Monday, June 15, 2015

Iran deal likely won’t happen (Dan 8)

 

Obama Legacy on Nuclear Arms Under Threat

As Iran talks enter critical stage, arms expansion elsewhere threatens key U.S. policy goal
By JAY SOLOMON

June 14, 2015 7:46 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—As international talks over Iran’s nuclear program enter their critical final stage this month, a key goal of President Barack Obama’s presidency—curtailing the world-wide nuclear threat—hangs in the balance.

Mr. Obama’s campaign to stem the spread of nuclear weapons was cited as core reason for his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, but that signature effort has been bogged down amid a resurgence of Middle East turmoil, tensions between the U.S. and Russia and the growth of North Korea’s arsenal.

Senior U.S. officials cite the impending deal with Iran as a major step toward Mr. Obama’s nonproliferation objective. But many nonproliferation concerns have grown. Chinese scientists warned the U.S. in recent months that North Korea has expanded its arsenal to about 20 atomic bombs. And developing countries negotiating the future of the nuclear

Nonproliferation Treaty at the United Nations last month, meanwhile, sharply criticized the U.S. and Russia for not doing enough to shrink their nuclear-weapons arsenals.

In recent years, aside from the Iran talks, “the administration has lost focus and momentum on the [nonproliferation] issue, especially as the Republicans have seized the majority in the Senate and tensions with Russia have worsened,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington think tank.

Even a deal to curtail Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for easing economic sanctions, a main goal, may lead only to a mixed record on disarmament. Key U.S. allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, are voicing fears the emerging deal won’t go far enough in blocking an Iranian path to a bomb. A number of Arab states have warned they could seek to match whatever nuclear capabilities Iran is allowed to maintain as part of a final deal.

The talks, facing a June 30 deadline, are under way in Vienna. U.S. and European officials involved in the diplomacy said disputes still exist with Iran over the future inspections of its nuclear and military sites and the timing of sanctions relief. These officials said the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s watchdog, to clarify Iran’s alleged past efforts to develop nuclear weapons technologies are unlikely to be addressed by month-end, but will need to be handled in stages.

“In terms of the actual timelines, the IAEA isn’t going by the 30th of June to be able to resolve its outstanding questions,” a Western diplomat said. “What the deal will have to do is make sure there is a mechanism by which it can do that.”

The Obama administration’s nonproliferation campaign, laid out along the lines of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, has focused on trying to deny atomic weapons to previously non-nuclear countries, reducing the stockpiles already held by the five U.N.-recognized weapons states, and facilitating the use of civilian nuclear technologies for countries that commit to not go down the weapons path.

Administration officials view the diplomacy toward Iran as a linchpin of this overall strategy. The White House believes an agreement with Iran will deny Tehran the capability to break out and build a bomb for at least 10 years, removing pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran’s other regional rivals to pursue nuclear technologies.

Still, U.S. allies and adversaries alike have voiced suspicion of the Obama administration’s broader nonproliferation campaign. And developing countries—who are signatories to the treaty—criticized the U.S. and other weapons states last month for not moving fast enough to dismantle their nuclear-weapons arsenals.

The U.S. and Russia in 2010 reached an arms-control agreement, called the New Start Treaty, to cut in half the countries’ nuclear-missile launchers. But subsequent U.S. offers to the Kremlin to make additional weapons cuts haven’t been reciprocated, according to the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, nuclear threats have crept back into the international dialogue. Russia’s military publicly has said in recent months it should rewrite its official doctrine to allow for a preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S. European officials were stunned in March when Russia’s ambassador to Denmark threatened the country with nuclear-weapons reprisals if it joined a North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile-defense system.

“This makes for a very difficult environment to rapidly negotiate a reduction in nuclear weapons,” said the senior U.S. official. “We’re trying to make sure our concerns about their policies don’t take on a dynamic of their own.”

Israel’s undeclared nuclear-weapons arsenal is also challenging the Obama administration’s broader nonproliferation agenda.

Mideast countries, led by Egypt, pressed the U.N. last month to quickly convene an international conference aimed at establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in their region. Some nations had been seeking to mandate the meeting be held as soon as this December.

Israel’s government—which neither confirms nor denies that the country possesses nuclear weapons—vehemently opposed the requirement that it attend the proposed conference in the absence of broader steps to address what it sees as threats to the Jewish state’s security.

Israeli officials voiced concern that the Arab states and Iran would seek to use the conference to force their country to disarm.

The Obama administration ultimately blocked the U.N. from holding such a conference due to Israel’s concerns. But Egyptian officials warned the White House the American veto would have long-term implications.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has acknowledged in recent weeks that Iran will likely to define his international record.

“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” Mr. Obama said in an interview last month with Atlantic Media. “I think it’s fair to say that, in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

No comments:

Post a Comment