Why Iran Nuclear Agreement Makes Sense

The Iran nuclear deal will be voted on in the House and Senate in about a month. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico is a member of the Intelligence Committee, an engineer, and well-informed on nuclear issues. After examining the prospective deal agreed upon between Iran, the US and five other major powers, he has come to the conclusion that it merits his strong support. It is the best way to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while avoiding a new war in the Middle East. Heinrich wrote an  op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal. He has waived any copyright issues in the hope of spreading his message and trying to counter the $40 million advertising blitz currently underway by neoconservative war hawks and their wealthy backers. Their campaign urging congressional rejection of the agreement  would likely leave no other option than war. I have posted Senator Heinrich's article below.

Iran deal is a historic opportunity
By Sen. Martin Heinrich / Democrat, New Mexico
Thursday, July 30, 2015 In the first decade of this century when we were entangled in the War in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program surged ahead rapidly, adding thousands of centrifuges, building complex nuclear facilities and stockpiling highly enriched uranium.
In the absence of real negotiations and before the most recent sanctions, Iran built a nuclear infrastructure that went from 164 centrifuges in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today and included large quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that could quickly be enriched to weapons grade material.
When evaluating the deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, context, data and details like these matter. Perhaps the most critical data point: Without a deal, Iran could acquire enough highly enriched material for a bomb in 60-90 days.
With a deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile by 98 percent. It must cut its number of centrifuges by two-thirds. And it must allow 24/7 inspections and continuous monitoring of its nuclear infrastructure.
Further, a mechanism is in place that will allow inspections of sites should we suspect covert action being taken to build a bomb anywhere else in Iran.
This accord breaks each path to a weaponized nuclear device, including any potential covert effort. We should welcome each of those developments as major steps toward regional and international security.
I have studied both the science and the politics of the nuclear-age world we live in from an early age. I grew up listening to my father, who served in the Navy in the ’50s, tell what it was like to watch a nuclear blast firsthand and to see the formation of a mushroom cloud over Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. While studying engineering at the University of Missouri, I worked at one of the largest research reactors in the United States. More recently, I have seen the centrifuges dedicated to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, which are housed in New Mexico.
In the House and now on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have served on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which sets policy on non-proliferation and our nuclear deterrent. I also serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where I have received numerous briefings on Iran’s nuclear program and capabilities. So I am well acquainted with the steps necessary to successfully construct a nuclear weapon and to detect such activity.
The comprehensive, long-term deal achieved last week includes all the necessary tools to break each potential Iranian pathway to a nuclear bomb. Further, it incorporates enough lead time so that, should Iran change its course, the United States and the world can react well before a device could be built; a scenario I hope never occurs, but one that leaves all options on the table, including the military option.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate will object to this historical accomplishment, saying that we could have done better. However, they fail to offer any realistic alternatives.
The only concrete alternative, should Congress reject this deal, comes from my colleague, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has suggested a military strike.
While the military option will always remain on the table, it should remain our absolute last resort. Our military and intelligence leaders have looked at the potential repercussions should a military conflict with Iran occur. That path would provoke retaliation and very likely lead to a nuclear armed Iran in a matter of just a few years.
For too long, our country has been engaged in military conflicts that have cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. We must always be ready at a moment’s notice to defend our country, our allies and our interests, but we must also be willing to avoid conflict whenever a diplomatic option is present and possible.
I am optimistic this accord is in the best interest of our nation and our allies. I am still deeply distrustful of Iran’s leadership. But, to make peace, you must negotiate with your enemies.
Any deal with Iran will not be without risk, but the risks associated with inaction are far more dire. This deal sets the stage for a safer and more stable Middle East, and a more secure United States. We must seize this historic opportunity.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Yesterday's interim nuclear agreement between Iran and the six powers is a hopeful step and to be applauded. By it, Iran will dismantle part of its nuclear program, scale back the rest to a level that cannot be used to make fissile uranium, and submit to rigorous inspections. In return, crippling international sanctions will be relaxed contingent on Iranian compliance with the agreement.

