Tag: Nuclear weapons
Tilting the playing field
We tend to treat adversaries as monolithic, especially when they label themselves an Islamic republic and put at its apex a Supreme Leader. So I was attracted to the launch today of the Washington Institute’s Leadership Divided by Nima Gerami, with Mehdi Khalaji commenting and Mike Eisenstadt moderating. Germani maps out the factional differences among Iranian elites:
- those who unreservedly support Iran’s nuclear program and believe Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons as a credible deterrent against perceived external threats (nuclear supporters)
- those who advocate permanently rolling back Iran’s nuclear program in favor of other national interests (nuclear detractors)
- those who are willing to accept temporary constraints on Iran’s uranium-enrichment-related and reprocessing activities—thereby lowering the degree of nuclear weapons latency—to end Iran’s international isolation (nuclear centrists)
He also maps their influence, based on past experience:
Nuclear centrists have traditionally exerted the greatest influence when Iran is faced with increased internal and external pressures, whereas nuclear supporters have ascended to power when these threat receded. Nuclear detractors have never enjoyed influence equal to the centrists and supporters, primarily because they have been cast out or marginalized from the system as a result of political infighting.
So what, I asked, should the US do and not do to increase the likelihood of a positive outcome to the comprehensive nuclear talks (defined as pushing back nuclear breakout to a year or more)?
Germani was reluctant to respond beyond saying that understanding elite views is useful, but under pressure offered that we should be cautious about letting up on sanctions, which are vital to pushing the Iranians in the right direction (presumably because the pressure strengthens the centrists). Eisenstadt warned that efforts to game our adversaries’ internal fissures often don’t work out well but also added that the threat of military action should be clear and credible but private. Putting it out in public doesn’t help.
Khalaji noted that nuclear supporters are feeling pressure to justify the nuclear program as a contribution to Iran’s energy requirements. Patrick Clawson underlined that the more Iranians know about the nuclear program, including its very large costs and risks, the less likely they are to support it, especially after the Fukushima disaster. Public pressure may not count for much, but it has some influence on what the Supreme Leader thinks possible and not.
On other factors affecting Iranian decision-making, it was noted that the Stuxnet computer virus and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists have discouraged some technically competent people from working in the nuclear program, presumably slowing it. The Supreme Leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons has not been important, both because it is ambiguous (still never written down!) and because in the Islamic Republic government authorities can overrule any religious strictures and even constitutional provisions.
So no silver bullets here. But the Iranian nuclear challenge is in many ways the most serious national security issue we face for the moment. It could lead to war, or a nuclear arms race in the Gulf, or to Iranian hegemony in the region and an Iranian threat to Israel. None of that is good from an American perspective. Tilting the playing field away from the nuclear supporters and towards its centrists and detractors could help enable a comprehensive nuclear agreement that still, however, seems far off.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The art and not the article
Nuclear talks with Iran start again February 18 in Vienna. This time the objective is a comprehensive agreement to replace the Joint Plan of Action initiated in January for six months and possibly to be renewed for another six months.
There are two routes to the fissile material needed to make nuclear weapons: enrichment of uranium (in Iran’s case using centrifuges) to above 90% U238 (in nature it occurs mainly as the isotope U235, containing three fewer neutrons); or production of plutonium 239, which is generated by irradiating U235 in a reactor and then “reprocessing” the spent fuel to separate plutonium. Ideally, if you don’t want someone to have nuclear weapons you would block both these routes: no enrichment and no plutonium production.
That is what my friends at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), led by Eric Edelman and Dennis Ross, prefer in their Assessment of the Interim Deal with Iran. They don’t like the Joint Plan of Action because it exchanges a limited freeze and small rollback on nuclear facilities for a limited freeze and small rollback of sanctions. Their detailed critique is well worth reading. They fear, echoing the Israelis, that there will be no comprehensive agreement and that the Obama administration will settle for extending the interim deal indefinitely, leaving Iran with a substantial nuclear capability even if no nuclear weapons. They want a big rollback of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities in Iran, with stringent limits imposed ad infinitum. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Cory Remsburg metaphor
The President’s State of the Union speech last night broke little new ground on foreign policy. He is pleased to be finishing two wars and will resist getting the United States involved in other open-ended conflicts. He may leave a few troops in Afghanistan to train Afghans and attack terrorists. Al Qaeda central is largely defeated but its franchises are spreading in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Mali. He will limit the use of drones, reform surveillance policies and get us off a permanent war footing. He wants to close Guantanamo, as always, and fix immigration, as always.
He will use diplomacy, especially in trying to block Iran verifiably from obtaining a nuclear weapons and in resolving the Israel/Palestine conflict, but also in destroying Syria’s chemical weapons capability. He will support the moderate Syrian opposition. He will veto new Iran sanctions in order to give diplomacy a chance to work, maintain the alliance with Europe, support democracy in Ukraine, development in Africa, and trade and investment across the Pacific. America is exceptional both because of what it does and because of its ideals.
