Booklist | The Partnership – Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb, Philip Taubman

An important story of important global leaders who aim to get rid of what is arguably the greatest danger to world survival in the 21st century:

Philip Taubman’s fascinating, haunting book, “The Partnership,” is about the drive to abolish nuclear weapons — and, implicitly, about why it will probably fail. Taubman, a former reporter and editor for The New York Times, tells the stories of five American national security mandarins who, in the twilight of their illustrious careers, stunned their peers by campaigning to scrap all nuclear arms. They are not exactly pacifist hippies: Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, Republican secretaries of state; William J. Perry, a Democratic secretary of defense; Sam Nunn, a Democrat who had been chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Sidney D. Drell, an influential Stanford physicist. Their continuing activism, Taubman writes, “has induced sitting presidents and foreign ministers to embrace ideas not long ago ridiculed as radical and reckless,” and has “powerfully influenced Obama,” who advocates a world without nuclear ­weapons.

These five men had done much to foster a nuclearized world, and had prospered for their contributions to its infernal machinery. Much of “The Partnership” consists of eerie tales of the atomic cold war, charting the upward progress of these grandees. When they broke ranks, Taubman writes, “it was roughly equivalent to John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan and Jay Gould calling for the demise of capitalism.”

via The Partnership – Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb – By Philip Taubman – Book Review – NYTimes.com.

Korean Nuclear Envoys Hold ‘Constructive’ Talks – NYTimes.com

Talks resume:

Meetings between the chief nuclear envoys of North and South Korea were “constructive,” negotiators said, even though the talks did not produce any breakthroughs on the longstanding impasse over the North’s refusal to give up its nuclear program.

The talks on Wednesday, held at a private club in Beijing, were the second meeting of the two sides since 2009, when North Korea walked away from six-party disarmament talks that also involved the United States, Russia, Japan and China

via Korean Nuclear Envoys Hold ‘Constructive’ Talks – NYTimes.com.

Iran Update: New Equipment to Speed the Production of Nuclear Fuel, Panel Is Told – NYTimes.com

A new update at the IAEA shows how Iran flaunts Security Council resolutions.  The history of this issue, briefly summarized in this NYT article–including the recent Stuxnet virus–will bring you up to speed.

International nuclear inspectors reported on Friday that Iran had finally begun operating a new generation of equipment that over time should give it the capability to produce nuclear fuel much faster, after years of delays made worse by Western sanctions and sabotage.

via Iran Has New Equipment to Speed the Production of Nuclear Fuel, Panel Is Told – NYTimes.com.

Mystery Surrounds Cyber Missile That Crippled Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Ambitions – FoxNews.com

Fascinating new details on the X-Files computer worm, Stuxnet:

The construction of the worm was so advanced, it was “like the arrival of an F-35 into a World War I battlefield,” says Ralph Langner, the computer expert who was the first to sound the alarm about Stuxnet. Others have called it the first “weaponized” computer virus.

Simply put, Stuxnet is an incredibly advanced, undetectable computer worm that took years to construct and was designed to jump from computer to computer until it found the specific, protected control system that it aimed to destroy: Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

via FoxNews.com – Mystery Surrounds Cyber Missile That Crippled Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Ambitions.

Debating START Treaty, Round 2

On the Op-Ed right, former Bush Ambassador to the United Nation, John Bolton making the case that the START treaty should not be ratified.

New Start’s faults are legion. The low limits it would place on nuclear warheads ignore the enormous disparities between American and Russian global responsibilities and the importance of America’s “nuclear umbrella” in maintaining international security. The treaty’s constraints on launching platforms would impede Washington’s ability to use conventional warheads even in conflicts far from any Russian interest or responsibility. There are plenty of other deficiencies, from inadequate verification provisions to leaving Moscow’s extensive tactical nuclear weapons capabilities unlimited.

via Why Rush to Cut Nukes? – NYTimes.com.

