Month: June 2022
Iran is already at the nuclear threshold
This video is more than a year old:
Iran, which is now enriching uranium to at least 60%, is already a nuclear threshold state. There are no difficult technical obstacles that remain before enriching to weapons-grade material. Moving beyond that to fabricating a nuclear device is more difficult, but certainly not beyond Iranian capability. The question is: what difference does this make? The answer to that question depends on who you are. Israel, other regional states, the European Union, and the United States have distinct answers.
Israel apparently doesn’t care
Iran is significantly closer to nuclear weapons than when President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal (aka Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA). This is in part because Israel urged the US to back out of the JCPOA and has done its best to prevent the US from re-entering it. The Israelis have preferred their own approach, which involves assassinations and attacks on nuclear infrastructure. But given the outcome so far, it appears they don’t care how much weapons-grade uranium the Iranians accumulate.
Why are the Israelis behaving this way? Is it because they are supremely confident of their ability to prevent weaponization of enriched uranium? Is it because their second-strike capability (from submarines) is thought to be a sufficient deterrent to an Iranian nuclear attack? Or is it because the Israelis believe American guarantees that Iran will never get nuclear weapons?
Whatever the reason, it is clear that Israel doesn’t really care about Iran accumulating weapons-grade uranium.
The region does, but what are they doing about it?
Major states in the region do care. Both Turkish President Erdogan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have said, more or less explicitly, that they will not be left wanting if Iran gets nuclear weapons. This is not how they have reacted to Israeli nuclear weapons, about which they complain readily but apparently do little. Neither country has used the decades since Israel became a nuclear power to mount serious nuclear weapons programs of their own, so far as is known. Instead, they have pleaded for a regional nuclear-free zone, which they know the Israelis won’t agree to.
Their reaction to Iran is rhetorically different. Riyadh and Ankara appear to see Iranian nuclear weapons as a threat to the regional power balance, one they need to counter. There are however still big questions about intentions and capability. Were Erdogan and MBS serious, or just rhetorical? Turkey has American nuclear weapons on its territory. Would Ankara risk losing those if it decides to go nuclear on its own? Does Turkey have the nuclear and high-explosive expertise required to enrich uranium or extract plutonium, as well as design a working nuclear weapon? Does Saudi Arabia? Has either obtained the needed materials, technology, and even weapons from Pakistan?
Egypt has been more circumspect than Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It has lived with Israeli nuclear weapons on its border for decades, apparently confident they won’t be used against a neighbor who has made peace, even if a cold one. American influence in Cairo is far greater than in Riyadh and Ankara, which is likely another factor in Egyptian reluctance to move in the direction of nuclear weapons.
Europe cares, but not in the same way as the United States and Russia
The European Union has exhausted itself in nuclear negotiations with Iran. This is not because of any threat to Europe from Iranian nuclear weapons. Most European states would like to normalize relations with Tehran. The unresolved nuclear issue makes that impossible. Hence the diplomatic efforts, first to negotiate the 2015 JCPOA and, after Trump left office, to revive it.
For the United States and Russia, the concern is nuclear proliferation, or to put it another way maintenance of their exclusive status as global nuclear powers. Both were unhappy with India and Pakistan getting nuclear weapons, but neither Delhi nor Islamabad has challenged the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the Perm 5), all of which are nuclear states. Instead they have accepted the subcontinent nuclear balance and avoided nuclear contests beyond South Asia. This is true even though India views its nuclear weapons as necessary to balance China more than Pakistan. But nuclear balance has not been a factor in outstanding border disputes between New Delhi and Beijing.
The Middle East is not South Asia
It is harder to picture easy adjustment to Iranian nuclear weapons in the Middle East, especially if the Turks and Saudis follow suit. In a Middle East with four nuclear powers, or even five if Egypt joins the party and six if you count Pakistan, a stable balance will be far more difficult to achieve than between two parties like Pakistan and India. A nuclear arms race in a region with few stabilizing institutions and lots of destabilizing conflicts will be extraordinarily difficult to contain.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Here is something worth reading about the Balkans
My friends in the Balkans want the West to understand some things:
Appeal by Regional Civil Society to the Governments of EU Countries, the United States, and NATO
The Accession of the Western Balkans to the European Union is a Geopolitical and Geostrategic Inevitability
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has fundamentally changed the European security context and raised a number of questions about the future of the Euro-Atlantic integration of the Western Balkans.
Although surrounded by the EU and NATO member countries, the Western Balkans is only partially integrated into the Euro-Atlantic political and security structures. The ambiguous EU policy pursued over the last two decades has contributed to the regression of this region and its turn towards other partners. Russia’s infiltration into the developments in the region and its influence on Serbia and (one part of) Bosnia and Herzegovina has opened the question as to where the Western Balkans actually belongs.
