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.

While Washington and the media were preoccupied with James Comey hearings and Donald Trump press conferences this week, what else was going on that we didn't hear about? Or, ought to be paying closer attention to? The World's Marco Werman talked to Nick Burns to find out. 

"...[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..."

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.

"The Camp David summit last week among the United States and the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states ended with a fluffy communiqué whose mutual courtesies revealed no significant changes in either side’s positions. The troubling and ironic aspect of this event is that both sides were fixated on new security and military measures to address insecurities in the region — many of which exacerbated and some created by their own military policies and distorted threat perceptions. "

In this article, Professor Burns reflects on the last decade of American attempts to negotiate with Iran. What neither party really wants to admit is that both of them were critical in getting the U.S. to this point. Democrats don't give President George W. Bush enough credit for having made the decision a decade ago to seek talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. And, Republicans can't bring themselves to acknowledge that President Barack Obama strengthened Bush's sanctions in a very effective way to induce Iran to negotiate.

While the two parties joust over Iran, it is in the interest of both to find a way to coalesce as the U.S. will be negotiating with Iran on a deal and its implementation for well beyond the next decade.  As Congress inserts itself into the negotiations this week, it would be wise to do so in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, the President's hand in the tough talks ahead with Iran.

Finally, Professor Burns notes that is is worth remembering how far we have come to reach a possible final agreement with Iran. After nearly thirty five years of bitter separation from Iran, it is smart and useful for Americans to be at the negotiating table with Iranians trying to work out our many differences rather than see them play out on a distant battlefield.

"The agreed parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program that were reached Thursday between Iran and the P5+1 powers represent a monumental achievement that affirms the power of reason and diplomacy over the ravages of fear and warfare."

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.

"When historians look back on the Middle East decades from now, they might find that trends in this region after 2015 were determined by the outcome of four seminal issues and battles that are in play this month."