germany, U.S. and Russia) meant to convince the country to abandon its nuclear enrichment activities.

The English translation of the Iranian offer available is unofficial and very crude and thus may accurately reflect what the offer is actually meant to convey. However, a few observations can still be made. Perhaps of most significance, the letter and offer delivered by Foreign Minister Mottaki stresses a long-standing issue for the Iranians of the need to approach negotiations with mutual respect.

The Iranian offer may also be viewed as a preemptive measure to the “new package of incentives” to be delivered by the P5+1. Though there are some additional incentives in the P5+1 offer, including enhanced nuclear cooperation, it does not include U.S.-backed security assurances that it will not attack Iran. Most importantly, the U.S. adamantly maintains the precondition that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities before negotiations can even begin, which Iran refuses to do.

The Iranian offer is likely a reflection of the view inside the government that they will just wait out the current U.S. administration because they do not see the possibility for real dialogue at present. In light of this, the Iranian government has perhaps made this offer mostly for media purposes.

In the offer, the Iranian government presents itself as a global player, equal to all of the members of the P5+1. Iran says it is willing to enter into talks with the P5+1 “on cooperation to strengthen a just peace and bolster the stability and the advancement of democracy in regions that suffer from instability, militarism, violence and terrorism. Such cooperation can take place in different parts of the world- more specifically in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, and Latin America. Cooperation to assist the Palestinian people to find a comprehensive plan- one that is sustainable, democratic and fair- to resolve the 60-year old Palestinian issue can become a symbol of such collaboration.” There is no mention of security guarantees in the Iranian offer.

The offer also calls for talks between the P5+1 and Iran to include cooperation on Economic issues, including in the energy sector, trade and investment, common effort to help fight poverty in less developed countries and reducing the impact of sharp price fluctuations and retooling global monetary and financial arrangements.

In regards to the nuclear issue, the Iranian offer does not mention its own nuclear program and instead proposes discussing the nuclear issue in the global context and a focus on disarmament. The offer calls for talks to include:

• Obtaining a further assurance about the non-diversion of the nuclear activities of different countries.
• Establishing enrichment and nuclear fuel production consortiums in different parts of the world- including in Iran.
• Cooperation to access and utilize peaceful nuclear technology and facilitating its usage by all states.
• Nuclear disarmament and establishment of a follow up committee.
• Improved supervision by the IAEA over the nuclear activities of different states.
• Joint collaboration over nuclear safety and physical protection.
• An effort to encourage other states to control the export of nuclear material and equipment.

The failure of the P5+1 to produce a credible offer to Iran without preconditions and with security assurances has essentially ensured that substantive talks over Iran’s nuclear program are not going anywhere anytime soon. The Iranian position has only further hardened and as the Iranian offer demonstrates, it has only become more difficult to break the impasse. Tough-minded resolve from all parties to engage in difficult give-and-take of diplomacy, as well as creative diplomatic solutions are urgently needed to prevent the situation from further deterioriating.

Udpate on Iran Amendments to Defense Authorization Bill

Of the major amendments proposed on Iran to the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, only the Spratt amendment was ruled germane by the Committee Rule, which passed on Wednesday, May 21. The House of Representatives is expected to complete debate and vote on the Defense Authorization bill before the Memorial Day recess.

The Spratt (SC) amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence, on an annual basis, to submit to Congress an update of the National Intelligence Estimate entitled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" and dated November 2007. Such update may be submitted in classified form. The President shall notify Congress in writing within 15 days of determining that Iran has met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear weapons program or that Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate, or cease the development of any significant element within its nuclear weapons program.

Summary and links to Text of Major Amendments on Iran in the Defense Authorization Bill

Summary and links to Text of Major Amendments on Iran
Submitted to the Rules Committee for the Defense Authorization Bill
As of May 20, 2008 7:59 PM

Franks (AZ) #53
States the Sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should develop and maintain a viable military option to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from successfully developing or deploying a nuclear weapons capability.

Lee (CA) #71 (Ed. note: this amendment could be construed as Iran-related by prohibiting funding for Iraq war to extend beyond Iraq)
(REVISED) Provides that funds appropriated for Operation Iraqi Freedom or otherwise made available to DOD pursuant to an authorization of appropriations may be obligated and expended within Iraq only (1) to protect service members participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom and (2) to accomplish the safe and complete redeployment of service members and contractors pursuant to a plan that provides for their complete redeployment within one year of enactment. Nothing shall prohibit diplomatic efforts or social and economic reconstruction activities in Iraq.

McDermott (WA) #91
States the Sense of Congress that the United States should seek open communication and responsible diplomacy with certain key state actors in order to reduce regional and global tensions.

Spratt (SC) #128
Requires the DNI, on an annual basis, to submit to Congress an update of the National Intelligence Estimate entitled "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities" and dated November 2007. Such update may be submitted in classified form. The President shall notify Congress in writing within 15 days of determining that Iran has met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear weapons program or that Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate, or cease the development of any significant element within its nuclear weapons program.