These new circumstances have put the Western Balkans back on the European agenda.
The EU’s enlargement policy is currently being adjusted to the new geopolitical environment, and a new accession process is being developed.
So far, despite numerous statements and initiatives related to the Western Balkans, the West (primarily the EU) has not offered real support, protection and a concrete perspective for the region’s future .
Accession to the EU is the geopolitical inevitability of the entire Western Balkans – given Russia’s constant efforts to destabilize it.
A more efficient EU policy is not possible as long as the EU countries keep balancing between the value principles on which the EU is based and the ‘unity’ embodied in its consensual decision-making principle. This approach has disastrous consequences for the Western Balkans.
Bearing in mind a very fluid situation in the Western Balkans as well as speculation about the possibility of Putin’s opening a “second front” in the Balkans, the fears of citizens in all our countries that the situation in the region could be dramatically worsened are justified. We should not forget that, insofar as the European continent is concerned, the Balkans as a whole – particularly its non-integrated part – is the most susceptible to Russia’s influence and the escalation is underway. By preventing such devastating influence, the one-time visionary acceptance of “unprepared” Bulgaria and Romania into the EU has played a decisive role.
Due to all the reasons mentioned above, we, the undersigned, expect the following from the EU as well as the United States:
- To eliminate any possibility of changing Balkan borders;
- To ensure that the future and functionality of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not depend on Belgrade’s policy, which has been integrating/annexing B&H’s Republic of Srpska (RS) entity at all levels (economic, cultural, educational and informational) without hindrance for two decades. In addition to combating corruption and radically nationalist policies, the EU and the United States should encourage the coalescence of educational and cultural space in order to build Bosnian and Herzegovinian identity apart from its particular features. Only cultural awareness and education, as the fundamental backbone of society, can guarantee integration and solidarity within Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Croatia’s advocacy for a new election law, which would only contribute to the further ethnic disintegration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is unacceptable, and it is high time that the EU and the United States clearly condemn and prevent such policy options. Granting candidate status to Bosnia and Herzegovina would send a clear message to Belgrade, Zagreb and Moscow that the EU and the United States stand behind the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- Due to its reliance on Russia, Serbia keeps Kosovo in a state of frozen conflict. Without the mutual recognition of Serbia and Kosovo, the region has no European perspective. As the first step Kosovo should be granted visa liberalization for which the conditions have long been created;
- When it comes to Montenegro, it is necessary to strongly and effectively support its European integration process, which is also the basic proclaimed goal of Montenegro’s minority govern-ment. It is also necessary to prevent interference in its internal affairs, which primarily originates from the governing structures in Serbia, with great help from the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro, Serbian media and security services, as well as Russia’s direct and indirect influence;
- It is necessary to unblock the situation regarding North Macedonia’s accession negotiations. It is unacceptable that North Macedonia, which has met all EU requirements for candidate status, is still on hold due to Bulgaria’s blackmailing and destructive attitude;
- It is necessary to help Albania, which deserves candidate status. In the opposite, other tendencies and policies are encouraged – like in all other Western Balkan countries;
- It must be made clear that the Open Balkans Initiative cannot be an alternative to EU membership. Chancellor Scholz announced the revival of the Berlin process which, coupled with increased control by Berlin and Brussels, opens up prospects for more intensive regional cooperation on which the EU insists, as the basis for continuing the European path for all countries in the region, based on their individual merits and achievements;
- To continue without compromise with strengthening the security and legal mechanisms in all the countries of the Western Balkans in the fight against corruption and organized crime within the state apparatus, corporations and society in whole.
Bearing all this in mind, Europe and the United States must boost their military, political and economic involvement in the region in order to prevent the further malignant influence of non-Balkan and non-European factors. At the same time, it is necessary to maintain an active relationship with the pro-European opposition and political structures in all countries in the region as well as with the authentic civil society in order to confirm and strengthen the support for the Euro-Atlantic orientation and future of the Western Balkans.
