Nuclear Issues

Stephen Walt writes that Donald Trump's goal in withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA is to prevent Iran from establishing normal relations with the rest of the world.

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.

"The breathtaking intensity and variety of speculation on the future of the Middle East that were sparked by the signing of the nuclear technology/sanctions agreement this week between Iran and the P5+1 powers has revolved around a few key issues. Is Iran a threat to the Arab world because of its “hegemonic” aims, as some Arab states believe? Will its increased power and influence in the wake of this accord be used to “destabilize” the region? Will the United States slowly make Iran a major regional ally and recalibrate somewhat its relations with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and Egypt? Will the devious Iranians cheat during the years of the accord, and then sprint to build a nuclear bomb in its wake?"

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.

"The consummation of a full, multi-decade agreement between Iran and the P5+1 powers, based on last week’s agreed parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program, is likely to have monumental consequences — mostly for the better — across the entire Middle East. I base this expectation on one important historical analogy, and on several possible — I believe, likely — developments related to domestic, Gulf-wide, Mideast regional and international dynamics."

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.

"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."