Several Republican Senators voicing their concern about Secretary of Defense-nominee Chuck Hagel’s stance on nuclear weapons appear to be doing so without knowing much about what Hagel truly believes about nuclear weapons.

Last week, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, citing Hagel’s ties with the group Global Zero — which advocates for a world free from nuclear weapons — as part of his opposition to the former Senator’s nomination. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the newly minted ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, brought up the same point in his questioning of Secretary of State-nominee Sen. John Kerry.

“Typically, there’s a tension. The Defense Department presses for weaponry and making sure that our country is safe,” Corker said at the time. “The State Department presses for nuclear arms agreements and reductions. And so in the event this person is confirmed, that balance is not going to be there.”

Those worries were echoed this morning by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Minority Whip, appearing on Fox News. Among a laundry list of issues, Cornyn singled out Hagel’s stance on nuclear weapons as being disqualifying:

CORNYN: [...] His embrace of these naive ideas like a nuclear free world which you know is fine to say ‘I hope and I wish and I pray that it would be that way’ but it’s not realistic and it’s naive particularly among the person who is supposed to represent American national security and keep the peace.

Cornyn and Barrasso’s stance on nuclear weapons is not particularly surprising. Cornyn helped lead the charge against the passage of the New START treaty along with John Kyl, his immediate predecessor as Whip. Sens. Cornyn and Barrasso both voted against the nuclear arms reduction deal, with Sen. Corker joining 70 of his colleagues to ratify the bilateral treaty with Russia.

Hagel’s actual positions on the matter can be deduced ahead of his confirmation hearing on Thursday. The Pentagon recently published a paper outlining several “myths” related to Hagel that it sought to correct. Responding to claims that Hagel seeks to weaken the U.S, the paper noted that as Senator from Nebraska “where headquarters of U.S. Strategic Command is located, [Hagel] developed a keen understanding of the critical importance of fielding a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.”

Several of Hagel’s Global Zero colleagues — including Amb. Richard Burt, Gen. (Ret.) James E. Cartwright, Amb. Thomas Pickering and Gen. (Ret.) John J. Sheehan — today issued a statement defending the former senator’s signing onto a report from the group. In their statement, they challenge the claim that their report called for deep, immediate, unilateral cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Instead, the report concludes, “Only a broad multilateral approach can effectively address the multitude of serious nuclear dangers found in other parts of the world.” Likewise, the report, as well as several letters and op-eds signed onto by Hagel, calls for maintaining at present a stockpile of hundreds of nuclear weapons, more than capable of providing deterrence towards other nuclear states.

Read more

The National Defense Authorization Act the Senate passed on Tuesday includes an amendment with a new round of sanctions on Iran. While sanctions the Senate passed last year focused primarily on Iran’s oil trade, this year’s bill, sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), goes beyond that. The Wall Street Journal explained the sanctions as targeting:

“Iran’s energy, shipping and shipbuilding sectors, already in the sights of U.S. sanctions. But the legislation goes further, restricting trade with Iran in precious metals, graphite, aluminum and steel, metallugrical coal and software for integrating industrial processes. Under the bill, the President would have to report back to Congress on whether any material was being used as barter to furnish transactions with Tehran.”

After the President signed last year’s NDAA, which also included an Iran sanctions amendment sponsored by Menendez and Kirk, Iran has lost around $133 million per day in oil revenue and protests erupted across Iran as the value of its currency tanked. An oil analyst told Bloomberg that the sanctions were “an unqualified success.” “Many judge that Iran might soon decide it needs a nuclear compromise to produce an easing of sanctions,” a recent CRS report said.

But some find this new round of sanctions excessive. Reza Aslan, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, said “if the purpose of this new round of sanctions is to pressure Iran to come to the negotiating table in a weakened position, that’s already happened. …These new sanctions are little more than empty politicking by senators eager to display their hard line, and ultimately self-defeating, stance against an American adversary.” The National Iranian American Council’s Policy Director Jamal Abdi concurred, saying, “every round of sanctions passed by Congress further limits the President’s flexibility at the negotiating table and undermines confidence that the U.S. can make a deal. If the President lacks the legal or political flexibility to ease the sanctions as leverage for Iranian concessions, a diplomatic resolution is impossible.” Abdi added that the impact could be vast, “there will be a major chilling effect as more third-country (i.e. not the U.S. or Iran) businesses are unable to ship or pay for transactions of any goods, including food, medicine, and communications goods.”

