Nuclear Issues

"...[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..."

"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. "

"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."

"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."

"The controversy over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the U.S. Congress next week has generated intense reactions from Israelis and Americans of all political shades. Its long-term impact is unknown, but its significance to date is that it has provided us with a rare opportunity to see what happens when American congressmen and women are caught uncomfortably between two very powerful forces in their lives: standing with the American president, or standing with the leader of Israel regardless of what that leader does, including directly challenging the American president."

"The positive possibilities that could emanate from the escalating signs of a direct Iranian-American engagement are dazzling in their intensity and historic in their scope. Rarely in modern history has the Middle East region experienced such a hopeful moment as this, when one major diplomatic shift towards productive American-Iranian relations could positively impact half a dozen conflicts in the region."

With a speed few predicted, Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, has signaled his interest in negotiations this autumn on Iran’s controversial nuclear program," writes Nicholas Burns. "This could produce the first extensive contact between Washington and Tehran since diplomatic relations ruptured during the Jimmy Carter administration."

"It is useful in today’s very turbulent Middle East to separate what can be changed quickly from issues that require a longer time frame -- and to grasp the real relationship between them. So, for example, are terrorism, or Islamic, Jewish or Christian religious fanaticism, causes of insecure states, or consequences of them? Structural issues like terrorism, gender parity, and environmental, economic and demographic stress require many decades to improve. Political conflicts can be resolved more quickly, if political leadership capabilities are available."

The debate about how to handle the Iranian nuclear program has resurfaced since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent comments on CBS's "Face the Nation." Professor Burns looks at it from both sides and reiterates his warning that marching to war--right now--is not the right approach.