Tag: Nuclear weapons
Inside Iran
Two experienced Iran hands debriefed recent trips there Thursday: David Ignatius of the Washington Post and Robin Wright, a joint fellow at the US Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson International Center. USIP’s Bill Taylor moderated.
Iran is entering a new era spearheaded by realists, Robin Wright pointed out. They are not out to transform Iran, but are willing to work within the system to initiate reforms. The tenor has changed, with realistic goals being set. Iran is also recalibrating its strategy, responding to events in the region like the rise of Al Qaeda franchises and the withdrawal of US from Iraq. Iran sees itself surrounded by Salafis and Sunnis. The US is no longer the enemy it once was. Followers of events in Iran too often forget about other factors, aside from US sanctions, that affect Iran’s decision-making. Rouhani is arguably more popular today than the day he was elected. In addition, he has hired savvy technocrats to solve the economic problems facing the country.
Observing that there is an appearance of political debate going on within Iran, David Ignatius said the US sanctions are often called “crippling.” Yet when one travels to Iran, it does not look like a country on its knees. Iranians are resourceful people. More than damage the current Iranian economy, US sanctions have crippled Iran’s future. This is an enormous opportunity cost that will prevent Iran from becoming a successful state until the sanctions are lifted. It will be very difficult to close a deal with Iran, but the best strategic move now would be to give Iran a taste of what the future might look like if there is a permanent nuclear agreement.
Wright agreed Iran seems to be thriving and is not crippled. It is important to be wary of assumptions about the effects of the US sanctions are on Iran. Wright described her visit to the former US embassy and how she met with one of the masterminds behind the 1979 takeover. He expressed support for reopening the embassy and a nuclear deal between the US and Iran. Realists would then be allowed to run for office more frequently and women’s rights would increase. Without gaining credibility by forging a successful deal with the US first, however, Rouhani will be unable to address other problems in Iran. There is a real sense of public support for nuclear deal.
Ignatius believes Iranian society is waiting to jump into the future and onto the world stage. He interpreted Kissinger’s famous quote “Is Iran a nation or a cause?” as meaning “Has Iran moved on from its revolution?” It seems not, at least for top-level officials. Iran is still carrying out destabilizing activities in the region. Wright concurred. Iran is one of the most nationalistic countries in the world. Iranians will continue to do whatever it takes to protect and further their national interests. However, there is a sense that Syria may not hold together while Assad is in power. Off the record, an Iranian official told her that Iran would be willing to chop off the head (Assad) in order to preserve the body (the Syrian Baath party) Iranian concern about Al Qaeda gains in Syria is real.
Ignatius believes that it is in the US interest to demonstrate how Iran could be a big player in the region if it curbs its nuclear program as well as its covert action in neighboring countries. Iran is adept at riding several horses at once. It can juggle relations with the US, Hezbollah, and Syria at the same time, demonstrating political mastery. The US would be wise to learn the same trick.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How to stay out of trouble
It would be easy to be pessimistic about 2014. But as Adam Gopnik cleverly illustrates it is really impossible to know whether we are on the Titanic, destined for disaster, or its twin the Olympic, which plied the seas for two more decades without faltering.
The question is what will keep America out of trouble? How do we avoid the icebergs of contemporary international relations? Gopnik suggests avoiding challenges to honor and face and worrying little about credibility or position. This seems to me wise. The question of reputation in international affairs is fraught, but anyone of the Vietnam generation will want to be skeptical about claims the United States needs to intervene in the world to prevent its reputation from being sullied or to prove its primacy.
Hubris is the bigger danger. I, along with many others, don’t like the Obama Administration’s aloof stance towards Syria. But the least good reason for intervention there is to meet the Russian challenge, reassert primacy in the Arab world or prevent others from thinking America weak. We are not weak. We are strong, arguably far stronger than we would have been had we intervened in Syria a year ago and gotten stuck with enhanced responsibilities there. The reasons for intervention in Syria are more substantial: the threat of a terror-exporting Sunni extremist regime either in Damascus or in some portion of a partitioned Syria as well as the risk to neighboring states (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Israel) from Syrian collapse. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The 2013 vintage in the peace vineyard
2013 has been a so-so vintage in the peace vineyard.
