Iran

Opportunity Knocked

Articles — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:36:00 -0400

There is an opportunity to hammer out a grand compromise with Iran—one that would even address its nuclear program. But the Bush administration seems determined to prevent talks that could advance vital U.S. interests.

Much of the media coverage of last Saturday’s nuclear talks between representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (the so-called P-5+1, including the United States), and the secretary general of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, reflected a disturbing historical amnesia about previous U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Indeed, listening to most media outlets, one gets the impression that the Islamic Republic is nothing but a rogue regime committed to the… more

Britain Must Act To Prevent an Attack On Iran

Ron Tang — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 06:58:00 -0400

All the evidence suggests that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would be a disaster for the greater Middle East, for the world economy and for western security. It would not even benefit Israel, which is adequately protected by its own nuclear deterrent. On the contrary, by creating new links between Sunni and Shia extremism, it would worsen Israel’s long-term chances of survival. Finally, as last week’s remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, indicated, an attack is strongly opposed by the US military. They would bear the first brunt of… more

Daniel Levy in Mother Jones blog | 'Iran Panic? Talk About It With the Experts'

Communications — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:17:00 -0400

New America in the News:
Daniel Levy, a former Middle East peace negotiator, is Director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation, and of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation:

"I'm going to look at the Israeli side of the equation as I think this is the direction that any action is most likely to come from, although the blowback would of course most likely impact the US (and perhaps embroil it in a war with Iran). Also I will not address how disastrous the consequences of a military strike would be in my opinion, notably for Israel and its supporters in the US..." LINK

Nuclear Fallout

Ron Tang — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:01:00 -0400

Shaul Mofaz is Israel's minister of transportation. He formerly served as the IDF chief of staff and as defence minister. He is hardly considered to have been one of the greats to occupy either post. Another position he currently holds is that of minister in charge of the strategic dialogue with the US. The very existence of this position is emblematic of the dysfunctionality of Israel's political system right now (ordinarily the role would be part of the mandate of the defence or foreign minister, but was somehow attached to the transportation minister's portfolio as a sinecure handed… more

Holding Out For a Hero

Ron Tang — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:56:00 -0400

“Where are you from, my friend?” the merchant in Sharm Al-Sheikh asks me. I have been in enough bazaars in the Middle East to know the routine: I state my nationality (American), he makes a light joke about Rambo or Hollywood (avoiding politics), and then proceeds to hawk his goods to me at triple the going price.

But this time I took a different tack: “Iranian,” I said, citing my other nationality. “Iran?” the merchant responded, somewhat confused and pleasantly surprised. “Sit down,” he said, and sent his assistant scurrying to get me a cup of tea. “Ahmadi- negadee,” he said… more

Stop Looking for 'Moderate' Shiites and Address Interests

Ron Tang — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:55:00 -0400

Even those in America who call for a more humble American foreign policy and recognize the need to listen to foreign populations and global public opinion persist in deploying at every possible moment the most patronizing of monikers in describing their preferred allies: "moderate."

Over the past eight years, the condescending label of moderate has been applied to a variety of potential interlocutors in regional conflicts -- with never a positive result. Negotiations with so-called "moderate Taliban" proved a failure; Taliban interests and unity certainly outweighed any incentives the U.S.-backed Karzai regime could muster. The much lauded effort in Iraq's Anbar… more

Nuclear Mind Reading

Communications — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:15:00 -0400

A New America Event
04/09/2008 - 12:15pm

On April 9th, Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative, hosted James Acton, a Lecturer in the Centre for Science and Security Studies in the Department of War Studies at King's College London for a talk entitled "Nuclear Mind Reading: Iran's Nuclear Intentions and the IAEA". Acton analyzed the IAEA's ability to assess states' intentas opposed to their capabilitiesand then asked what the IAEA means when it announces that an issue is no longer considered to be outstanding. Finally, he discussed the implications this analysis has for the enforcement of arms control treaties.