The five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia, China) plus Germany had set a deadline for agreement by June, but had established March 31 as a date to determine whether enough progress was being made to continue the talks. They were close enough to continue through April 1, when the overall framework was agreed upon.  

British foreign secretary Philip Hammond said “This is well beyond what many of us thought possible even 18 months ago.” He continued,“There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved,” he said.

Here are the pertinent details as reported by the The Guardian:

• Iran’s infrastructure for uranium enrichment will be reduced by more than two thirds, from 19,000 installed centrifuges, to 6,104, of which only 5,060 will be used for uranium enrichment, for a period of 10 years.
• Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced by 98% to 300kg for a period of 15 years.
• Iran’s heavy water reactor will be redesigned so it produces only tiny amounts of plutonium.
• Iran’s underground enrichment plant at Fordow will be turned into a research centre for medical and scientific work.
• Iran will be open to enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency for 20 years.

This is a reasonable agreement in terms of making sure Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb without going to war. Critics such as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and congressional Republicans are not happy. They seem to feel no deal will be enforceable and that Iran will find a way to cheat  The agreement is stringent and should minimize the possibility. Yet if it happens, we will be back to where we are anyway: President Obama has stated he is on the same page as the war hawks in that case. He has said Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that if it appears close to that goal the U.S. will use "any means necessary," an obvious reference to military attack, to prevent it. So Netanyahu, Sens. Tom Cotton, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would scrap negotiations and leave only the certainty of war with Iran. That's not a desirable eventuality, as one would think they might have learned something from the expected easy triumphs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama and the other five powers are right to pursue the path of peace. Iran is submitting to the reversal of all aspects of its program that could lead to a bomb, and to intrusive inspections to keep it that way. Bringing Iran back into normal international relations could have a stabilizing effect on the entire Middle East, and if the effort fails we can always resort to he military option anyway. A few details of logistics still have to be worked out by June. The war hawks have nothing to offer, and it is high time to move and get on with this.

Oil Prices Plunge at the Intersection of Economics and Politics

There has been a rather amazing decline in the price of oil lately.  Crude was as high as $115 a barrel in June, but is now going for $80.  That's an amazing 30% drop in four months.  This has resulted in big drops in the price of gas at the pump.  The nationwide average was as high as $4.11 a gallon in 2008, stood at $3.94 in April of 2012, was at $3.69 this year in June, and now is down to $3.12.  Source US Energy Information Service.   That reduction amounts to 57 cents a gallon in four months, a 15 percent savings so far, with likely more to come as the full drop in the price of crude works its way through the chain.

The first thing to comment on is that this is having a positive economic effect.  Despite price wars over fares, for instance, airlines turned in strong profits in the past six months.  The nine largest U.S. carriers saw their net earnings increase to $3.8 billion compared to $1.6 billion over the same period last year.  The main reason?  Lower fuel costs.  It could spur increased consumer spending too, perhaps for Christmas.  Research shows that every one cent drop in the price of gasoline puts $1 billion into the pockets of the American people.

There are some domestic factors driving the price drop.  Part of it is increased efficiency in gas mileage in the U.S. auto fleet, and the beginnings of a real expansion in renewables, both jump-started by Obama administration policies initiated in 2009.  America uses 1.8 million barrels a day less than it did in 2007.  American production is up too, growing from 5.00 million barrels a day in 2008 to 7.44 million a day at present.  Combine these factors together and the U.S. is importing 4 million fewer barrels of foreign oil a day than it did seven years ago.  That's a foreign exchange improvement of about $12 billion a month, or $144 billion a year--a significant chunk of change, about .8% of GDP, to add to the U.S. economy. 

Just as intriguing are the global forces at work.  In the past, when a global oil glut threatened to erode prices, Saudi Arabia would cut back on its production, making oil scarce and thereby bolstering the price.  This time, however, the Saudis have maintained production and discounted prices to their Asian customers in order to retain market share.  It's very likely there's a geopolitical motive operating here, perhaps even in coordination with the United States.  Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia is in a real contest for dominance in the Middle East with Shi'ite Muslim Iran.  The major flash point is the Syrian Civil War, in which autocratic President Bashar Assad is being supported by Iran and Russia.  Iran is under international sanctions due to its nuclear program, as Russia is for its recent imperialistic moves in Ukraine.  The Saudis and other Sunni oil states have been supporting the opposition.  But another way to cripple Iran's and Russia's efforts would be to strike a heavy blow against the price of oil.  Russia gets 50% of its budget revenue from oil exports, and Iran gets 60% of its from the same source.