The Balkans saw improved relations between Serbia and Kosovo, progress by both towards the European Union and Croatian membership. Albania managed a peaceful alternation in power. But Bosnia and Macedonia remain enmired in long-running constitutional and nominal difficulties, respectively. Slovenia, already a NATO and EU member, ran into financial problems, as did Cyprus. Turkey‘s long-serving and still politically dominant prime minister managed to get himself into trouble over a shopping center and corruption.
The former Soviet space has likewise seen contradictory developments: Moldova‘s courageous push towards the EU, Ukraine‘s ongoing, nonviolent rebellion against tighter ties to Russia, and terrorist challenges to the Sochi Winter Olympics. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end is nigh, once again
2013 is ending with a lot of doom and gloom:
- South Sudan, the world’s newest state, is suffering bloodletting between political rivals, who coincide with its two largest tribes (Dinka and Nuer).
- The Central African Republic is imploding in an orgy of Christian/Muslim violence.
- North Korea is risking internal strife as its latest Kim exerts his authority by purging and executing his formally powerful uncle.
- China is challenging Japan and South Korea in the the East China Sea.
- Syria is in chaos, spelling catastrophe for most of its population and serious strains for all its neighbors.
- Nuclear negotiations with Iran seem slow, if not stalled.
- Egypt‘s military is repressing not only the Muslim Brotherhood but also secular human rights advocates.
- Israel and Palestine still seem far from agreement on the two-state solution most agree is their best bet.
- Afghanistan‘s President Karzai is refusing to sign the long-sought security agreement with the United States, putting at risk continued presence of US troops even as the Taliban seem to be strengthening in the countryside, and capital and people are fleeing Kabul.
- Al Qaeda is recovering as a franchised operation (especially in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and North Africa), even as its headquarters in Pakistan has been devastated.
- Ukraine is turning eastward, despite the thousands of brave protesters in Kiev’s streets.
The Economist topped off the gloom this week by suggesting that the current international situation resembles the one that preceded World War I: a declining world power (then Great Britain, now the US) unable to ensure global security and a rising challenger (then Germany now China). Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The world according to CFR
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) survey of prevention priorities for 2014 is out today. Crowdsourced, it is pretty much the definition of elite conventional wisdom. Pundits of all stripes contribute.
The top tier includes contingencies with high impact and moderate likelihood (intensification of the Syrian civil war, a cyberattack on critical US infrastructure, attacks on the Iranian nuclear program or evidence of nuclear weapons intent, a mass casualty terrorist attack on the US or an ally, or a severe North Korean crisis) as well as those with moderate impact and high likelihood (in a word “instability” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq or Jordan). None merited the designation high impact and high likelihood, though many of us might have suggested Syria, Iraq and Pakistan for that category. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, December 16-20
DC is beginning to slow down as the holiday season is fast approaching, but there are still some great events this week. We won’t likely publish another edition until January 5, as the year-end doldrums will likely last until then:
1. The Middle Kingdom Looks East, West, North, and South: China’s Strategies on its Periphery
Monday, December 16 | 9:00am – 10:30am
Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Fifth Floor
China’s recent declaration of an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea and its territorial claims over 80% of the South China Sea are focusing renewed American attention on Chinese strategy. To understand China’s policies, deployments, and ambitions in the Western Pacific, we must analyze China’s attitudes toward all of its 14 border States and Pacific neighbors, and toward its near and more distant seas.
The Kissinger Institute’s 2013 series of public programs will conclude with a talk by renowned author Edward Luttwak, who will lead a discussion of China’s strategy throughout its periphery, with an emphasis on the Diaoyu/Senkakus and other regional disputes.
RSS - Posts