And from the the other side, Armscontrolwonk.com, with their own clear perspective:

To call this piece “reality-challenged” would be an understatement. It goes through all the tired, predictable (and repeatedly debunked) Heritage Foundation-style talking points about missile defense, verification, “modernization”, and the preposterous claim that the modest cuts defined by the treaty will somehow leave us defenseless. Been there, done that; we’ve seen this movie before.

via John Bolton’s bizarro world

Views on START from Ronald Reagan

Useful context on Romney & Republican current opposition to START based on Nitze, Schultz, and President Reagan’s guiding strategy:

Nitze didn’t care about being exposed to criticism by the high priests of nuclear deterrence theory. He outranked them. The criticism was, in any effect, muted. Nitze was granted exceptional leeway to play this game. Deal makers and Doves saw great value in positioning SDI behind the queue of deep cuts, so they withheld their critical faculties. Hard-liners were stymied by Nitze’s hawkish credentials, and by a public line that they couldn’t oppose.

Nitze got the job done: His assignment was to find coherence in President Reagan’s divided mind. In so doing, he succeeded in making what he described as “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” using SDI to secure deep cuts in nuclear weapons. National security adviser Robert “Bud” McFarlane characterized this gambit as “the greatest sting operation in history.”

Only later did we learn that Nitze was not relying on simple artifice to achieve immense negotiating achievements. He, like Ronald Reagan, had come to believe in nuclear abolition and in transitioning away from a world threatened by nuclear excess. Some who sing Ronald Reagan’s praises – including Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney – now take a far different tack, finding fault with New Start Treaty because they feel uncomfortable about deeper cuts in nuclear arms that the Treaty mandates, the Pentagon approves, George Shultz endorses, and that Reagan himself would have applauded.

Romney & Co. also assert that New START limits missile defenses. This charge is utterly false. Missile defense constraints are no longer imposed by treaty, as was the case during the Reagan era. Nitze’s criteria, however, continue to apply. If Republican critics of New START succeed in blocking ratification on the basis of this repeated falsehood, they will invite budget cuts on their favored programs.

[Aspiring Wonks: If you want to read more about this period, try Strobe Talbott’s The Master of the Game, Paul Nitze and the Nuclear Peace (1988), from which these quotes are drawn.]

via Google Reader (1000+).

Articles on Iran and non-proliferation from CFR

Reading up on detering Iran and implicaitons for nuclear non-proliferation, courtesy of the Winter/Spring 2010 Council on Foreign Relations conference call series and just in time for anyone looking to take the next step in research on the issues.
1) James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh, “After Iran Gets the Bomb,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2010.
2) “Iran’s Nuclear Program,” Backgrounder, CFR, March 10, 2010.
3) “Nuclear Energy Guide,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 2010.
4) Michael A. Levi, “The Tough New IAEA Line on Iran,” First Take, CFR, February 19, 2010.
5) Richard N. Haass, “Only One Force Can Stop Iran Now: Its People,” The Times, February 12, 2010.
6) Trita Parsi, “Make Them Wait: The Case for a Tactical Pause with Iran,” Foreign Policy, July 30, 2009.
7) Steven A. Cook, “Why Israel Won’t Attack Iran,” Foreign Policy, June 9, 2009.

Post Sanctions Assessment

Looks like Sec Clinton can walk and chew gum–getting a big win at the Sec Council with sanctions (at least on face value)–but also noting dissent by Brazil and Turkey with, dare we say, respect?

“We disagreed with their vote,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters in Colombia, where she was on a four-day swing through Latin America. “But I can understand from a diplomatic perspective why they might be able to make a convincing case for how they voted today.”

via Clinton Says Opponents of Penalties Can Still Aid Diplomacy – NYTimes.com.

Critics may say that “sanctions won’t work” but those in support of the vote seem to recognize this fact as well.  David Sanger fleshes it out in the NYT:

So what, exactly, does President Obama plan to do if, as everyone expects, these sanctions fail, just as the previous three did?

There is a Plan B — actually, a Plan B, C, and D — parts of which are already unfolding across the Persian Gulf. The administration does not talk about them much, at least publicly, but they include old-style military containment and an operation known informally at the C.I.A. as the Braindrain Project to lure away Iran’s nuclear talent. By all accounts, Mr. Obama has ramped up a Bush-era covert program to undermine Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure, and he has made quiet diplomatic use of Israel’s lurking threat to take military action if diplomacy and pressure fail.