Former Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy, has said that increased sanctions are the best avenue toward a diplomatic solution. Halevy said in October that there needed to be “sanctions, more sanctions, more sanctions and many other things…The fact of the matter is the sanctions have not brought the end to the program but sanctions are hurting very much.”

Though the Obama administration believes that a diplomatic solution utilizing sanctions is the “best and more permanent” way to solve the crisis, it has voiced apprehension about the current sanctions legislation. National Security Council Spokesperson Tommy Vietor said that the administration has “concerns with some of the formulations as currently drafted in the text and want to work through them with our congressional partners to make the law more effective and consistent with the current sanctions law to ensure we don’t undercut our success to date.” The bill will be conferenced by the House and Senate this week.

Two physics experts say a document obtained by the Associated Press on Tuesday, which the news organization said “suggests” that Iran is “working on” a nuclear weapon, contains a “massive error” and might be a “hoax.” The AP’s publication of the document generated headlines on Tuesday because the graph, according to the AP, showed that Iran was running “computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.” But Yousaf Butt and Faronc Delnaki-Veress, writing in the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, say that the massive error contained in the document is “unlikely to have been made by research scientists working at a national level.” To Butt and Dalnaki-Veress, the document “does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax.”

In the AP article, titled “Graph suggests Iran working on bomb,” the news organization claims that the document was obtained from officials of “a country critical of Iran’s atomic program.” The AP also states that a “senior diplomat” confirmed that the International Atomic Energy Agency “cited” the diagram in a report from last year. Butt and Delnaki Veress, however, say the graph contains key errors and that “the level of scientific sophistication needed to produce such a graph corresponds to that typically found in graduate or advanced undergraduate-level nuclear physics courses.” If the IAEA did indeed use the graph, it couldn’t have revealed much because, according to Butt and Delnaki-Veress, “the image does not imply that computer simulations were actually run” and the graph’s findings are “neither a secret, nor indicative of a nuclear weapons program.”

“The diagram leaked to the Associated Press this week is nothing more than either shoddy sources or shoddy science. In either case, the world can keep calm and carry on,” the Bulletin article summarizes.

Glenn Greenwald, a columnist at the Guardian, points out that similar documents were brandished in the early 2000s:

“The case for the attack on Iraq was driven, of course, by a mountain of fabricated documents and deliberately manipulated intelligence which western media outlets uncritically amplified.”

When it comes to the nuclear issue in Iran, the Obama administration continues to pursue a diplomatic solution, which they believe is the “the best and most permanent” way to end the stand-off. Indeed, former Israeli officials have said that a strike on Iran could potentially accelerate Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The U.S. finds a nuclear armed Iran to be unacceptable, but the window for diplomacy remains open as U.S. and Israel intelligence believe that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon.

Today, however, the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, said that he could not confirm that Iran’s nuclear work was peaceful with “credible assurance.” And Reuters reports today that “the United States effectively set a March deadline…for Iran to start cooperating in substance with a U.N. nuclear agency investigation, saying it would otherwise urge reporting the issue to the U.N. Security Council.”

The list of former Israeli officials in support of direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on the nuclear issue continues to grow as Yoel Guzansky, a former Iran adviser for the Israeli Prime Minister, and Oded Eran, a former Israeli ambassador to the European Union, in an Israeli newspaper earlier this month endorsed bilateral talks.

In October, the New York Times reported on an agreement “in principle” for negotiations between Iran and the U.S. after the U.S. elections. Both the administration and Iran subsequently denied the agreement’s existence.

Yesterday, Al-Monitor translated Guzansky and Eran’s piece which originally ran on November 15, which highlighted the need for Israel to support a diplomatic approach:

“Israel can contribute to the efforts to solve the Iranian issue [via diplomacy] by reaching an understanding with the United States on the time frame for direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran, if indeed the opportunity arises for conducting such direct talks, as well as on the political elements of any agreement reached and on the room for maneuver allowed with respect to any of these constituent elements.”