Many of the signatories are people I regard as friends, some of very long standing:
Dr. Prof. Ivo Komšić, sociologist, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Dr. Vesna Pusić, former Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, Croatia
Dr. Prof. Edina Bećirević, University, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Momcilo Radulovic, president of European Movement, Montenegro
Dr. Prof. Zarko Korać, psyhologist, Srbija
Azem Vllasi, lawyer, Kosova
Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee, Serbia
Petar Todorov, historian, North Macedonia
Tamara Nikčević, journalist, Montenegro
Dr. Boris Varga, journalist, Serbia
Shkelzen Maliqi, writer, Kosova
Dr. Prof Husnija Kamberović, historian, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Dr. Prof. Dubravka Stojanović, historian, Serbia
Dr. Prof. Dinko Gruhonjić, University in Novi Sad, Serbia
Dr. Milivoj Bešlin, istorian, Serbia
Miodrag Vlahović, former Ambassador, president of the Montenegrin Helsinki Committee, Montenegro
Dr. Aleksandra Bosnić-Djurić, culturologist, Serbia
Dr.Prof. Nikola Samardžić, historian, Serbia
Dragan Banjac, journalist, Serbia
Boško Jakšić, journalist, Serbia
Ylber Hysa, historian, Kosova
Adil Kulenović,journalist, Krug 99, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Senad Pećanin, advokat, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Prof. Ejup Ganić, izvršni direktor Sarajevo Schol of Science and Technology, BiH
Sladjan Tomić, journalist, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Izabela Kisić, executive director of Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, Srbija
Akad. Prof. Rusmir Mahmutčehajić, president of the International Forum Bosnia, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Jelena Krstić, political scientist, Serbia
Andro Martinović, film director, Montenegro
Balša Božović, president of the Regional Academy for Development of Democracy, Serbia
Rade Radovanović, journalist, Serbia
Nerzuk Ćurak, University Professor, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Srećko Djukić, Ambassador, Serbia
Dušan Mijić, enterpreuner, Serbia
Aleksandra Jerkov, founder of the Regional Academy for Development of Democracy, Serbia
Dino Mustafić, theater director, Bosnia-Herzegovina
mr.sci. Memnuna Zvizdić, Regional Women Lobby, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Daliborka Uljarević, Executive Director of the Center for Civic Education, Montenegro
Stefica Galic, Editor of Tacno.net Portal, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Milan Jovanoović, president of the Forum for Security and Democracy, Serbia
Prof. dr Duško Radosavljević, Faculty for Legal and Business Studies, Serbia
prof dr. Mehmed Slezović, painter and art theorist, Serbia
Tanja Petovar, lawyer, Serbia
Srdjan Sušnica, Master’s degree of cultural and religious studies, lawyer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Zlatko Lagumdžija, former Foreign Minister, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nada Drobnjak, Regional Women Lobby, Montenegro
Zoran Vuletić, president of Civic Democratic Forum, Serbia
Tanja Šuković, journalist, Monteneggro
Darko Šukovic, journalist, Montenegro
Ivana Šundić Mihovilović, journalist, Serbia
Davor Gjenero, politologist, Croatia
Andrej Nikolaidis, writer, Montenegro
Tinka Đuranović, sculptor, Montenegro
Draško Đuranović, Editor of Pobjeda, Montenegro
Đorđe Šćepović,writer, Montenegro
Milorad Pustahija, journalist, Montenegro
Rajko Todorović Todor, painter, Montenegro
Boro Kontić, journalist and writer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Rade Bojović,lawyer, Montenegro
Miodrag Strugar, communicator, Montenegro
Danilo Burzan, journalist and writer, Montenegro
Majda Šahman Zaimović, University Professor, Montenegro
Kaćuša Krsmanović, journalst, Montenegro
Vladimir Šibalić, Lawyer, Montenegro
Janko Ljumović, professor FDU, Montenegro
Andrej Nedović, economist, Montenegro
Nada Bukilić, playright, Montenegro
Jelena Đurović, journalist, Montenegro
Momčilo Zeković, artist, Montenegro
Ljubomir Filipovic, political scientist, Montenegro
Danilo Marunović, film director, Montenegro
Aleksandar Saša Zeković, activist, Montenegro
Šeki Radončić, writer and journalist, Montenegro
Miodrag Živković, lawyer, Montenegro
Izudin Gusmirović, economist, Montenegro
Irina Peckova, economist, North Macedonia
Ines Sabalić, journalist, Croatia
Raif Dizdarević, former Foreign Minister of SFRY, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Lula Mikielj, activist, Serbia
Pavel Domonji, political scientist, Serbia
Edin Omerčić, historian, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Andrea Lešić, Literature and Culture Theorist, Univerzitet u Sarajevu, Bosna-Herzegovina
Zilka Spahić Šiljak, University Professor of Gender Studies, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Aleksandar Obradović, antropologist, Director of Philopolitics Association, Srbija
Prof.dr. Ivan Obradović, Belgrade University, Serbia
Nebojša Kaludjerovi, Ambassador, Montenegro
Prof,dr.Amila Buturović, Toronto York University, Canada
Slobodan Beljanski, lawyer, Serbia
Dr Adnan Prekić-Historian, Montenegro
Jakob Finci, writer, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Nenad Prokić, playwright, Serbia
Prof.dr Šerbo Rastoder, Academic,Montenegro University, Montenegro
Prof. Dr. Edin Šarčević, Law School Leipzig, Germany
Srdjan Dvornik, , translator, consultatnt, Croatia
Xhezair Dashi, journalist Albanian Post, Albania
Prof. Asim Mujkić, University Sarajevo, Bosna-Herzegovina
Žarko Papić, director IBHI (Nezavisni biro za humanitarna pitanja), Bosnia-Herzegovina
Zlatoje Martinov, writer and publicist, Serbia
Mirsada Čolaković, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Reuf Bajrović, Vice President of the US-Europe Alliance in Washington, DC, USA
Prof. Senadin Lavić, Faculty of Political Science, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Ljilja Spasić, Executive Director, Civic Actions, Serbia
Staša Zajević, Women in Black, Serbia
Isidora Farley, UK
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 20
On this new federal holiday, commemorating the announcement of the end of slavery in Texas in 1865, WaPo has one of its historical stories [Retropolis] noting that, just before Lincoln’s inauguration, Congress passed a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the continuation of slavery in states where it existed. Lincoln supported the amendment as a way of preventing civil war. It was not ratified by enough states, but author Ben Winter wrote an intriguing novel [Underground Airlines] assuming we still had slavery in four states today.