Acton began by reconstructing the contentious debate on Article II of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Article II, the injunction that states not manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosives, had a central dilemma because of the indeterminacy of deciding what counts as "manufacture." For example, if a state were to develop all the parts but did not assemble them, then does it "count" as a violation of Article II? To overcome these problems, a purpose criteria was introduced which made the intent of a state the deciding factor in determining violations. Acton argued, however, that this intent clause has seriously hurt the ability to enforce nonproliferation agreements.

People often look to the IAEA to judge intent yet, as Acton noted, this mistakes the role of the IAEA. Its self-professed goal is fact-gathering and not to determine intent. The IAEA determines the what of a state's action and not the why. Thus, it is unable to perform the kind of "nuclear mind reading" necessary to determine violations. This is the proper realm of intelligence agencies who can use human and signals intelligence but the IAEA does not and should not have this capacity. Iran exemplifies these problems. The IAEA has recently closed the file on Iran because it says there are no outstanding issues and this has been interpreted to mean there is no intent to acquire a nuclear weapon. The IAEA makes, however, no such claim. Furthermore, whenever the IAEA finds suspicious activity Iran claims innocent usage and thus the definite proof demanded by states is impossible to find. Intent serves, in the end, as a loophole allowing states to side-step compliance. Acton argues that, beyond the Iranian crisis, a dangerous precedent has been set because debates have crystallized around intent without a credible way of assessment.

Acton concluded that the role of intention must be superceded by an objective, rules-based regime. He proposed that, in enforcement by international bodies, states should be penalized on what it has done and not why it acted. This provides an added deterrent effect because states can no longer deploy the motives card. In state-to-state interactions, however, intentions are crucial because one needs to understand why a state such as Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. This happens when states talk behind the scenes but not publicly. Acton provided, finally, a set of implementation mechanisms to transition to this new process. First, states should stop talking about intent in international forums. The US, UK, France, and Germany have been guilty of this regarding Iran allowing China and Russia to bandwagon upon it to support Iran. Second, rules should equally applied without exemptions for US friends and allies. Lastly, states should consider Pierre Goldschmidt's proposal for a generic UN resolution to create automatic punishments for states found in non-compliance.

- Kailash Srinivasan is an intern for the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative.

The Next President And the Middle East

Ron Tang — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:27:00 -0400

Listen carefully when a new president is inaugurated next January for the sigh of relief coming from most of those Middle Easterners whom President Bush embraced as allies. Conversely, Bush’s rivals in the region are likely to tune in to the occasion in a disgruntled mood. For them the Bush years have been good for business. The menu of grievances on which they’ve fed has become a veritable feast. Opposition to American designs in the region -- deployed with different emphases and with different goals by al-Qaeda, Iran, Hamas, Syria, and Hezbollah, to name but a few -- has been… more

The Persian Pragmatists

Ron Tang — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:05:00 -0400

Iran's recent parliamentary elections, conducted on Friday, stuck closely to a script familiar from the past four years: Conservatives predictably won the majority of seats from a ballot cleansed of reformists by the Guardians Council; turnout in cosmopolitan Tehran was lower than the provinces; and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blasted the U.S. for interfering in Iran's elections. The election's only clear winner -- as usual, in this script -- is Khamenei, whose virtual veto power over all matters of state, combined with a conservative ascendancy, grants him a political shield that will be difficult to penetrate.

But this year's script… more

Iran's Election: What the Polling Says

Communications — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:30:00 -0400

A New America Event
03/14/2008 - 9:30am

When the Iranian people vote for their parliamentary representatives on Friday, March 14, the results may be surprising. But will the rising dissatisfaction with the government and an increased desire for compromise with the United States translate into change?

The New America Foundation's American Strategy Program along with Terror Free Tomorrow, a leading non-partisan public opinion research organization, will discuss the full results of TFT's most recent poll of Iranian public attitudes.

For more information see Robin Wright's coverage of the TFT polling in The Washington Post.