Amos Yadlin, a former high-level Israeli military official, recently embraced Iran-U.S. talks, writing that it is significant that the Iranians are considering direct negotiations:

“This degree of backpedalling, a complete U-turn from its official policy, is indicative of the effectiveness of the pressure exerted on Iran, and a signal of its capacity to bring about real change in the country’s policy.”

Still others, like Israel’s current Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, have indicated a willingness to back talks, saying earlier this month that there “could be direct negotiations with Iran.” Efraim Halevy, the former director of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, lent his support to negotiations as well:

“I realized that dialogue with an enemy is essential. There is nothing to lose. Although the claim was, if you talk to them, you legitimize them. But by not talking to them, you don’t de-legitimate them. So this convinced me, that we all have been very superficial in dealing with our enemies. Not everything you try succeeds. But you have to be willing to try.”

The Obama administration has pursued a diplomatic approach to Iran, believing that such a strategy provides “the best and most permanent” route to a solution to the nuclear issue. An attack on Iran, as some former Israeli officials have pointed out, could actually push Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Though the U.S. finds a nuclear armed Iran an unacceptable threat to global security, the opportunity for diplomacy remains as the U.S., Israel, and U.N. have repeatedly stated that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon.

A full-scale U.S. invasion of Iran could cost the global economy $1.7 trillion, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a nonpartisan think tank which released a report on Friday detailing the estimated costs of different approaches, including military strikes, to solving the Iranian nuclear issue. A “bombing campaign” could cost $1.2 trillion. If the U.S. decided to go about striking Iran’s nuclear sites “surgically,” it’d still cost the global economy more than $700 billion.

Not surprisingly, the group found that a diplomatic approach would be one of the least expensive ways to solve the issue. A continued, strengthened sanctions push could cost the global economy about $64 billion. If the U.S. decided to “isolate” and “blockade” the Iranian oil industry it could bring the cost $325 billion. The most frugal option, at an estimated $60 billion, would be to “de-escalate” with the U.S. uniltaterally taking “steps to show that the United States is willing to make concessions.”

The report bases its estimates on factors including: “(1) financial market losses, (2) oil price increases, (3) military costs and other expenditures to provide security, (4) damage to infrastructure resulting from conflict, and (5) other global economic costs.” The FAS created the report to “to provide a starting point for discussion about one category of potential outcomes” because it believes there has been “less discussion about the outcomes and consequences of any international actions that might be set in motion if and when Iran crosses that line.”

In the past, other organizations have attempted to estimate the potential financial costs of a military attack on Iran. The Truman National Security Project released an online game simulating an attack in October; while the game focused mostly on the potential diplomatic and military issues associated with an attack, it did include data on worldwide oil costs if Iran were attacked. Whether the military approach was surgical strikes or full-out invasion, the game resulted in near-disaster for the player.

Thus far, the Obama administration has advocated for a diplomatic approach toward the Iran nuclear issue: sanctions enforced by the administration and its European allies have resulted in enormous pressure on the Iranian economy. In recent weeks, Iranian officials have seemed more open to direct negotiations with the U.S. On Friday, Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on the Iranian nuclear program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that the latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program “shows Iran continues to make incremental advances, but almost as if calibrating progress so as not to spark a crisis.” Fitzpatrick added that Iran “has 10% more enriched uranium and 10% more centrifuges than 3 months ago. The rial dropped 40%, so this time sanctions are winning.”

On Tuesday, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry released a report that mentions diplomacy and negotiations with foreign powers as a potential solution to the nuclear issue. The report, according to the Washington Post, suggests “that the ministry has a pragmatic understanding of the challenges the country faces, the cost it is paying for continuing uranium enrichment at current levels, the threat of Israeli aggression and, perhaps most important, a way out of the stalemate.”

In a surprising turn, it even recognizes President Obama’s efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue. The report’s release falls in the same week that Mohammad Javad Larijani, an influential Iranian official, said that it is “not taboo” to have negotiations with the U.S.

