by Marsha B. Cohen

Mitch McConnell did it, Harry Reid didn’t. Elizabeth Warren did it, Bernie Sanders didn’t. Al Franken did it, Tom Coburn didn’t.

I’m referring to the signing of the latest letter, crafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and proffered by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Marsha B. Cohen

Mitch McConnell did it, Harry Reid didn’t. Elizabeth Warren did it, Bernie Sanders didn’t. Al Franken did it, Tom Coburn didn’t.

I’m referring to the signing of the latest letter, crafted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and proffered by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), urging President Barak Obama to turn a cold shoulder to newly elected Iranian president Hassan Rouhani while pursuing a more confrontational and aggressive Iran policy. The Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann has already penned an important discussion of why this measure complicates efforts to reach a peaceful solution with Iran, which I highly recommend.

It is worth recalling that another Iranian president-elect, Mohammad Khatami — a reformist whose surprise election shocked the Iranian political establishment — was also greeted by sanctions pushed through Congress. On August 19, 1997, weeks after Khatami took office, President Bill Clinton confirmed that virtually all trade and investment activities by US persons with Iran were prohibited. Those sanctions not only boosted Iranian hardliners who oppose a detente with the US, they also helped ensure that Khatami and his supporters would be unsuccessful in making many of the economic improvements and political changes needed to improve the lives of the Iranian people. His crippled victory was followed by the election of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. Since then, dozens of letters, resolutions and sanctions bills have emanated from Congress, which of late seems incapable of accomplishing anything else.

According to the “76 senators” who signed the letter:

We believe there are four strategic elements necessary to achieve resolution of this issue: an explicit and continuing message that we will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, a sincere demonstration of openness to negotiations, the maintenance and toughening of sanctions, and a convincing threat of the use of force that Iran will believe. We must be prepared to act, and Iran must see that we are prepared.

So the US must somehow demonstrate an “openness to negotiations” while maintaining and toughening sanctions and convincingly threatening to “use force”, even as it remains mired in Iraq and Afghanistan and utterly bewildered about Syria and Egypt?

Saxby Chamblis did it, Richard Shelby didn’t. Sheldon Whitehouse did it, Ron Wyden didn’t. Chuck Schumer did it, Barbara Boxer didn’t.

Signing and not signing such letters may be of limited practical consequence — though AIPAC and other lobbying groups are certainly keeping tabs — but the political fallout of abstaining can be deafening. When Chuck Hagel was nominated for Secretary of Defense, his detractors screamed about the anti-Iran “letters” he hadn’t signed, according them equal status with his actual votes.

Tammy Baldwin, who was mercilessly hammered by her 2012 opponent Tommy Thompson for wavering on Iran sanctions, didn’t sign onto this letter.

Al Franken (D-MN), who did, won his seat in 2008 after a recount that lasted for months, unseating incumbent Norm Coleman by a mere 312 votes. Coleman, a stalwart of the Republican Jewish Coalition, is salivating at the prospect of Franken making a single false move on the pro-Israel/anti-Iran front that would enable Republicans to pounce. While Franken seems to be in a strong position for reelection in 2014, he can take nothing for granted in the current political environment.

The last listed co-signer, newbie Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), is currently focused on the economy and particularly on who will be running the Fed. But she has been quick to climb aboard the bandwagon that’s torpedoing the prospect of improved relations with Iran, as has Angus King, the Maine Independent who replaced Republican Olympia Snowe.

Of course, the 24 who, for one reason or another, chose not to sign the letter are hardly “profiles in courage”. Some aren’t seeking reelection when their current Senate term is up and can run free of the AIPAC leash, among them Max Baucus, Tom Coburn, Jay Rockefeller and Carl Levin. Perhaps the most curious non-signers are the AIPAC-endorsed, staunchly pro-Israel senators who have consistently voted in favor of increasingly crippling Iran sanctions but also recently abstained from signing a similar letter last December, urging the President to stiffen them. This group includes Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Inferring that any senator not signing an AIPAC-crafted letter has opposed crippling sanctions or will oppose the next round of them would be a major mistake. Most of the two dozen non-signers of the latest letter, including Rand Paul (R-KY), who opposes a military attack on Iran, have voted in favor of sanctions in the past and will probably do so in the future unless some political incentive convinces them otherwise. The absent Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) were among the original cosponsors of S. 65 – the AIPAC-promoted “Back Door to Iran War” resolution that expressed support of an Israeli attack on Iran. It garnered 91 cosponsors and passed the Senate 99-0 on May  22. Kirk’s website is meanwhile applauding the House’s passage of the latest Iran sanctions in the House (as is AIPAC; the accompanying photo to this post is the lead image on its website’s front page) and urges the Senate to act as well, which will likely happen in September.

