FYRP: The Non-Lugar Program

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Department of State | Nunn-Lugar is dead. Long live non-Lugar. Here, have a fact sheet.

Bloomberg | Wait.  So Iranian President-elect Rohani is ready to suspend enrichment of 20 percent uranium (for sanction relaxation, of course).  He is ready to fulfill one the US’s major demands?  Sounds great!  Or way too good to be true.  Although suspicions are not unreasonablesome are more hopeful.

Foreign Policy | Forget care, says Christian Caryl.  Rohani’s election doesn’t matter.

All Things Nuclear | Lisbeth Gronlund feels President Obama could have gone further in Berlin. The Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate may not have measured up to Kingston Reif’s preferred nuclear policy speech, either. Plus, Helle Dale was underwhelmed at the non-Reaganness of it all.

White House | The Prague speech.

Department of Defense | The DoD released a report on the United States’ nuclear employment strategy.  (The White House also released a fact sheet.) $20 in expenses? Did they run out of paper clips in 2011?

38 North | Glorious General is continuing construction in the Hwanggumpyong Economic Zone.  I wonder if another Rodman tour will stop there.

Nukes of Hazard | Look, a handy list of nuclear amendments offered on the 2014 NDAA.

We hope you enjoyed this edition of FYRP.


  1. SQ (History)

    Let me throw in my own contribution.

    Bulletin o’ the Atomic Scientists. Alex Wellerstein tells stories of Los Alamos through the lens of the security badge photo-taker.


  2. Anon2 (History)

    Rohani Offer:

    Here is my counteroffer for the P5+1


    -Cease all enrichment beyond 5%.
    -Remove from Iran (to a neutral party, i.e. Russia) all fuel/pre-cursor stock (i.e. yellow cake, UF6, U308, metal) enriched beyond 5% except that which is actually INSIDE of the TRR being irradiated.
    -Cease construction and de-install all centrifuge SWP capacity that exceeds that required for CURRENTLY in operation civilian power plants. (Build another plant, re-install more centrifuges as needed to power the plant.)
    -Fill the Arak heavy water reactor with cement.
    -Full cooperation on Parchin and another “possible military dimensions” nuclear weapons development site identified in the future.
    -External removal, storage, and recycling as needed of spent fuel at the expense of the West/Russia.
    -Full adoption of the additional protocol. Full monitoring of compliance by the IAEA.

    The West:

    -End to all economic sanctions.
    -Promise to protect and defend Iranian civilian nuclear installations from foreign attack by any party as long as the above agreement is being complied with. (No promises if the above is violated.)
    -Promise to supply any addition 20% fuel for medical isotope purposes (TRR) for no charge; to the extent that fuel is actually loaded into the TRR (i.e. poisoned for nuclear weapons purposes).
    -Full cooperation in building a non-proliferative (5% UO2) civilian nuclear electric power generation plants sufficient to power all of Iran.

    The above is to be agreed, in writing by both Rohani and Khamenei within 60 days; i.e. before the assumption of the Presidency of Rohani. Implementation of the above begins immediately following signature.

    I believe this solves the problem for both sides. Then we can put this all behind us.

    • Alex (History)

      Anon2, a few thoughts on your idea

      What Iran wants:
      Recognition of it’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes

      – Meaning, it is up to Iran to decide at what level it can enrich…. (The right of a sovereign nation under the NPT) In other words, huge problem for the west

      Recognising Iran as a genuine nuclear power (Civilian nuclear power ofc)should they reach that technological position in the future
      – Meaning, at one point it would be okay for iran to start exporting legal nuclear related stuff for $$… In other words, HUGE problem for the west

      Recognition of the current regime as the sole representative of the Iranian people which has been in place for the past 30 year…

      In other words, Huge problems in the west…

      I say the last point, because sure, it doesn’t conform to what we believe is a “democracy”, but if a regime has been in place for 30 years and still has supporters after years and years of sanctions/sabotage/international isolation…… Frankly, it’s retarded to reject it as a genuine government.

      Similarly, if some one says oh but human rights corruption bla bla….. well Welcome to Earth…. it has an #### abundance of those problems. Most of which did not originate from Iran.

    • Anon2 (History)


      I proposed a fair and balanced settlement of the issue that would be acceptable to the West (i.e. removes nuclear weapons risk) and would be acceptable to a reasonable Iran.

      This treaty has nothing to do with IRI internal politics or even with their foreign affairs. This has to do with an Iranian peaceful civilian nuclear power program with certain limitations that prevent a nuclear weapons program or capability.