The report, according to the Post, cites diplomacy as the way to resolve the crisis:

“One of the options is to take diplomatic and political measures and use the potentials of international bodies, which is a necessary and less costly option.”

In the past few weeks, momentum toward a diplomatic solution between Iran and the U.S. has grown. The New York Times reported in October that the Obama administration had agreed “in principle” to direct negotiations with Iran. The two countries immediately denied the report. Israeli officials like Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., came out publicly against the possibility of direct negotiations. Now, however, it seems there may be a different point of view in the Israeli government; Danny Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, said yesterday that there “could be direct negotiations with Iran.” Other former high-level Israeli intelligence officials, including Efraim Halevy and Amos Yadlin, have endorsed this option.

Last week, Israeli and Iranian officials attended an academic conference in Brussels on nuclear issues; the mood, according to the Guardian’s account, “was described by one participant as ‘respectful and positive.’” Al-Monitor reported last week that Iran had picked a “central point of contact for approaches from outside-government Americans,” a potential “back-channel” route toward negotiations.

Iran’s Intelligence Ministry, which released the report, has had its share of controversy with Iranian leaders. In 2011, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fired the head of the Intelligence Ministry, Heidar Moslehi. Soon after, Iran’s Supreme Leader rebuked Ahmadinejad and demanded Moslehi return to his position. Ahmadinejad’s squabble with the Supreme Leader laid the groundwork for a public criticism of his presidency from many members of Iran’s parliament. The criticism has grown and continues to this day. As a whole, the Intelligence Ministry, according to the U.S. Institute of Peace, is “at times cooperating and competing” with the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has, according to USIP, “eclipsed the ministry of intelligence in scope and authority.” Indeed, the Post mentions that the ministry is “not a channel for expressing the Islamic republic’s foreign policy views.”

Ali Vaez, a senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, said the Post “is reading too much” into the Iranian Intelligence Ministry’s report. He told ThinkProgress that “while the MOIS report provides a sober analysis of the current standoff, it doesn’t imply a different approach from the strategy Iran has been pursuing during the past decade.”

(Photo: Reuters)

As President Obama’s electoral victory continues to sink in, many have already begun to refocus on the many foreign policy issues overshadowed by the race for the White House. Most rapid analysis has focused on those items that always seem to top such lists: ongoing issues in the Middle East, the winding down of the war in Afghanistan, and possible confrontations with China. Rather than rehashing those matters, here’s five issues that while they may be less discussed will definitely help shape Obama’s second term:

MEXICO

Absolutely ignored during the general debate, and only brought up the the myopic frame of border security during the Republican primaries, President Obama will eventually be forced to confront the instability in Mexico. President Felipe Calderon’s six-year war against the drug cartels has yielded an estimated 50,000 deaths just south of the U.S. border as of August. The bloodiest of the gangs, the Zetas, have made it their strategy to consolidate control over large swaths of territory in their entirety. By conquering all elements of crime and supplanting the government, the Zetas now control the third-largest state in Mexico. As President Enrique Pena Nieto takes office next month, Obama needs to work closely with his counterpart at finally developing a strategy for cooperation.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

During Obama’s first term, there was a rhetorical emphasis on nuclear disarmament, with the President calling for a world free of nuclear weapons in 2009. Obama then launched the Nuclear Security Summit in 2010, became the first sitting President to chair the U.N. Security Council during a high-level meeting on nuclear non-proliferation, and achieved passage of the New START Treaty with Russia.

Since 2010, however, North Korea has proved to be unwilling to roll-back its nuclear weapons program despite substantial concessions from the U.S. Russia has likewise opted to walk away from the Nunn-Lugar agreement, saying they can now safeguard nuclear material throughout the former Soviet Union without the United States. Obama next has the chance to show American leadership on the issue at the Helsinki Conference on a Nuclear-Free Middle East later this year, possibly bringing Iran and Israel both to the table.