The seriousness of Russia's problem is underscored in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which reports, "Russian inflation is at a three year-high, the ruble is trading at new lows, and capital outflows are expected to exceed $100 billion this year. The ruble is under downward pressure both from higher demand for dollars, as companies find it hard to borrow abroad, and from lower oil prices. It has already weakened by more than 20% since the start of the year."  Finance Minister Anton Siluanov publicly warned the Russian Duma (Parliament) that the budget may become untenable.  Expect to see more on this soon.  The economic squeeze on Iran and Russia is not coincidental, and may result in some interesting diplomatic musical chairs in the next few months.  Stay tuned.            

Diplomatic Breakthrough with Iran?

The historic agreement just announced with the Islamic Republic of Iran is a good and necessary first step toward preventing that troublesome nation from acquring a nuclear weapon.  The interim accord also represents perhaps a last chance to do so peacefully.  The accord should be supported, because it preserves the prospect of beginning to restore a modicum of stability to the Middle East.

The six-month deal was announced between Iran and six powers, led by the United States.  The other partners are Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.  Here are some of the most important terms Iran must adhere to: International inspectors will be able to visit Iran's facilities every day for the six months to monitor compliance.  Iran will destroy the 20% enriched uranium it already has.  It will accept limitations on producing more 3.5% enriched uranium.  It will get rid of some of the advanced centrifuges it currently has, and will acquire no more new ones.  It will not open its Arak heavy water reactor, potentially capable of producing plutonium.  It will enter into good-faith negotiations for a permanent treaty during this six-month interim period.  These terms are intended to take away Iran's present stockpile and then prevent it from retaining the ability to produce more fuel enriched to a level that makes the jump to nuclear weapon status feasible.    

In exchange, the powers will relax their sanctions a bit, allowing some more sales of Iranian oil and permitting it to re-enter world markets to specified levels in auto parts, gold, and other precious metals.  The easing of sanctions would net Iran about $7 billion in relief over the next six months.  The sanctions are costing the Islamic Republic about $5 billion a month, so even with the interim agreement, they will still be penalized $23 billion of the $30 billion (over 76%) of the economic losses they faced before agreeing to the bargain.

The usual chorus of neoconservative critics attacked the agreement, claiming it lets Iran off the hook too easily.  Senator Lindsey Graham called for harsher sanctions and no deal except Iran agrees to end all enrichment, even at the 3.5% level of purity which can legitimately be used for electrical power generation.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "bad deal."  Senators McCain and Corker apparently are ready to begin bombing Iran any day now.        

The problem with their line of thinking is that this represents a real opportunity to avoid war and begin bringing Iran back into the family of nations.  If it fails or Iran reneges, the military option will still be there.  With daily inspections Iran will not be able to produce a bomb in the next six months.  President Obama has made it clear several times that Iran "Will not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon," and that "all options are on the table" to accomplish this.  Iran knows full well what that means, and the sanctions Obama has initiated and gotten the other powers to accept have been extremely effective.

Why on earth shouldn't we try to resolve things peacefully first?  If this works, the President will have gone a long way toward earning that Peace Prize he received early in his presidency.  If not, we are likely headed for another war in the Middle East.  And after what we have been through over the past 12 years, only a fool would prefer that as a first choice.

Thoughts on Iran

Events in Iran may be building toward a tipping point. Soon, either the supporters of presidential election challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi will take their protests to the next level or the government of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his declared victorious incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will ride things out.

First of all, the announced results of the election are almost certainly fabricated. The results of hand-counted paper ballots appeared far too quickly to be believed. The results defied the observations of observers in country, where according to the released totals the incumbent won in places like Tehran where reporters could scarcely find an Ahmadinejad supporter before the vote.