Just about every resolution and vote ratcheting up sanctions against Iran has passed the Senate with a hefty majority. Murkowski, Wyden, and Jon Tester (D-MT) were among the 44 senators who signed an AIPAC letter in June 2012 opposing negotiations with Iran although they didn’t sign this one.

President Obama has defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result”. How ironic it would be if he were to heed this latest letter and, yielding to Congress, sign off on more and stricter sanctions, just as a new Iranian president offers at least an opening for a better era in US-Iran relations.

That said, Rouhani, who stated the other day that “we need to have negotiations without threats” needs to move quickly — while Congress is on its five week summer break — in making some headlines of his own, by, for example, establishing direct contact with the United States.

A group of 24 former officials and experts are urging President Obama to revise the US’s approach to preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon through revamped diplomacy. Neither sanctions nor war will guarantee a protracted solution to the impasse over Iran’s controversial program, they write, making a mutually acceptable deal the most [...]]]> via Lobe Log

A group of 24 former officials and experts are urging President Obama to revise the US’s approach to preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon through revamped diplomacy. Neither sanctions nor war will guarantee a protracted solution to the impasse over Iran’s controversial program, they write, making a mutually acceptable deal the most effective solution.

International sanctions have slowed Iran’s program and increased pressure on Tehran dramatically. Yet these sanctions, even if tightened further, are unlikely to stop Iran’s nuclear pursuits. Further, they risk damaging the reputation of the United States in the eyes of ordinary Iranians suffering from the effects of the sanctions.

The military option, short of a complete military occupation of the country, can only temporarily set back Iran’s program and could likely prompt Iran to eject the IAEA inspectors and actively pursue a nuclear weapon. Such action would be counterproductive and costly, and would risk ending a negotiation option, eroding sanctions, lessening Iran’s isolation and triggering a regional war that leads to enormous civilian casualties and human suffering.

Therefore, we encourage you to direct your team vigorously to pursue serious, sustained negotiations with the Iranian government on an arrangement that guards against a nuclear-armed Iran. With greater determination, creativity, and persistence, we believe that such a deal is within reach.

Congress seems adamant about sanctioning Iran to no visible end, but according to the letter, sanctions relief must be on the table if Iran is expected to accept a variety of US demands, including halting its 20 percent enriched uranium accumulation, restricting enrichment to “normal reactor-grade levels”, limiting its stockpiles and “securing more extensive and effective IAEA inspections including through Iranian adherence to the Additional Protocol to the NPT and other inspection needs of the IAEA.”

The letter endorsees include a variety of national security experts, including Col. Larry Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff to Gen. Colin Powell, General Joseph P. Hoar, the former Commander in Chief to US Central Command, and Wayne White, the former Deputy Director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence — a Lobe Log contributor. Non-proliferation experts and diplomats from all over the world also make the list, including Daryl G. Kimball, the Executive Director of the Arms Control Association and Amb. Peter Jenkins, the former UK Ambassador the IAEA, also both contributors to this blog.

The letter comes at a time when the prospects for diplomacy are once again being challenged by each side’s willingness to make the strides necessary to reach a deal, along with a possible military conflict looming quietly (for now) in the background. No date has been set for resumed talks yet. According to Laura Rozen, Iran has yet to respond to deputy EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s Dec. 12 meetings proposal.

Following is the letter’s entire text and list of endorsees.

December 6, 2012

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Congratulations on your reelection as President of the United States. Over the course of your first term, you made clear your desire to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically in order to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and prevent war with Iran. 

We strongly support this goal and, as you prepare to enter your second term, strongly encourage you to take immediate action to reengage in the direct multilateral and bilateral diplomacy with Iran necessary to achieve this goal. We are directing the same appeal to Iran. Time is of the essence, and we hope you will utilize the weeks and months ahead to pursue a robust diplomatic initiative.