EUROZONE

While also completely forgotten during the election, Europe is nowhere near out of the woods yet in ending its ongoing economic crisis. On Wednesday, the European Commission revised its projected growth for the Eurozone from 1 percent to 0.1 percent. The ongoing economic instability continues to rattle financial markets, making it clear that the United States’ economic recovery remains closely tied to Europe’s. Obama made significant progress at the last meeting of the Group of 20 in forcing Europe to take strong action, counter to Germany’s prescribed austerity measures. It’ll take even more leadership over the next four years to ensure Europe pulls out of its tailspin.

STRENGTHENING INTERNATIONAL LAW

Far more so than if Mitt Romney had won, a second term for President Obama can be expected to include a strengthening of the role of international law in the world. First, the President can showcase the U.S. commitment to international law through the signing and ratification of new treaties, including final passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty in Senate or a United States-led push on climate change, a subject finally mentioned by Obama in his victory speech. Obama will also likely continue to strongly hold other states accountable to their obligations under international law and bolster support for those adhering to the rule of law. Such an approach has been, and will continue to be, key in Obama’s strategy towards China, particularly in its territorial dispute with Japan.

AFRICA PIVOT

Though it’s gotten far less press than the much-more publicized “Asia Pivot,” the increased flow of resources to Africa during the Obama administration can’t be denied. The shift has been part of Obama’s fight against terrorist groups globally, including the launch of drone strikes from Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti and providing support for Kenya’s fighting al-Shabab in Somalia. The U.S. also currently provides military training and support to armies throughout the continent, such as the task force helping Uganda hunt war -criminal Joseph Kony. As questions of how to handle al Qaeda-related or branded groups in Africa, such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Mali, continue to grow, Africa will remain closer to the forefront of Obama’s foreign policy than many realize.

Today Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon became the most prominent Israeli official to embrace the idea of direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Previously, other Israeli officials have reportedly supported the idea of direct negotiations.

But now Ayalon spoke more directly when commenting on President Obama’s re-election, saying to Israeli press, “Obama, certainly in the short term, will be much more effective, because he already has a formulated policy. There could be direct negotiations with Iran.”

In October, the New York Times first reported that the administration had agreed “in principle” to direct negotiations with Iran after the election. Almost immediately, both the administration and Iranian officials denied the existence of any agreement. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., said “we do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks.” Ayalon’s comment today may suggest a different line of thinking in the Israeli government and comes on the same day that Mohammad Javad Larijani, an influential Iranian official, said it is “not taboo” to have direct negotiations with the U.S.

Several former high-level Israel intelligence officials, like Efraim Halevy, have welcomed the idea of direct negotiations as well. Halevy, speaking to Al-Monitor, said a few weeks ago:

“I realized that dialogue with an enemy is essential. There is nothing to lose. Although the claim was, if you talk to them, you legitimize them. But by not talking to them, you don’t de-legitimate them. So this convinced me, that we all have been very superficial in dealing with our enemies. Not everything you try succeeds. But you have to be willing to try.”

Others, like Amos Yadlin, a former high-level intelligence official in Israel, spoke positively of direct negotiations. Yadlin, in a paper co-written with Avner Golov, said of direct negotiations:

“This degree of backpedalling, a complete U-turn from its official policy, is indicative of the effectiveness of the pressure exerted on Iran, and a signal of its capacity to bring about real change in the country’s policy.”

Yadlin and Golov added that “If the negotiations fail, the argument that all other options have been exhausted will be stronger, and there’s no way to prevent Iran’s nuclearization except a military strike.”

In 2010, two top Israeli security chiefs denied Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s request to “have the military ready to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities within hours if necessary.” This new information comes from an Israeli TV documentary airing today that cites sources close to Israel’s former intelligence head Meir Dagan and the Israeli army chief Gabi Ashkenazi as shooting down the order.

The request, delivered to the top seven security officials but not to the full security cabinet, angered Dagan and Ashkenazi, leading Dagan to reportedly say that Netanyahu and Barak “tried to steal a war –- it was as simple as that.” To Dagan, the meeting betrayed standard protocol for launching a war. “You may end up going to war based on an illegal decision. Only the security cabinet is authorized to make such a decision,” he said.