A number of intriguing goings on portend important changes in the landscape both in Iran and around the world in the contemporary era. Mousavi's supporters are planning the biggest demonstrations yet for tomorrow. They seem to be doing a good job of keeping things peaceful, from their end. The government and its paramilitary thugs, are trying their best to stifle avenues of organization and protest. They are tying to jam and block e-mail, texting, facebook, twitter and broadcast outlets. Still, average citizens are risking much to post video of demonstrations and oppression on sites like You Tube.

One important question is whether such electronic communications and networking sites can be controlled by governments, or can people continue to find ways around impediments? These means are clearly being used to coordinate the movement and getting its message out to the rest of Iran and indeed the world.

Another is whether the Iranian theocracy will last. They have an elected government, but also an unelected and unaccountable Supreme Council of Shia Mullahs whose authority trumps everyone else's. Whether this can and will stand in the face of the younger generation and more educated populace's desire for a more open and democratic society is an open question. Earlier protests in 1999 and 2003 fizzled. Will this time be different?

One of the key determinants may well be whether a galvanizing moment takes place. A bloody and well-publicized event like China's 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre could well push things into open and violent rebellion. Officialdom will have a dilemma calibrating the level of repression that might work with what will be tolerated. Most of them well remember their movement's own accession to power in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and they must understand similar forces could throw them out this time around. The world holds its breath.

Iraq, Iran and the Campaign

With John McCain largely staking his presidential bid on foreign concerns and Barack Obama overseas, international issues are taking front and center in the campaign this week. Here's a look at some of the current and prospective developments.

Iraq: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stirred things up this week by saying there should be a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from his country. He and President Bush are in the midst of directing negotiations on a successor agreement to the United Nations mandate that sanctions the American presence in Iraq. The U.N. mandate expires on December 31. Al-Maliki's statement matches Obama's campaign pledge to withdraw from Iraq and directly contradicts the preferences of Bush and Senator McCain, who want no restrictions on continuing the American military presence. What is behind this?

Bush wants the U.S. to have the right to stay indefinitely. So does McCain. Maliki needs to raise the issue of getting the foreigners out for domestic political reasons. He needs to look tough, but he doesn't really want American forces to go anytime soon. They are propping him up in power. When they do go there will probably be a three-sided civil war between the Sunnis, Maliki's Shiites and Muqtada al-Sadr's Shiites. Bush and Maliki will dance around this issue for awhile and reach an agreement before the deadline runs out.

Because he needed to give Maliki something to take to his parliament, Bush floated some vague compromise language about making eventual reductions as the situation warrants. An Obama spokesman immediately pounced, saying, "It is welcome if the President is moving toward Senator Obama's position." Speaker Pelosi chimed in, pointing to the vague nature of Bush's statement and saying we need to pull out faster. Bush and McCain then decried the idea of a rapid drawdown as likely to lead to deterioration in the security situation in Iraq.

You will see both sides sticking to their guns from here on as this unfolds. Maliki gave Obama some ammunition on this one and hurt Bush and McCain a bit. Obama continuing to push for a drawdown is a winning position for him. Two-thirds of the American people still favor ending the war. Disengaging there is a signature issue for him and he will be seen as the king of flip-floppers if he says anything else.

Bush wants to help McCain win, since McCain is the one who will carry on the President's policy legacy in Iraq if he is elected. The two of them cannot afford to vaccilate now without risking losing the confidence of their strongest supporters. At most, Bush might withdraw a few troops right before the election as a way of saying the situation is improving thanks to his strategy-which McCain supports.

Iran: Concern with Iraq's uranium-enrichment program continues. Obama early on called for direct negotiations. Bush said that was appeasement, a view that McCain quickly seconded. Now Bush himself has sent an emissary to a meeting which the Iranians agreed to attend. Condi Rice said they would not "negotiate" until the Iranians stop enriching uranium but there would still be a "meeting." The parsing of diplomatic subtelties aside, once again Obama comes across as the voice of reason and his opponents as the purveyors of campaign fearmongering. If it was such a horrifying idea why is Bush doing it himself? Preliminary reports say the meeting went like this: U.S.: You need to give up your enrichment program. Iran: No, we need guarantees you will not attack us. U.S.: No, you have to stop your program. End of meeting.