A decade has elapsed since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran was building a uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz. Since then, Iran and the United States and Western governments have missed several opportunities to reach an agreement that reduces the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Today, Iran does not yet have the necessary ingredients for an effective nuclear arsenal, apparently has not resumed work on the actual construction of such a weapon, and may not yet have made a strategic decision to do so. But its capabilities are improving. By the end of 2013, Iran could install more-advanced centrifuges and significantly increase its 20% enriched-uranium stockpile. It continues work on a heavy water reactor at Arak and continues to expand the Fordow plant. The time available for diplomacy must not be wasted.

International sanctions have slowed Iran’s program and increased pressure on Tehran dramatically. Yet these sanctions, even if tightened further, are unlikely to stop Iran’s nuclear pursuits. Further, they risk damaging the reputation of the United States in the eyes of ordinary Iranians suffering from the effects of the sanctions.

The military option, short of a complete military occupation of the country, can only temporarily set back Iran’s program and could likely prompt Iran to eject the IAEA inspectors and actively pursue a nuclear weapon. Such action would be counterproductive and costly, and would risk ending a negotiation option, eroding sanctions, lessening Iran’s isolation and triggering a regional war that leads to enormous civilian casualties and human suffering.

Therefore, we encourage you to direct your team vigorously to pursue serious, sustained negotiations with the Iranian government on an arrangement that guards against a nuclear-armed Iran. With greater determination, creativity, and persistence, we believe that such a deal is within reach.

Overall goals for U.S. and P5+1 negotiators should include: halting Iran’s accumulation of 20 percent enriched uranium; restricting‹not permanently suspending–Iran’s enrichment to normal reactor-grade levels; limiting its stockpiles to actual nuclear power and other civilian, peaceful needs; and securing more extensive and effective IAEA inspections including through Iranian adherence to the Additional Protocol to the NPT and other inspection needs of the IAEA. Iran should account for previous weapons-related experiments to ensure that they have been halted. In exchange, there should be an appropriate and proportional paring back of international sanctions on Iran.

As a first step, we urge you and your team to pursue a revised proposal calling for a verifiable halt to Iran’s accumulation of 20 percent-enriched uranium including export of the material or conversion to metallic form in Iran in exchange for a reciprocal relaxing some of international and financial sanctions imposed on Iran. This would build confidence and momentum for a long-term framework agreement covering nuclear cooperation and security issues as well as a fully transparent future for Iran’s civil nuclear program in full and verified accordance with the NPT.

A diplomacy-centric approach is the only option that can prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and a war, and address other equally critical areas including Iran’s human rights situation. Pursuing such a course is difficult, but it is the best option on the table.

We urge you to act.

Sincerely,

Barry Blechman, co-founder of the Stimson Center

Prof. Juan Cole, University of Michigan

Sir Richard Dalton, Former UK Ambassador to Iran

Amb. James Dobbins, Former Assistant Secretary of State

Amb. Rolf Ekeus, Former Director of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq

Prof. Farideh Farhi, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Amb. Chas Freeman, Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. Former President of National Defense University

General Joseph P. Hoar, Former Commander in Chief, United States Central Command

Amb. Steen Hohw-Christensen, Former Ambassador of Sweden to Iran

Amb. Peter Jenkins, Former Ambassador of the UK to the IAEA

Brig. General John Johns, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association

Larry Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense

Amb. John Limbert, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran

Amb. François Nicoullaud, Former Ambassador of France to Iran

Dr. Trita Parsi, President, National Iranian American Council

Bruno Pellaud, Former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency

Amb. Thomas Pickering, Former Under Secretary of State

Paul Pillar, Former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, Central Intelligence Agency

Amb. Roberto Toscano, Former Ambassador of Italy to Iran

Dr. Jim Walsh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program

Col. Larry Wilkerson, Former Chief of Staff to Gen. Colin Powell

Wayne White, Former Deputy Director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence

###

Extended military strikes by the United States alone or conducted with Israel could destroy or damage Iran’s most important nuclear sites, but will only temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear program for up to four years, according to a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of attacking Iran.

Ensuring that [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Extended military strikes by the United States alone or conducted with Israel could destroy or damage Iran’s most important nuclear sites, but will only temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear program for up to four years, according to a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of attacking Iran.

Ensuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon would require an “expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years,” argues the report, which has been authored, signed and endorsed by a bipartisan group of high-profile senior national security advisers, experts and diplomats. Unilateral action by Israel is unlikely to substantially set back Iran’s nuclear program or destroy all of Iran’s nuclear sites, states the paper, which is based on a “wide range of expert opinion”.

If Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon (something which it has yet to do according to all reputable official assessments), it would require up to two years to produce a reliable, deliverable device and would almost certainly be detected before that time:

After deciding to “dash” for a bomb, Iran would need from one to four months to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear device. Additional time—up to two years, according to conservative estimates—would be required for Iran to build a nuclear warhead that would be reliably deliverable by a missile. Given extensive monitoring and surveillance of Iranian activities, signs of an Iranian decision to build a nuclear weapon would likely be detected, and the U.S. would have at least a month to implement a course of action

A benefit of militarily striking Iran’s nuclear sites would be a disruption of Iranian government control, but the reports authors doubt that regime change, collapse or capitulation would result from lone military action. Seeking these “ambitious” results would require a greater commitment than what the US has given to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past years combined and would include the occupation of all or part of the country, the report said.

The reports’ authors note that military operations seldom led to regime change without ground forces used to occupy the country. The case of Libya suggests that “even with local rebel forces active on the ground, air strikes would need to be sustained for an extended period and supplemented by on the ground support from other nations’ professional militaries in order to produce a change in leadership,” according to the paper.

Would military action against Iran increase or undermine support for the regime among Iran’s population? The former seems more likely, judging by the strong support showed by the Iranian public for their leaders after the Iraqi attack in 1982 and throughout the grueling, eight-year war that followed.

Even if regime collapse could be produced by a prolonged campaign of air attacks combined with covert and cyber attacks, and drone activity (an outcome that we view as unlikely), it is not necessarily the case that Iran or the region would be more stable as a result.

The cost of Iranian retaliation would be “felt over the longer term” by the US and could result in a regional war:

In addition to the financial costs of conducting military attacks against Iran, which would be significant (particularly if the U.S. had to carry out thousands of sorties and if it had to return to the use of force periodically for years to come), there would likely be near-term costs associated with Iranian retaliation, through both direct and surrogate asymmetrical attacks. Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.

The paper offers no final conclusions or recommendations. Instead it seeks to supplement the “lack of consensus and clarity in Washington about what the U.S. should aim to achieve through any military action against Iran” by offering an objective assessment of the costs and benefits of attacking Iran and evaluating the capacity of the US to achieve certain objectives and plan an exit strategy.

Despite the absence of recommendations, the paper’s list of the costs of military action against Iran outnumber the benefits; the benefits are listed in two and a half pages while the costs take up over 9 pages. Indeed, the suggestion that the “initiation of preventive military action against Iran, even with limited objectives, could be the beginning of a war entailing all of the uncertainties and unanticipated consequences so familiar to those who have experienced or studied military conflicts,” seems to be a fundamental assessment of the report.

Lobe Log was provided an advance copy of this paper which was drafted by Columbia University’s Austin Long and William Luers, Director of the nonpartisan Iran Project and advised by by Colin Kahl of Georgetown University and contributed to by Thomas R. Pickering, Jim Walsh of MIT, and Stephen Heintz of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We will post it in full when it is officially released later today.

Photo: Sens. Blunt (L) and Menendez (R)

With negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program moving to Moscow next week, a draft letter to be circulated among Senators for signature calls on the Obama administration to not offer Iran major concessions without a comprehensive deal on its nuclear program. The draft letter, [...]]]> via Think Progress

With negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program moving to Moscow next week, a draft letter to be circulated among Senators for signature calls on the Obama administration to not offer Iran major concessions without a comprehensive deal on its nuclear program. The draft letter, obtained by ThinkProgress, says that, should the Iranians not take certain steps demanded by the Senators, the U.S. should “reevaluate the utility of further talks.”

Authored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), the draft letter outlines the “absolute minimum steps” Iran must take in Moscow: shutting down its Fordow enrichment facility, ending enrichment of uranium to high levels, and shipping out its stockpile of high-enriched uranium. The letter says that Iran’s agreement to these steps would “justify continued discussions,” but doesn’t outline any other possible concessions.

While that leaves the door open for other possible lesser concessions, the Senators rule out acceding to a key Iranian goal until Iran agrees to the full spectrum of Western and U.N. demands. The New York Times reported that, in Baghdad, Iran asked for “an easing of the onerous economic sanctions imposed by the West,” something the Iranians have “relentlessly” pursued. But the Senators refuse to consider such steps without a comprehensive deal. In the draft letter, they write:

Barring full, verifiable Iranian compliance with all Security Council resolutions and full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], including a new, far more intrusive inspections regime under the additional protocol, we see no circumstances under which Iran should be relieved from the current sanctions or those scheduled to come into effect at the end of this month.

