Nuclear Issues

Nicholas Burns, former State Department undersecretary, on the tensions between President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Trump's handling of U.S. foreign policy.

With the successful implementation of the historic nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1, a new chapter has opened between Iran and the international community, including the United States. Nevertheless, the future path of bilateral relations between the United States and Iran is uncertain and many challenges exist as the two countries attempt to formulate new terms of engagement. What should U.S. policy be towards Iran after the nuclear agreement? Can the agree­ment open the door to effective collaboration on areas of mutual interest, especially given the rising security challenges and rapidly changing dynamics of the Middle East? Or, will strategic rivalries between Iran and the United States con­tinue to shape and impede cooperation?

An interview with Karim Sadjadpour, Senior Associate of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on the Iran-Saudi rift.

In this January 19 New Atlanticist blog post, Atlantic Council staff writer, by Ashish Kumar Sen, interviews Harvard Kennedy School professor and former US diplomat, R. Nicholas Burns. Burns says that Iran nuclear agreement is positive for the United States, but Iran will continue to be a problem in a violent Middle East.

An audio recording of a public talk by Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, Washington, DC.

"...[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."

"Perhaps so much death and destruction take place around the Arab world, at the hands of Arabs, Israelis, Americans and others, because no serious process exists that holds individuals or governments accountable for the atrocities they commit. The International Criminal Court’s indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir for war crimes a few years ago has never been followed up by a serious effort to bring him to court for a fair trial..."

Professor Nicholas Burns, a former point man on Iranian nuclear matters, talks with The Wall Street Journal's Washington Bureau Chief, Gerald Seib, about why he advocates effort to contain Tehran’s regional ambitions.

On June 23 and 24, twenty five experts met at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government under the auspices of the Geopolitics of Energy Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The group, which included experts from academia, the financial sector, government, and the energy industry, spent an evening and the following full day discussing and debating the possible energy implications of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran.

In this July 15, 2015 Financial Times op-ed, Nicholas Burns reacts to the Iran nuclear deal announced yesterday in Vienna.

In it, he outlines his support for what he believes is a sensible agreement and is the best alternative available to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

But, he recognizes the drawbacks, including important questions about the strength of inspections and our ability to re-impose sanctions on Iran should that become necessary. He also warns that the U.S. will have to launch a long term containment effort against Iran given its assertive push for power in the heart of the Sunni world. 

Still, Burns believes, freezing Iran's nuclear program for the next decade is a better path for us than if we had walked away.  In that case, the sanctions regime would have likely frayed and the P-5 coalition against Iran would have weakened.  All of the current restrictions on Iran's nuclear program would also have been lifted.  Obama's deal is stronger than the "No Deal" scenario championed by many of his critics.