The President didn’t mention Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia or Japan. He skipped North Korea too. His mother must have taught him that when you don’t have anything nice to say you shouldn’t say anything at all. Those countries might merit mention, but all have in one way or another been doing things that we prefer they not do. He mentioned China, but only as an economic rival, not a military one. He skipped the pivot to Asia as well as Latin America. For my Balkans readers: you are not even on his screen. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, January 20-24
It’s a shortened week in DC, as Monday is Martin Luther King Day. But still lots of good events from Tuesday on:
1. What Will 2014 bring for North Korea’s Nuclear Program?
Tuesday, January 21 | 9am – 12pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
2013 witnessed new levels of threatening behavior from North Korea: a satellite launch that could portend an improved long-range ballistic missile capability; a third nuclear test; and declarations that the Korean peninsula would witness “an all-out war, a nuclear war.” Recent perturbations among the North Korean leadership also raise the possibility of greater instability and unpredictability. What will 2014 bring in terms of North Korean nuclear behavior?
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Asan Institute for Policy Studies invite you to a discussion on what to expect from North Korea on nuclear matters in 2014. Five experts will discuss the status of North Korea’s nuclear activities, what negotiating tactics North Korea might attempt, and whether there are lessons to be drawn in managing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions from the Iranian and South Asian experiences.
SPEAKERS
Toby Dalton is the deputy director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on cooperative nuclear security initiatives and nuclear challenges in South Asia and East Asia.
Choi Kang is a senior research fellow and the vice president for research at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. He was previously the dean of Planning and Assessment at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy.
Joel Wit is a visiting scholar at the US-Korea Institute at SAIS and a senior research fellow at Columbia University Weatherhead Institute for East Asian Studies.
Park Jiyoung is a research fellow and director of the Science and Technology Policy Center at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. Park was previously managing director of the Research and Development Feasibility Analysis Center at the Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning.
Shin Chang-Hoon is a research fellow and the director of the International Law and Conflict Resolution Department at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. He is also the director of the Asan Nuclear Policy and Technology Center.
James L. Schoff is a senior associate in the Carnegie Asia Program. His research focuses on U.S.-Japanese relations and regional engagement, Japanese politics and security, and the private sector’s role in Japanese policymaking.
Go Myong-Hyun is a research fellow and the director of the Center for Risk, Information, and Social Policy at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. Go’s research focuses on social networks, complex social interactions over space, and geospatial modeling of disease.
2. Peace for Israel and Palestine? Public Opinion 20 Years after Oslo
Wednesday, January 22 | 9:30 – 11am
New America Foundation, 1899 L St NW, Suite 400
As Secretary of State John Kerry’s April deadline for a peace agreement approaches, a key concern is whether the Israeli and Palestinian publics are ready to support an agreement. Where do Israelis and Palestinians stand on key issues, and what kind of peace agreement do they want?
Twenty years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, Zogby Research Services examined these questions in its latest public opinion poll on Israeli and Palestinian attitudes toward the peace process. Please join the Arab American Institute and the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force for the survey’s public release and a discussion of its findings. The poll, conducted for the Sir Bani Yas Forum in the UAE, provides critical insights for today’s peace negotiators as they seek a viable agreement that both the Israeli and Palestinian publics can support.
In collaboration with the Arab American Institute.
PARTICIPANTS
Presenter:
James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute and Zogby Research Services
Panelists:
Khaled Elgindy, Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Lara Friedman, Director, Policy and Government Relations, Americans for Peace Now
Moderator:
Leila Hilal, Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation
If you are unable to join us in person, please tune in to our live webcast of the event.
3. The Role of Entrepreneurship in Building a Better Egypt
Wednesday, January 22 | 12 – 1:45pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
In Egypt, innovative enterprise development has taken off in the wake of the 2011 protests with thousands of youth turning to entrepreneurship as a means of creating economic opportunity as well as addressing social challenges.
The Middle East Institute is proud to host a discussion about Egypt’s burgeoning start-up sector with entrepreneurs Yumna Madi (KarmSolar), Mona Mowafi (Rise Egypt), and Dina Sherif (Ahead of the Curve, Silatech), who will discuss their companies’ innovative ideas, the opportunities and challenges they face as entrepreneurs, and their hopes to see greater development and job creation in Egypt through the support of more innovators and start-ups. James A. Harmon,chairman of the Egyptian-American Enterprise Fund, will discuss U.S. and international support for emerging business initiatives in the country. Christopher M. Schroeder, author of Startup Rising: The Entrepreneurial Revolution Remaking the Middle East, will lead the discussion.