There is a great deal of talk about the United States or Israel launching a pre-emptive strike on Iran's facilities. Most Americans would view a U.S. strike as reckless and irresponsible. The army is stretched to the breaking point after 5 1/2 years in Iraq. Whether America or Israel were to strike, Iran's likely riposte would be to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, the passage through which Persian Gulf oil flows to the world.

If Bush attacks it works to Obama's advantage. His best bet is to keep some form of talks going. That silences Obama on the matter. If Obama says anything he's viewed as meddling with the discussions for political reasons before he is president. Then Bush strings the talks along. If it looks like McCain is going to win he lets McCain deal with things after he takes office. If it looks like Obama is going to win then Bush just might decide to bomb as many of Iran's nuclear facilities as he can before his term ends. (Some are pretty deeply buried, it is believed.) Given Bush's previous record and Dick Cheney's stated threats on the matter, such an attack might well be mounted. Whether it would be before or after the election would depend on whether Bush thinks it would help or hurt McCain's chances and if he believes Iran is very close to developing a nuclear device.

In general: All this concentration on defense-related foreign policy issues works to McCain's advantage. Obama needs to complete his foreign tour as Bush did in 2000, make his policy positions clear, then get everyone back to talking about the economy. If the election is about domestic affairs Obama wins. If it is about foreign affairs McCain has a chance.

McCain and Iran

While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to bash away at each other here in the states, John McCain has left the country to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Foreign affairs and defense are generally regarded as McCain's strong suits to begin with, so it comes as a surprise that he continues to repeat the same gaffe-if indeed it is a gaffe.

Why does McCain keep saying (in four different speeches and news conferences as of this writing) that Iran is supporting al Qaeda? Shiite Iran is a mortal enemy of fanatically Sunni al Qaeda. Joe Lieberman even whispered in his ear and McCain then turned back to reporters and corrected himself about this in one of his press conferences. Is the supposed foreign policy/defense expert unaware of the lack of connection and indeed enmity between Iran and al Qaeda? Is age making him continually confuse this basic fact? Is he so eager to establish a justification to attack Iran that he will say anything about them?

As for the first question, it doesn't seem possible that McCain is ignorant on the subject. Many of the most spectacular bombings in Iraq are acknowledged to have been carried out by al Qaeda in Iraq against Shiite neighborhoods and mosques. The accepted reason for this is to provoke continued hatred between the rival sects in the hope of fomenting Shiite reprisals against Sunnis, thus driving them into alliance with their fellow Sunnis in al Qaeda. All the intelligence briefings McCain has received in the Senate have reiterated this. He cannot fail to be aware of it.

Is it age? That's doubtful. He has not been reported making similar misstatements on other subjects. One could see him having a slip-up once or even twice. But four times in the course of a couple of days? If anything, it's reminiscent of Dick Cheney, who kept repeating it was "pretty well established" that Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama bin Laden even after all intelligence reports had publicly debunked that argument. Cheney successfully operated according to the principle that if something is said often enough a lot of people will believe it.

The last scenario, that it is intentional, unfortunately therefore seems to be the most likely. McCain has been rattling the saber against Iran with regularity for some time. He has even made a joke of it, singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys' tune "Barbara Ann." The recent state visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq, in which he was warmly received by Iraqi President and fellow Shiite Nouri al-Maliki, underscores the danger neoconservatives and McCain may see ahead. The prospect of having invaded Iraq, toppled Saddam, and waged a five-year guerilla war to pacify the country only to see it fall into the Iranian orbit cannot be a pleasant one for the diehard pro-war senator to contemplate. What better way to prepare the American people for a new military adventure than to play the al Qaeda card yet again?

Whichever it is, this strange repetition of the counterfactual does not bode well for McCain's capacity, judgment, honesty or intentions. If he is elected and widens the war into Iran, don't say he didn't warn you.