Introduction
Last week’s nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran is the most transformative development in relations between the two nations in decades. But the diplomatic road ahead for the two countries remains uncertain, fraught with difficulties and potential pitfalls. Even triumphant readings of the recent nuclear agreement between the P5+1 and Iran have ignored the elephant in the room. That elephant is the fact that, with or without the talks (and short of a catastrophic regional war or a highly unlikely diplomatic coming-together), Iran will eventually become a nuclear power—and that there is little the United States, Israel, or any other country on Earth can do about it. Instead of trying in vain to prevent a nuclear Iran, the United States and its allies must recognize that, in the case of Iran, national interest increasingly fails to justify further enmity—and that the costs of potential hostilities are simply too high. Sometimes the best way to deal with an enemy is to make a friend.
Read more here
Country or Region: Iran
Afshari, Ali
Introduction
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the controversial international agreement to restrict Iran’s nuclear program, was implemented on January 16, 2016. After the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran had fulfilled the necessary cutbacks to its nuclear program, the UN and the West repealed their debilitating nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions against the country. While some experts worry that Iran will use the opportunity to evade foreign pressures to promote domestic freedom and civil liberties within the country, other activists optimistically predict that increased trade and economic activity will reduce internal tensions and improve human rights conditions in Iran. Although supporters of both of these viewpoints raise legitimate claims, the reality is that any reasoning that predicts the direction of human rights in Iran will likely fall in between these two interpretations.
Read more here
Pandita, K.N
Abstract
Is the South Asian region (or Khurasan according to Islamic exegesis) emerging as the battlefield of a decisive clash of ideologies? Khurasan, originally an Avestic word, stands for the ‘lands to the East’. In geographical terms it could be Eastern part of Iran, Afghanistan and Baluchistan including its oceanic outreach.
Read article here
Marks, Joel
Abstract
With mounting concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the recent convening of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, nuclear proliferation has once again been elevated to the forefront of global security concerns. This article critically reviews the controversial theoretical arguments made by the two leading structural realists in the United States, Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer, that the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new states will be beneficial for the maintenance of global security and assesses to what extent their ‘proliferation optimism’ has been validated by recent history. As the article argues, theoretical and empirical deficiencies within Waltz’s and Mearsheimer’s analyses render their optimistic scenarios regarding nuclear proliferation highly questionable. The dangers of nuclear proliferation are then illustrated by assessing the recent history of interstate military rivalry and conflict between two of the world’s newest nuclear armed states, India and Pakistan.
PDF
Esen, Vedat, and Bulent Oral
Abstract
In this study, changes in natural gas reserve/production ratio (R/P) of the four countries having the highest natural gas reserves (Russia, Iran, Qatar, Turkmenistan), the importance of which increases in the world market each day due to developing technology and the demand for clean energy, has been analyzed depending on the economic and political developments in national and international fields. Change of R/P ratio depending on years has been displayed on graphics from different sources and these alterations have been tried to be associated with such issues as natural gas agreements in history, handover of political authority, economic crises etc. Therefore; it has been put forward whether or not political and economic changes of the countries are factors on the amount of natural gas production and the discovery of new reserve fields with the addition aim of providing a general overview on natural gas market.
PDF available here
Akbarzadeh, Shahram
Abstract
President Barack Obama has inherited an unenviable legacy in relation to Iran. Relations between Iran and the United States have suffered blow after blow in the last three decades. The Iranian revolution of 1979 deposed a close US ally and brought to power a religious regime with the rallying cry of ‘Down with America’. Soon after, the US Embassy in Tehran was raided, resulting in 444 days of hostage taking. The damage caused by this episode was severe; it delivered shock waves of disbelief and indignation to the political elite in the United States and turned US public opinion against Iran. Tehran’s attempts at instigating a regional shake-up were a serious concern for Washington. In the meantime, Tehran developed close ties with the Shi’a community in Lebanon; helping form and train Hizbullah. This move threw Iran onto the centre stage of Arab–Israeli conflict – a position it has maintained and cherished ever since. In short, Iran’s relations with the international community, and the United States in particular, have been under severe strains for the last 30 years. This is what President Obama has inherited.
Barack Obama came to office with a promise of change. In terms of US policy towards the Middle East, change cannot be case-specific. Given the interwoven nature of politics in the region, policy change needs to be all-encompassing and universal. The Obama Administration appears attuned to this need and views its Iran policy as a component of a larger Middle East policy that includes the protracted Arab–Israeli tension, the Palestinian issue, pervasive authoritarian practices in the region, terrorism and, most pressing of all, the extraction of US combat troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a refreshing change, allowing the US Administration to examine and deal with Iran in proportion to its significance.
PDF
Bellany, Ian
Abstract
In the past, terrorists have tended to eschew acts of extreme violence for fear of alienating those whom they wish to persuade and attract to their cause. The first to discard this philosophy was the Aum group in Japan, which sought to use anthrax and acquire a nuclear weapon. Since then, attitudes have changed, spurred on by the impact on public perception of the successful Al Qaeda 9/11 attack on New York and Washington. By crossing the line between moderation and extreme violence, terrorist groups retain one valuable capability: they are much less easily deterred and have few inhibitions. This article considers the three nuclear options open to terrorists – produce a radiological contaminant bomb; build a nuclear bomb; or steal or get given a nuclear device. It examines the possibilities and probabilities of each option and considers how the implementation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) provisions might impose some constraints on terrorists’ nuclear ambitions. By examining the doubtful nuclear security practices of different states and providing statistical evidence of an increase in levels of international terrorist violence, this article points to determined terrorists in time acquiring the means to acquire one or other variants of a nuclear weapon. It concludes that it is not a matter of “if” but “when.”
