Panel Spars Over Diplomatic Influence Of Post-Nuclear Iran

At a panel of leading foreign policy experts hosted by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) on Friday, Ambassador John Limbert, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, declared that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons won’t significantly alter in influence on the global environment.  

“I heard that the comment that an Iranian nuclear weapon would change everything in the region,” Limbert said. “Well, I’m sure it would change some things, but there are certain things it would not change and Iran would remain essentially isolated and diplomatically weak as it is today.”

Other panel members, however, disagreed with Limbert. 

John Hannah, former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, said that an Iranian nuclear weapon would greatly increase Iran’s economic and diplomatic global influence.

“With a country as important as Iran - as large as it is, as influential as it is, with as much oil as it has - there could be an awful lot of people flowing back to deal with Iranians,” Hannah said. “That sanctions regime and isolation will, in fact, inevitably erode and eventually disappear.”

Stephen Rademaker, former assistant Secretary of State, echoed Hannah’s sentiments and explained that if Iran had nuclear weapons during their proxy war with Israel in 2006, they would have been more liberal in their tactics against Israel.

“Iran, in that war, had to be restrained,” Rademaker said. “There was a level of escalation beyond which Israel would stop hitting back at Hezbollah, the proxy, and they would hit back at the patron of the proxy.”

“Nuclear weapons change that,” Rademaker continued. “If Tehran has nuclear weapons the ability of Israel to hit back at the patron, the real sponsor of the war, is substantially diminished.”

Limbert, however, claimed that his fellow panelists’ alternate opinion is based on a general misconception of Iran’s power.

After comparing Iran to a backgammon player that improvises frequently, Limbert expressed that, “this lack of contact, this lack of engagement…has led to a distorted image of what they can do and what they are capable of.”

State Dept. Officials Wary Of Sanctioning Iran's Central Bank

As the US Senate is expected to approve legislation by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) to cut off the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) from the global financial system as early as this Thursday, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman and Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen warn that such a move could unintentionally benefit Iran since it is not a concerted international effort.

“Sanctions are always more effective when they are multilateral,” Sherman testified before the Senate Foreign Relations committee. “Iran is no exception.”

The  Menendez-Kirk legislation, an amendment to the military spending bill, would bar foreign financial institutions that purchase petroleum or petroleum products from the CBI from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the US. While such legislation would freeze the CBI, Cohen and Sherman warn that it could inadvertently redound to Iran’s economic benefit.

“That threat, being focused on our closest allies, risks a dynamic with those governments and these banks, which is as likely to push them away and impede the ability to bring together a coordinated effort against Iran, as to generate it,” Cohen said. 

“We all agree with the impulse, the sentiment, the objective, which is to really go at the jugular of Iran’s economy,” Sherman further remarked.”[However,] there is absolutely a risk that in fact the price of oil would go up, which would mean that Iran would in fact have more money to fuel its nuclear ambitions, not less.”

“So what you’re really saying is,” Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said in summation of Cohen and Sherman’s warning, “this is a very blunt instrument which risks adverse reaction, as opposed to a calculated, carefully orchestrated efforts that’s currently under way, and actually accomplish the very same end?”

“I think that’s exactly right,” Cohen replied. 

Donilon: Iran Must Continue To Be Pressured To Cease Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons

By Adrianna McGinley

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon praised the Obama administration for taking strong action to successfully isolate Iran, increasing pressure on the nation to halt its nuclear weapons program.

In an address at the Brookings Institution Tuesday, Donilon said the pressure on Iran has drastically increased over the past three years because of clear policy from the White House and increasing support from the international community, a key factor that, he says, was missing not long ago.

“Many in the world had even begun to give Iran the benefit of the doubt,” Donilon said. “[They] blamed the United States for tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, thereby allowing Iran to escape accountability for its intransigence. This was the dangerous dynamic that President Obama was determined to reverse.”

Donilon credited increased sanctions and strengthened defense partnerships for slowing Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, but said that the pressure must continue.

“The Iranian government has repeatedly rejected the opportunity for credible dialogue and it also rejected substantial economic, political, and scientific incentives,” Donilon said. “It has forged ahead with its nuclear program.  It has ignored its commitments.  It has continued to defy United Nations Security Council resolutions.”

Donilon said the isolation of Iran and its economic instability has put the Iranian regime in danger of facing Arab Spring style uprisings other nations in the region have experienced, something he says the U.S. fully supports.

“We will continue to deepen Iran’s isolation, regionally and globally,” Donilon committed. “Even as the door to diplomacy remains open, we will take no option off the table.  For our focus and purpose are clear.  Pressure is a means not an end, and our policy is firm.  We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Former Secretary Of State Concerned By Key Element Of Obama’s Nuclear Policy

Former Secretary of State James Baker III expressed hesitancy Wednesday over the Obama administration’s pledge to not use nuclear force against countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they launch a biological or chemical attack against the U.S.

“I question the wisdom of that position,” Baker said during an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Baker, who served under President George Bush Sr., said his opinion stemmed from an interaction with the Iraqi Foreign Minister on the eve of the Gulf War, wherein Baker cautioned that the U.S. could use nuclear arms if the Iraqis attacked American forces with biological or chemical weapons.

“It is entirely possible, and even likely in my opinion, that Iraq did not use its chemical weapons against our forces because of that warning,” Baker said. “Years later when Saddam Hussein was captured, debriefed and asked why he did not use his chemical weapons, he recalled the substance of my statement.”

The restraint on nuclear force was included in the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review unveiled in April. Iran and North Korea, who have not signed the nonproliferation treaty, are still considered legitimate targets for a nuclear attack.

The former Secretary also posed questions over a number of provisions in the New START Treaty, including whether the program in place to verify compliance was satisfactory and if the treaty will provide a large enough nuclear capacity to protect allies. Baker also argued that the treaty should just focus on the reduction of arms and not seek to limit missile defense.

These concerns aside, Baker characterized the new treaty to limit both countries to 1,500 warheads as “a modest, and appropriate” continuation of the original START treaty that expired last year.

UN Head Pushes Ban On Nuke Components

Secretary General Ban Ki Moon will call on world leaders to begin working on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices during this week’s nuclear summit in Washington DC.

The Secretary General welcomed Obama’s initiative in holding the summit and stated it showed positive momentum and commitment towards preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in light of the new START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty signed by the Russian Federation and the United States last week as well as the upcoming NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) review conference at the UN in May.

President Obama has himself expressed support for a treaty on fissile materials, even if important American allies such as Pakistan and Israel have spoken out against it.

Ban seemed less hopeful about the world leaders coming to any significant consensus on Iran's and North Korea’s nuclear programs, stating that these specific issues would likely require much more discussion among member states.

The refusal of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to attend the summit, viewed by many as a reflection of the difficult diplomatic relations between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government, is also likely to impede any serious discussions about creating a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East.

“I'm sure leaders will discuss this matter,” said the secretary general “but I'm not quite sure how much progress they will be able to make during this summit.”

Reports late last week suggested Egypt and Turkey would raise the issue of Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Israel still has not signed NPT and details about the extent of its weapons stockpile and nuclear program remain unclear. Although Ban did not directly address Israel, he did say that all member states of the UN had an obligation to sign the NPT and that he would again urge all states to do so.