      Overall, this agreement serves to defuse the tensions, build trust, and hopefully bring together the parties in a number of areas. It build credibility for Iran’s government and its democracy. It improves the economy of Iran and thereby helps their government.

      If only a similar agreement could be struck with the DPRK. Everyone benefits and economies grow.

      (Note: The proposed agreement should also add that the Western protection of Iran is subject to Iran not going to war against another country — in which case Iran must fight it’s own war on its own. Hopefully war as a means of politics can be left back to the 19th and 20th century.)

    • Rene (History)


      1) Do you have an idea of how this deal could be executed step by step?

      2) Since Iran’s enrichment capacity is currently about 10,000 SWU, allowing enrichment as long as it doesn’t exceed the current power plant need means allowing that capacity to increase to 100,000 SWU. Would this be acceptable to the West?

      3) How could Iran actually consider the offer of protection credible, given that if Israels attacks in all likelihood it wouldn’t be held responsible?

      4) Is it necessary to fill the Arak reactor with cement? How could Iran accept this as a sovereign nation? Why not ask it to not commission the reactor until the IAEA clears Iran (which obviously can take years)? Or, alternatively, why not ask Iran to send the Arak reactor’s spent fuel to Russia to avoid the possibility of reprocessing?

    • Anon2 (History)


      1) Steps to implement:
      -sign within 60 days.
      -Iran takes steps to comply within 30 days of signing. IAEA verifies within 14 days.
      -West lifts economic sanctions at IAEA verification.
      -West provides the required items (TRR fuel, picks up spend fuel) within 30 days of Iran’s request and verification.

      2) 10K vs 100K SWU. That is the deal — allow Iran to make it’s own 5% fuel for power generation, as long as it is verified that fuel is the fabricated into fuel assemblies, loaded and burnt.

      3) Credible defense by the West: That is the treaty for the West to honor. If they (Israel or the U.S.) have not attacked by now, why are they going to attack after they get the treaty implemented. Shooting down Israeli planes on ingress to Iran by US naval assets in the Persian gulf is the method to accomplish this. Israel will not fly against the United States, i.e. it is an implicit signatory to the agreement.

      4) Arak filled with cement, how could Iran accept this as a sovereign nation? The sovereign nation counterargument would prevent ANY treaty from EVER being signed as each side must give up something to get something. The agreement is for Iran to restrict the possibility of manufacturing nuclear weapons. Neutralizing Arak is thus necessary. Perhaps Arak can be converted into a light water reactor electric plant.

  3. Carey Sublette (History)

    “If they (Israel or the U.S.) have not attacked by now, why are they going to attack after they get the treaty implemented?”

    Shades of the rhetorical question item recently posted.

    I can hazard how an Iranian might respond to this, by posing some other rhetorical questions:

    What had Iraq done between 1998 and 2002 that provoked invasion?

    After Iraq submitted an accurate declaration of its WMD programs on December 7, 2002, and allowed UN inspectors in to verify it, thus meeting all of the U.S. demands, why did the U.S. decide to order them out and invade anyway?

    How can Iran be assured that a future U.S. or Israeli administration will choose to not be satisfied with Iran’s submission to UN and U.S. demands, declare that there is some unproven threat, and decide to attack?

    Why would the U.S. treat Iran differently from how it treated Iraq?

    • Anon2 (History)

      “What had Iraq done between 1998 and 2002 that provoked invasion?”


      Your point is well taken; but we can also say that Iraq was not cooperative during the period leading up to the invasion such that there was always an impression of non-cooperation by Iraq on the WMD inspection, disclosure, and elimination. If Iraq from 1998 had been pro-active in inviting and then showing any and everything to the UN Inspectors; the second Gulf war may have have been avoided. In this observer’s opinion, Saddam used the delay of inspections to gain political prestige and power by poking a finger back in the eye of the West; i.e. pulling the sovereignty card. This was clearly a mistake. Saddam could have actually become a cooperative partner with the West at any time by among other things being more open than open in his weapons programs. This didn’t suit his political agenda.

      Instead, Saddam decided to keep up the belligerent anti-U.S. leader charade until the end. Too bad not for him, but for the Iraqi’s he took with him in the second war.

      I hope that Iran is now run by more intelligent and less selfish leadership that sees modern economic (and even cultural) cooperation and world trade in their interest; and that they can make a new era of prosperity by dropping the nationalist rhetoric and militarist threads from their public relations international reputation.

      Iran is a great country that is wasting its opportunities to be a key player in the 21st century. They have a highly educated populace. They can be South Korea; a Central Asian Tiger. Instead they are the DPRK. Suffering economically for no reason.