But ask the designers and executors of these programs what they all add up to, and the answer inevitably boils down to “not enough.” Taken together, officials say, they may slow Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon, which has already run into far greater technical slowdowns than anyone expected. If the pressure builds, Iran might be driven to the negotiating table, which it has avoided since Mr. Obama came to office offering “engagement.”

Keeping Iran Front and Center

Its not easy to be Green, at least in Iran, that is.  But with world attention fading and fickle–it may be easy for some to forget about the daily challenges facing the Iranian people.

The NYT points out some protest music from outside the country that has served to remind and cajole:

Since the Iranian authorities have cracked down on the demonstrations that rocked the country after a disputed election a year ago, a flood of protest music has rushed in to comfort and inspire the opposition. If anything, as the street protests have been silenced, the music has grown louder and angrier.

The government has tried all manner of methods to mute what has become known as “resistance music.” It has blocked Web sites used to download songs and shut down social networking sites, which the opposition also used to organize protests and distribute videos of government and paramilitary violence.

via Music Stirs the Embers of Protest in Iran – NYTimes.com.

And kudos to the Middle East Channel on FP.com for this list of must-reads on Iran, reflecting on the events of the past year and attempting to dispel the myths about Iran missed by the media:

• “What the West Isn’t Hearing About,” By Azadeh Moaveni
  To understand the big stories of the last year in Iran, we need better access to the little stories.
• “What We Got Wrong,” By Reza Aslan
  How the media both overestimated and underestimated the Green movement.
• “Iran’s Hidden Cyberjihad,” By Abbas Milani
  Taking a cue from the Soviets, the regime is creating a new Iron Curtain – online.
• “A Forgotten Civil Society,” Azar Nafisi, Interview by Britt Peterson
  Reading Lolita in Tehran‘s Azar Nafisi discusses Iran’s cultural crisis – and how the West got it wrong.
• “What We Got Right,” By Nazila Fathi
  Against terrible odds, the foreign media did a remarkable job covering the past year’s turmoil in Iran.
• “The Real Impact of the Elections,” By Haleh Esfandiari
  Far from being a wipeout, the Green Movement was a historic success. Too bad no one was watching.
• “The Twitter Devolution,” By Golnaz Esfandiari
  Far from being a tool of revolution in Iran over the last year, the Internet, in many ways, just complicated the picture.

Cohen on Iran: “America Moves the Goalposts” – NYTimes.com

From Vienna we see the Iranian Ambassador to the IAEA on CNN-I, talking about how the Brazil/Turkey-brokered deal doesn’t work for them any longer. (It doesn’t bode well for Russia or China, as well.)

These impulses are potentially valuable: Brazil’s and Turkey’s interests will align, most often, with those of the U.S. Indeed, the bottom line in all this is pretty positive: traditional powers like Russia and China are edging away from Iran, while potentially constructive new players, like Turkey and Brazil, are pushing their way into multilateral diplomacy. On the other hand, unfortunately, Iran is still merrily enriching uranium at levels that are approaching weapons-grade, and it isn’t likely to stop anytime soon.

via Time.com http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1990549,00.html#ixzz0osauqQmE

Tomorrow we’ll be at the UN City, but meanwhile, Roger Cohen of IHT observes not only the great (and rising) power politics inherent to this now-fading deal, but also the implications for Obama’s foreign policy:

If all the mistrust needed further illustration, it has just been provided by the Brazilian-Turkish deal on Iran’s low enriched uranium LEU, the peevish U.S. reaction to it, and the apparent determination of the Great Powers, led by the Obama administration, to burrow deeper into failure.I believed Obama was ready to think anew on Iran. It seems not. Presidents must lead on major foreign policy initiatives, not be bullied by domestic political considerations, in this case incandescent Iran ire on the Hill in an election year.

via Op-Ed Columnist – America Moves the Goalposts – NYTimes.com.