* A light lunch will be served at this event
4. Pakistan Media: Democratic Inclusion, Accountability and Peaceful Contestation
Thursday, January 23 | 2:15 – 4pm
US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave NW
The challenges and opportunities facing Pakistan’s media in many ways reflect the challenges and opportunities facing the country’s democracy. After a decade of transformation, Pakistan’s media have become an increasingly coherent platform for raising popular concerns and needs. Yet, considerable constraints remain. Decades of state manipulation undermined the development of robust media organizations. Legal protections are weak, security threats are many and the industry is not financially sound. Consequently the media remains vulnerable to exploitation by state and non-state actors as they compete for power.
This event will also feature a new policy briefing from BBC Media Action, a case study from USIP’s research into political violence reporting, and analysis from Pamela Constable, author and longtime reporter on Pakistan.
5. Perspectives on Colombia’s Peace Process and Opportunities for U.S. Engagement
Thursday, January 23 | 9am – 5pm
The Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University City View Room, 1957 E Street NW, 7th Floor
Colombia appears to be nearing an end to its bitter internal armed conflict. After 50 years, a death toll approaching a quarter million and the forced displacement of over five million, Colombia has its best chance in decades of securing peace. Peace talks between the government and the country’s largest guerilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC), are in their second year. The parties have reached tentative agreements on the first two agenda points – land and political participation – and are now discussing a solution to the issue of illicit drugs. As the talks continue in Havana, Cuba, the potential for a positive US role in designing both policies and aid packages that support peace is becoming increasingly evident. In this three-panel event, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) will convene leading human rights defenders, security analysts, and policymakers from the United States and Colombia to discuss the status of the talks and opportunities for US engagement.
The event will be held in English and Spanish, and simultaneous interpretation will be provided. A light lunch will also be provided. For more information, please contact Adam Schaffer at (202) 797 2171.
The event will be available via live stream at www.wola.org. To RSVP for the live stream, please click here. A video of the event will be available shortly after.
6. Rethinking Islamist Politics: A Panel Discussion
Thursday, January 23 | 12 – 2pm
Elliott School of International Affairs, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602; 1957 E Street NW
Join the Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS) to analyze the state of Islamist politics in the Middle East. The panel will examine the current directions of the Muslim Brotherhood and electoral politics, Salafism, and jihadist movements, as well as trends in the broader Islamic context.
SPEAKERS
Panelists:
François Burgat, Researcher, Institut de Recherches et d’Etudes sur le Monde Arabe et Musulman
Thomas Hegghammer, Research Fellow and Director of Terrorism Research, Norwegian Defense Research Establishment
Bruce Lawrence, Professor of Religion, Duke University
Tarek Masoud, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Moderated by:
Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs and Director of the Institute for Middle East Studies, GW
A light lunch will be provided.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pakistan’s strategic threats and responses
Thursday morning at the Carnegie Center, two scholars discussed Pakistan’s security and nuclear weapons development. Mansoor Ahmed is a lecturer and Muhammad Tehsin is a tenure-track assistant professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad. Toby Dalton, deputy director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, moderated.
Muhammad Tehsin: Pakistan has an internal security problem. At the same time, the government is in a grip of confusion and demonstrating a lack of resolve. Pakistan is becoming a weak state. Government response has been ritualistic, rhetorical, and conventional. In this situation we are compelled to turn our attention to Pakistani strategic culture. Can it remain oblivious to the grave internal security problem? Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, January 13-17
A bit late, but as good as ever:
1. Battlefield Earth: Reassessing U.S. Responses to Terrorist Threats
Monday, January 13 | 12:15 – 1:45pm
New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW Suite 400
In 2001, the U.S. Congress authorized the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” This Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) set no limits on time, location, or target.
In just the last 12 months, the AUMF was invoked in support of the war in Afghanistan, but also unconventional operations in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and possibly elsewhere — operations such as targeted killings using drones, raids and captures by U.S. Special Forces, and, in all probability, cyber warfare.
As Heather Hurlburt writes in “Battlefield Earth” in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas’ Winter 2014 issue, out this month: “public debate over the use of force in Syria and the revelations concerning National Security Agency surveillance suggest that Americans are increasingly uncomfortable with actions being undertaken in their name. President Obama appeared to acknowledge this reality in May [2013] when he said he looked forward ‘to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.’”
With combat in Afghanistan winding down at the end of the year, does the AUMF continue to authorize force against any terror suspect linked to al-Qaeda, anywhere? Will Congress or the Administration move to “refine” or “repeal” it, and if so, how?
Join the New America Foundation’s National Security Program and Democracy for a panel discussion assessing the politics, legal alternatives, and policy implications of a 13-year-old piece of legislation that makes the planet an open-ended battlefield.
RSS - Posts