Read more here (purchase required)
Wolf, Albert B
Abstract
This article investigates the nuclear postures available to Israel in the wake of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5 + 1. An “existential bias” pervades much of the literature on nuclear postures. Most scholars assume that once a state acquires the bomb it can deter all forms of aggression. However, recent scholarship has shown this to be untrue given that regional nuclear powers operate under much greater constraints than the U.S. and Russia or the Soviet Union. Israel faces tradeoffs between three postures: a catalytic posture, which would involve greater reliance upon the U.S.; assured retaliation, its current posture; and first use. Should Jerusalem continue to fear the prospect of abandonment by the U.S., it may turn to a first-use posture in order to leverage its conventional and nuclear superiority over its neighbors.
Read more here (purchase required)
Joyner, Daniel
Publication Year: 2016
Iran’s Nuclear Program and International Law: From Confrontation to Accord
Summary
This book provides an international legal analysis of the most important questions regarding Iran’s nuclear program since 2002. Setting these legal questions in their historical and diplomatic context, this book aims to clarify how the relevant sources of international law – including primarily the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and IAEA treaty law – should be properly applied in the context of the Iran case. It provides an instructional case study of the application of these sources of international law, the lessons which can be applied to inform both the on-going legal and diplomatic dynamics surrounding the Iran nuclear dispute itself, as well as similar future cases. Some questions raised regard the watershed diplomatic accord reached between Iran and Western states in July, 2015, known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action. The answers will be of interests to diplomats and academics, as well as to anyone who is interested in understanding international law’s application to this sensitive dispute in international relations.
Tétreault, Mary Ann
Abstract
Hydrocarbon riches have lifted the states of the Persian-Arabian Gulf out of poverty, but they also attract unwanted attention and external intervention. This essay examines the security goals of Gulf governments over five eras. It suggests that the expansion of state capacity is both cause and effect of foreign investment and other resource transfers, and argues that their hydrocarbon resources have been key assets of Gulf governments in pursuing their national and regional security interests.
PDF
Rezaei, Farhad, and Somayeh Khodaei Moshirabad
Abstract
The objective of this study is to understand the shift in the nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). As a military organization considered to be the steward of the nuclear programme, the Revolutionary Guards turned into spoilers on the few occasions when the pragmatists in Iran tried to negotiate a deal with the international community. In a surprising shift, the Guards’ nuclear policy changed and supported nuclear negotiations and the nuclear agreement. It is assumed that the IRGC is more interested in its economic ventures than in promoting the nuclear project. To test the hypothesis, the present study is designed to provide a rigorous empirical examination of the economic impact of the sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards.
PDF
Cooper, David A
Abstract
The next U.S. president confronts a tough decision on whether and how to play out the unfinished hand that she or he will inherit in the high stakes arena of nuclear proliferation. A key question is what to do about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the controversial nuclear deal that the United States and five other world powers struck with Iran in the summer of 2015. For better or worse, the JCPOA now stands as the precarious linchpin of U.S. efforts to avert a dangerous nuclear proliferation spiral in the Middle East that would have global reverberations. This negotiated settlement with the Islamic Republic represents an audacious gamble by President Obama, not least because its durability relies on his successor’s willingness to carry forward a fragile political bargain in the face of persistent doubts about its fundamental merits, both at home and among the United States’ closest partners in the region. In other words, the stage is set for a new president to reassess the wisdom of continuing U.S. support for the JCPOA.
While I have argued against the deal on its demerits and harbor serious concerns about its ultimate efficacy, this essay explores why it is not smart for Washington to walk away now, despite the very real risk, or even likelihood, that the JCPOA will fail to prevent Iran from going nuclear sooner or later. In this context, the essay argues for a hedging strategy that includes a reemphasis on supply-side efforts to impede Iran from improving its nuclear and missile capabilities from within the JCPOA framework.
PDF
Akbarzadeh, Shahram, and James Barry
Abstract
This article examines the role of corporate identity in Iran’s foreign policy making. Drawing on interviews with Iranian stakeholders and an analysis of Iran’s political developments, this article surveys the three key elements of Iranian nationalism that shape Iranian foreign policy: Iranism, Islam and Shi’ism. This article finds that each of these is crucial in explaining the apparent contradictions in the approaches of several significant Iranian leaders, especially in cases where Iranism collides with religious values. By highlighting how each component is at once unique but still intrinsically linked to the others, this article demonstrates how Iran’s foreign policy choices can be understood in relation to its corporate identity.
PDF
Thakur, Ramesh
Abstract
The nuclear arms control regime—centered on the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)—faces five challenges: failure of nuclear disarmament by the five NPT-licit nuclear powers (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States); possible cheating by non-nuclear signatories like North Korea and Iran; India, Israel, and Pakistan remaining outside the NPT; terrorists’ interest in acquiring and using nuclear weapons; and the safety, security and proliferation risks of the increased interest in nuclear energy to offset the financial and environmental costs of fossil fuel.
PDF
Krieger, Zanvyl, and Ariel Ilan Roth
Abstract
This essay identifies a difference of opinion over the role of nuclear weapons as an absolute deterrent as the basis for the theoretical disagreement between Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer regarding whether security is attained through the maintenance of the status quo or through the aggressive elimination of potential rivals. The essay traces the writings of both scholars over a period of decades to demonstrate how Waltz has come to regard nuclear weapons as making conquest so unprofitable that possessing them provides absolute security. It also shows how Mearsheimer holds a more ambiguous position on the deterrent strength of nuclear weapons, which helps to explain why he believes that states still seek security through offensive action. The essay offers a guide to show how these important theories influence and shape current policy debates over the proliferation of nuclear weapons to both state and nonstate actors.
PDF