– Germany is restarting its coal-fired plants to cope with Russian cuts in energy.
– Task & Purpose says USAF should re-think, given the Ukraine war.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wishful thinking won’t end this war
I have a lot of respect for my SAIS colleague Chris Chivvis. He argues that Ukraine should start the reconstruction process as soon as possible (which the headline writer interpreted as “end the war” as soon as possible). To his credit, Chris admits that “…de facto acceptance of a divided Ukraine, even if not de jure, means a hostile, potentially disruptive Russia on the border.”
Rhetorically appealing
Chris’ argument is rhetorically appealing:
Ukraine wins by seizing the opportunity, while its still can, to immediately begin a massive, western-funded reconstruction effort that turbo-charges its political and economic integration into Europe, strengthens its security, and speeds it down the path toward a democratic future. Ukraine wins by demonstrating the extraordinary resilience of political and economic liberalism to the world and starting that process as soon as possible, not in five years when the country is destroyed and the world has moved on. Ukraine wins by stopping Russia from extinguishing its independence, which so far has been miraculously preserved, but remained at risk until the fighting stops. Ukraine wins by channeling the national energy that has been generated by the war into a better peace and a stronger, more prosperous nation.
Sounds great.
But it’s not realistic
If only all that were possible. The trouble is the enemy gets a vote. There will be no peace for Ukraine so long as Russia remains undefeated, an occupation power on Ukrainian territory. Moscow still controls several major ports and embargoes Ukrainian exports from the others.
If the war ends tomorrow, Moscow will use nonmilitary means to undermine Ukraine. Those will include cyber attacks, disinformation, economic manipulation, assassinations, terrorist incidents, violent demonstrations, support to organized crime and corruption, and a host of other measures I can’t yet imagine. But we have already seen all the ones I cite in the Balkans, Syria, and other places where Moscow has pretensions. Until it suffers a clear defeat, Russia will also use any letup in the Ukraine war to undermine Moldova (not a NATO member) and Poland (a NATO member. It will also raise the threat to the Baltic states as well as NATO aspirants Finland and Sweden. And it will intensify its destabilization efforts in the Balkans.
Western support will wane
I have no doubt President Zelensky would like to end the war as soon as possible. He has said as much from the first. He knows what Chris knows. The longer it goes on, the more politics in Europe and US will start to turn against Ukraine. Many of the West’s friends and enemies understand full well that democracies today find it hard to outlast autocracies. Support for Ukraine has so far held up well. But rising energy prices, more general inflation, a possible recession, and other domestic concerns will undermine support for Ukraine, which so far has held up well.
But the situation is not yet ripe
But now is not the time to throw in the towel and hope Moscow will leave Ukraine to its Western aspirations. The time to think about a negotiated end of the war is when Kiev and Moscow both think they can gain more at the negotiating table than by continuing the fight. That day has not yet come. Ending the fighting now is possible, but it won’t allow the kind of reconstruction and progress Chris wants. Wishful thinking and rhetorical appeal won’t end this war.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 19
– CNA’s Russia expert assesses the Ukraine war today.
– FP says China is gaining in Thailand.
– Rand study finds support for US Foreign Service.
– Atlantic article warns against militarizing our police.Fo
– The always thought-provoking Ezra Klein has surprising details about artificial intelligence.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 16
-Congress plans a big increase in defense spending.
-NBC says Biden criticized Blinken and Austin for expanding war aims.
– Politico has background on Biden trip to Saudi Arabia.
– Estonia wants more NATO forces.
– Turkey still blocks Sweden & Finland.
My friend Jim Fallows has suggestions on the best software for writers. His Substack columns are also good on journalism issues.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