That restriction could, in effect, stymie moves toward a “confidence-building” deal. A deal identical to the one mentioned by the Senators — demanding the “absolute minimum steps” but offering little sanctions relief — was on the table in Baghdad. After it failed to advance, an Iranian diplomat told the Christian Science Monitor that Iran would not “accept these things this way.”

The sanctions in question, due to take effect next month, forbid any third-party entity from doing business with Iran’s Central Bank. A European Union embargo on Iranian oil is set to kick in at around the same time.

The Senate letter comes just as preliminary talks indicate potential wiggle room to get a deal. The Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl noted one such conversation in his column today. He added that, while there’s been no promised sanctions relief for tangible Iranian steps, the West has indicated that Iranian “steps will be met by reciprocal steps.”

The Center for American Progress’s Brian Katulis, Rudy DeLeon and Peter Juul noted in a brief last month that sanctions relief will be a top Iranian priority in the next round of talks:

Iran’s interests will be more to come to an agreement that averts the implementation of sanctions than in stalling talks. Tehran’s clock to avoid sanctions is now moving faster than its nuclear program is progressing.

In an op-ed for the Jewish Chronicle, the Ploughshares Fund’s Joel Rubin said that some in Congress “seek to undermine American efforts at political dialogue with Iran by reducing the administration’s negotiating flexibility.” He went on:

The way forward in the near term should therefore be one of negotiating modest, step-by-step, and fully verifiable concessions and agreements. The United States and the other powers at the negotiating table need to be prepared to give some ground in order to make progress toward the outcome we want.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. U.S., U.N. and Israeli intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and potential consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.

The letter (PDF, with full text below), broken by Foreign [...]]]> Five Senators sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday warning the administration not to offer concessions in upcoming talks with Iran over its nuclear program. If Obama takes the advice, experts say, it could sink his engagement efforts with Tehran.

The letter (PDF, with full text below), broken by Foreign Policy‘s Josh Rogin, calls for zero enrichment on Iranian soil as a U.S. pre-condition for any negotiated deal to end Iran’s standoff with the West over its nuclear program.

“[G]iven the government of Iran’s patterns of deception and noncooperation, its government cannot be permitted to maintain any enrichment or reprocessing activities on its territory for the foreseeable future,” said the letter. “We would strongly oppose any proposal for diplomat endgame in which Iran is permitted to continue these activities in any form.”

But the Iranians have placed a high priority on domestic enrichment, and would likely oppose a deal precluding such activity. Iran denies accusations from the West that eventual weaponization is the goal of its nuclear program, which is widely considered a point of Iranian national pride.

Even some U.S.-based non-proliferation experts are questioning the wisdom of taking such a hard line as the Senators’ letter.

“There are mixed views in the arms control community,” said Peter Crail, a non-proliferation analyst at the Arms Control Association (ACA). “But there seems to be growing sentiment that if we’re looking at a negotiated solution, ‘zero enrichment’ is not going to be an option.”

“This attempt by congress to bind the adminsitration would kill negotiations,” he added.

Signed by Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Robert Casey (D-PA), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), with John McCain (R-AZ) reportedly later adding his name, the letter also called on Obama to “continue ratcheting up” U.S. and international pressure on Iran.

Iran should be squeezed until it freezes enrichment and passes International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections (including submitting to the Additional Protocols, an extended set of safeguards measures), the letter said.

The Senators wrote that their positions are ”reflective of a consensus among a broad, bipartisan majority in Congress.” Despite Peter Baker of the New York Times‘s suggestion that the Senators’ letter was a show of “bipartisan support,” it appeared to instead be a threat of push-back from Congress should Obama pursue a deal that allows any Iranian enrichment.

“[T]he letter makes the point that there will be very strong opposition to any kind of proposal that allows the Iranians to keep some sort of enrichment capability,” an anonymous Senate aide, explaining the “thinking behind the letter,” wrote to the Washington Post‘s new neoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin. “This is an extremely dangerous idea that it is important to knock down.”