Both Dagan and Askhenazi left their roles shortly after the reported meeting. Ashkenazi reportedly said of the order, “This isn’t the sort of thing that you do unless you’re certain that you’ll end up launching an operation. It’s like an accordion that makes music even if it is merely handled.”

The documentary also contains an interview with Barak who all but confirms the reporting. “A chief of staff must create the operational ability, he needs to tell us [the government] whether we have the operational ability to do something, and he even needs to give his recommendation, but [the government] is free to choose [a course of action] that contradicts his recommendation,” Barak told film’s director Ilana Dayan.

Dagan and Ashkenazi have both repeatedly warned about the consequences of rushing to war with Iran. Dagan said in May that “a strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb. An attack isn’t enough to stop the project.” He added that, “we would provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes.” Ashkenazi said in August that “there is a sense that someone will pull out a suitcase from some shelf tomorrow morning and we’ll find ourselves with an Iranian atom bomb. I think we’re not at that point yet.”

Last week, Barak told the British newspaper, the Telegraph, that Iran stepped back from pursuing a nuclear weapon this summer, allowing Israel to contemplate “delaying the moment of truth by eight to 10 months.” Barak added that he was “skeptical” that the sanctions implemented by the Obama administration and its European allies would convince the Iranians to “sit together at any point in the foreseeable future and decide to give up their intention to go in the footsteps of Pakistan and North Korea and turn into a military nuclear power.” In the past, the Israeli Defense Minister has said that sanctions implemented by the Obama administration and its European allies were “quite effective.”

Several former high-level Israeli intelligence and military officials pushed back against a rush to war with Iran. Most recently, Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, praised the Obama administration for pushing a diplomatic approach, saying: “Obama does think there is still room for negotiations. It’s a very courageous thing to say in this atmosphere.”

Amos Yadlin, a former high-level Israeli military intelligence official, said in a paper he co-wrote and published yesterday that bilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran would be “a positive development” for Israel. Yadlin’s report comes on the heals of a New York Times report that Iran and the U.S. had agreed to bilateral negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program after the election. The White House and Iran have denied the Times’ report.

Israeli government officials have said they are unaware of any agreement; Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said “we do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks.” But an anonymous “senior Israeli official” told the New York Times that “the Israelis were aware of the effort toward bilateral talks and were open to it.” Another Israeli official, Moshe Ya’alon, told Israeli radio that Israel had “no objections” and knew about the talks in advance.

In the paper, Yadlin and co-author Avner Golov say that negotiations could signify a productive shift in diplomacy with Iran:

“This degree of backpedalling, a complete U-turn from its official policy, is indicative of the effectiveness of the pressure exerted on Iran, and a signal of its capacity to bring about real change in the country’s policy.”

According to Haaretz, Yadlin and Golov say one-on-one talks between Iran and the U.S. would be a welcome alternative to “extreme options that are currently on the table: ‘a[n Iranian] bomb or a [Western or Israeli] bombardment’,” adding, “If the negotiations fail, the argument that all other options have been exhausted will be stronger, and there’s no way to prevent Iran’s nuclearization except a military strike.”

Yadlin, according to Haaretz was from 2006 to 2010: “the national assessor who played a central role in managing the overt and covert campaign against the Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges in Natanz and Fordow.” In September, Yadlin spoke up for the first time against an early attack on Iran, saying: “They say that time has almost run out, but I say there still is time. The decisive year is not 2012 but 2013. Maybe even early 2014.” Yadlin also added: “I still think we should wait and see whether the heavy sanctions imposed in July 2012 will bring about a change, but up to now the change has not happened.”

Believing that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat, the Obama administration and its European allies have implemented several rounds of crippling sanctions aimed at finding a diplomatic solution. The Congressional Research Service said in an October 15 report that the sanctions could be expected to produce a solution quickly: “Many judge that Iran might soon decide it needs a nuclear compromise to produce an easing of sanctions.” The report also finds that sanctions have resulted in a loss of nearly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day. Oil sales, according to the CRS, “provide about 70% of Iran’s government revenues.” Iran has also watched its currency spiral as a result of sanctions; according to the New York Times, the Iranian rial has “lost 40 percent of its value against the dollar.”