Nuclear Issues

Staffing gaps and significant personnel changes at the State Department have raised concerns about the direction of U.S. foreign policy, especially amid public statements by President Donald Trump concerning American alliances and positions on issues around the world. Ambassador Cameron Munter invites Ambassador Nicholas Burns to share his insights and ideas, including on timely topics such as the U.S.-Russia relationship following the re-election of Vladimir Putin, Transatlantic relations and changing perceptions about the future role of NATO, and a possible meeting between President Trump and his North Korean counterpart on nuclear nonproliferation and security.

Ambassador Burns was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President George W. Bush. Prior to that assignment, he was also U.S. Ambassador to NATO. Currently, Burns is the Goodman Family Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and also director of The Future of Diplomacy Project.

Air Vice Marshall (Ret.) of the Indian Air Force and Fellow at Harvard's Asia Institute, Dr. Arjun Subramaniam spoke at the Future of Diplomacy Project with its Faculty Director, Nicholas Burns about the intricacies of the India-China relationship.

Nick Burns tells CNBC that Trump should stick with sanctions and avoid military conflict with North Korea. "Right now there are no good military options beyond defense," he says. Burns also says the Trump administration could begin to impose secondary sanctions.

Professor Burns joins "CBS This Morning" to discuss the new U.N. economic sanctions against North Korea and China's role in the process.

"...[K]eeping Iran at arm's length (or worse) reduces U.S. diplomatic leverage and flexibility. As long as U.S. Middle East policy remains fixated on its 'special relationships' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Egypt, these states will continue to take U.S. support for granted and ignore U.S. preferences more often than we'd like. But if the United States had decent working relations with every state in the region — including Iran — it could work constructively with any or all of them."

"Now that President Barack Obama has secured more than enough votes in the U.S. Senate to assure the implementation of the agreement with Iran on nuclear issues and sanctions, we can focus on the lessons learned from the process’ intense political dynamics. Three in particular stand out: U.S.-Israeli, U.S.-Saudi Arabian/Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and GCC-Iranian relations. U.S.-Israeli bilateral ties get the most attention these days, but all three are equally important, and turbulent in their own ways."

In this op-ed, Professor Burns outlines his support for the Obama Administration’s framework agreement with Iran as a sensible step forward towards a final deal on June 30^th.  President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have had their faith in diplomacy justified by their progress in containing Iran’s ability to become a nuclear weapons state. But, they will need to set a high bar for the final agreement, particularly in ensuring that verification procedures are air tight. And, Professor Burns reminds, we Americans should remember that Iran needs a deal more than we do.

Burns goes on to suggest that Obama must now pivot quickly to exercise strong Presidential leadership with four key groups to gain the necessary domestic and international support to implement an agreement.  He must: 1) Win the battle ahead on Capitol Hill; 2) Make up with Bibi; 3) Circle the Wagons with our key Sunni Arab partners Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States; and 4) Keep together the coalition that sanctioned and negotiated with Iran (U.S., UK, France, Germany, China, Russia) in order to hold Tehran’s feet to the fire on an agreement.

"...[A]nyone who questions the special relationship or the role the lobby plays in preserving it is still likely to be accused of anti-Semitism (if a gentile) or self-hatred (if Jewish). The special relationship has rested to some degree on intimidation, and as noted most people don't like being bullied. The question, therefore, is whether this flap will turn out to be an isolated incident or whether more people will begin to say what they really think."

"This week’s extension in the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 is a welcomed jolt of composure and realism in a process that for years has been characterized by wild allegations, emotional retorts and intemperate actions. The decision to extend talks and keep negotiating to achieve a final agreement by next summer seems to cement the decision to deal with the accusations of Iran’s alleged desire to obtain a nuclear bomb as a technical issue that has a technical solution, rather than a continuation of the tendency of the United States and Israel, primarily, to treat Iran as a hapless colonial subject."

We should be cheering the fact that the American and Iranian foreign ministers are now trading accusations in public about who is to blame for the lack of a full agreement in last week’s Geneva negotiations on the issues of Iran’s nuclear industry and the UN and American sanctions on Iran. It is so much healthier to have the foreign ministers exchanging ideas of how to reach a negotiated agreement than to have them threaten each other with more sanctions and faster development of nuclear capabilities.