But experts think the tack — pressure for strict pre-conditions to talks — could be repeating the same mistakes of recent U.S.-Iran relations, where Iran was further isolated as its nuclear programs continued.

“This again shows that part of the problem in negotiations has been a lack of political space domestically for both sides,” said Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council and a Woodrow Wilson center fellow. “Obama realizes that in order to get a deal, there needs to be mutual compromises on both sides.”

“What you have now is that some members of Congress are adopting the (President George W.) Bush position, that, ‘No, we’re not going to compromise on anything, It has to be maximalist approach,” Parsi said. “That has caused problems in the past becaue it makes it impossible to have a real negotiation.”

The Senators pressed Obama just as the first two-day round of talks between the P5+1 group, which includes the U.S., were getting underway. Little had been accomplished as the negotiations drew to a close Tuesday, but another round is expected in January.

Going into the latest round, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted in an interview in Bahrain that the U.S. might be willing to accept Iranian enrichment.

“They can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations,” Clinton reportedly told the BBC.

“During the Obama period, there has been some ambiguity about whether (zero enrichment) is the American red line,” said NIAC’s Parsi, pointing to Clinton’s comments. “The position that these law makers are taking (in the letter) is identical with the Israeli and Bush red lines, and seems to be at odds with the Obama red line.”

Rumors are already flying that the second round of the latest talks, to be held in Turkey, could see the U.S. offer a deal whereby a fuel swap agreement — involving sending nuclear fuel to Russia for reprocessing — would allow Iran to maintain domestic enrichment.

While Iran says it has a right to domestic enrichment as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Crail of the ACA notes that the treaty only guarantees “a peaceful nuclear program.”

“In the end, there is an implicit understanding that, yes, countries can enrich,” he said, adding, however, that he prefers that the technology not spread and all nuclear fuel production be internationalized.

But Crail emphasized that Iran, too, must be willing to make some concessions: “According to the NPT, in order for Iran to get all its rights under the NPT, Iran needs to cooperate with international inspections.”

The full text of the letter:

December 6, 2010

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As diplomats from the United States join talks today between the P5+1 and Iran in Geneva, we write to share some thoughts about these discussions, and our broader Iran policy. In particular, we wish to express our support for a set of principles that we believe are reflective of a consensus among a broad, bipartisan majority in Congress, who stand ready to work with you and your Administration to stop Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability — a grave threat that would compromise our security and the security of all our allies in the Middle East.

First, we strongly support the cascade of measures that have been put in place over the past several months by your Administration, in cooperation with our partners around the world, to increase the pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We applaud and are encouraged by the strong actions taken thus far by the Administration to secure meaningful economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Iranian regime, which are absolutely essential for any prospect of a peaceful resolution to this challenge.

Second, we believe that it is absolutely essential that the United States and its partners make clear to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran that we intend to continue ratcheting up this pressure, through comprehensive enforcement of existing sanctions as well as imposition o new measure, until the full, verifiable, and sustained suspension by Iran of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and heavy water-related activities, as demanded by multiple UN Security Council resolutions. The pressure track should likewise continue on its current trajectory until Iran resumes full cooperation with the IAEA and the Additional Protocol; resolves all outstanding concerns about its nuclear program and complies with the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors and multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions directed at its nuclear program. The government of Iran must undersand that there is absolutely no possibility of any freeze or reduction in the momentum of the pressure track until these minium requirements have been met.

Third, we remain concerned about the possibility that the Iranian regime will seek to buy time or otherwise dilute the focus of our diplomacy through unrelated “confidence-building measures” that fail to address the core concerns associated with Iran’s illicit nuclear activities. Such tactical maneuverings are of course no substitute for a real negotiation, and therefore should not be mistaken as such.

Fourth, we believe that it is critical that the United States and our partners make clear that, given the government of Iran’s patterns of deception and noncooperation, its government cannot be permitted to maintain any enrichment or reprocessing activities on its territory for the foreseeable future. We would strongly oppose any proposal for diplomat endgame in which Iran is permitted to continue these activities in any form.

We thank you for your continued leadership on this matter of critical importance to our national security. We pledge to you our continued support to do all that is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

Best Regards,

Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR

Jon Kyl
UNITED STATES SENATOR

Kirsten E. Gillibrand
UNITED STATES SENATOR

Robert P. Casey, Jr.
UNITED STATES SENATOR

Mark Kirk
UNITED STATES SENATOR