Iran's Offer

The Institute for Science and International Security has obtained and posted a copy of Iran's May 13, 2008 letter to the United Nations Secretary General and accompanying document titled "The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Proposed Package for Constructive Negotiations." Read it here.

Even More on the 123 Agreement for Nuclear Cooperation with Russia

Ivan Oelrich has an excellent posting on the Federation of American Scientists blog today regarding the proposed 123 Agreement for nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. I wholeheartedly agree with Ivan’s analysis on Iran, “that the Russians have, overall, been responsible in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program and have come up with some innovative ideas.” I also agree that there are much better arguments than Iran for opposing the agreement, as I have said in previous postings here and here.

In his analysis, Oelrich points out that the 123 agreement with Russia may be part of an effort to bolster the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In addition to Russia, the U.S. is pushing agreements for nuclear cooperation with all of the Middle East countries that have expressed interest in developing a nuclear program since the 2006 appeal from Secretary General of the Arab League and former Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Musa to the Arab world, “to quickly and powerfully enter the world of using nuclear power.” In the memoranda of understanding with Middle Eastern countries signed thus far, the U.S. is tying GNEP to nuclear cooperation with these countries. This, I think, bolsters Oelrich’s argument for fighting GNEP directly, rather than individual agreements for cooperation.

In an article for the Middle East Report on this subject to be published this summer, I argue, among other things, that the U.S. is selling GNEP as part of the nuclear cooperation packages in part because it needs a lucrative market to sell a new generation of reactors and fuel. Convincing countries in the Middle East to forego domestic reprocessing and enrichment also bolsters U.S. plans to reprocess fuel from domestic and foreign reactors for use in a new generation of reactors. However, this is a highly unstable and hypocritical policy that will only widen the gap between the nuclear haves and have-nots. Addressing the deep-seeded inequalities of the nonproliferation and disarmament regime is far more likely than nuclear cooperation agreements to mitigate proliferation concerns in the Middle East and around the world.

Jerusalem Post Article on Potential U.S. Military Attack

The Jerusalem Post originally published an article at this url (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) on May 20 with the headline "Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term." The article read:

"US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran in the upcoming months, before the end of his term, Army Radio quoted a senior official in Jerusalem as saying Tuesday.

"The official claimed that a senior member of the president's entourage, which concluded a trip to Israel last week, said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for.

"However, the official continued, 'the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice' was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic, for the time being.

"The report stated that according to assessments in Israel, recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack.
Bush, the officials said, opined that Hizbullah's show of strength was evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence.

"They said that according to Bush, 'the disease must be treated - not its symptoms.' In an address to the Knesset during his visit here last week, Bush said that 'the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages.'

"'America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions,' Bush said. 'Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.'"

Curiously, upon re-accessing the same url (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) the article had been changed to a report of the White House denying the claims articulated in the previous article. The new article reads:

"The White House on Tuesday flatly denied an Army Radio report that claimed US President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term. It said that while the military option had not been taken off the table, the Administration preferred to resolve concerns about Iran's push for a nuclear weapon 'through peaceful diplomatic means.'

"Army Radio had quoted a top official in Jerusalem claiming that a senior member in the entourage of President Bush, who concluded a trip to Israel last week, had said in a closed meeting here that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for.

"The official reportedly went on to say that 'the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice' was preventing the administration from deciding to launch such an attack on the Islamic Republic for the time being.

"The Army Radio report, which was quoted by The Jerusalem Post and resonated widely, stated that according to assessments in Israel, the recent turmoil in Lebanon, where Hizbullah has de facto established control of the country, was advancing an American attack.

"Bush, the official reportedly said, considered Hizbullah's show of strength to constitute evidence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's growing influence. In Bush's view, the official said, 'the disease must be treated - not its symptoms.'

"However, the White House on Tuesday afternoon dismissed the story. In a statement, it said that '[the US] remain[s] opposed to Iran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon. To that end, we are working to bring tough diplomatic and economic pressure on the Iranians to get them to change their behavior and to halt their uranium enrichment program. '

"It went on: 'As the President has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table, but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard.'

"In an address to the Knesset during his visit here last week, Bush said that 'the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages.'

"'America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions,' Bush said. 'Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.'"

Ashton Carter: Military action must be viewed as a component of a comprehensive Iran strategy

Ashton B. Carter, Co-Director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard and Stanford Universities, has a new paper in which he argues: "Military action must be viewed as a component of a comprehensive strategy rather than a stand-alone option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. But it is an element of any true option. A true option is a complete strategy integrating political, economic, and military elements and seeing the matter through to a defined and achievable end. For any military element, the sequel to action must be part of the strategy because the military action by itself will not finish the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions once and for all." The paper is part of a series published by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) on alternative strategies for dealing with Iran's nuclear program called "Iran: U.S. Strategic Options." Read the full paper here.