Science, Technology, and Public Policy

The Winter 2010/11 issue of the Belfer Center newsletter features recent and upcoming activities, research, and analysis by members of the Center community on critical global issues. This issue highlights a major Belfer Center conference on technology and governance, the Center's involvement in the nuclear threat documentary Countdown to Zero, and a celebration of Belfer Center founder Paul Doty.

"Following the parliamentary elections of Iraq in March 2010 and the long-time deadlock which had stalled formation of the coalition government for nearly 8 months and the West's disappointing efforts to talk with the Taliban, it is now crystal-clear that the United States cannot tackle these crises single-handedly and needs Iran's cooperation as the main regional actor in settling the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan, either during the presence and even after the withdrawal of American troops from both countries. The importance of this issue becomes manifest as one realizes that curbing terrorist activities in this region is directly connected to the establishment of security and stability in the region after the withdrawal of foreign troops. In such circumstances, Iran's role for the establishment and preservation of stability becomes crucial."

"Despite the increased controversy regarding the causes of 9/11, President Ahmadinejad's active presence in New York was another step toward a greater proximity between the conflicting visions currently dividing Iran and the United States. This may leave its mark on the forthcoming nuclear negotiations. Instead of over-emphasizing on general and international issues, Iran should focus on an accommodating role to solve regional issues which have international dimensions."

"Yet, direct strategic talks do not necessarily mean renewed friendship between Tehran and Washington; rather they imply the persuasion of each side to acknowledge the other's role and to reach a compromise on the issue of cohabitation in a region where both have vital national and security interests. Both sides would conclude that continuing in a permanent condition of mutual hostility can only inflict greater damage to their national interests. This would entail an exit from the current state of confrontation to interaction or constructive rivalry, in order to maintain their regional interests. For instance, direct talks between the United States and communist China in 1972 did not result in a friendship."

"...[S]ince sanctions and economic constraints will directly impact ordinary Iranians, they will intensify the current sense of distrust towards the West and especially the United States in all political trends and people, subsequently resulting in national mobilization and unity, thereby strengthening the hand of the Iranian government to resist the sanctions. This is the complete opposite of the result desired by the West."

"...[T]he United States has spent several tens of billions of dollars on missile defense research-and yet China, Iran, North Korea and possibly others have continued to pursue increasingly effective long-range ballistic capabilities. If missile defenses are a deterrent, why do US competitors-to say nothing of outright enemies-seem undeterred?"

How can large states deter small nuclear powers—and how should they respond if successfully attacked by a smaller aggressor with WMD, especially nuclear weapons? This paper considers conventional alternatives to in-kind nuclear retaliation, which may be impossible in the modern era.

"A powerful Iranian government with a national security agenda would be able to initiate direct talks with the United States, resulting in workable and tangible solutions. As is the case in the United States, the issue of direct talks is heavily influenced by domestic politics in Iran. Only a national security issue such as the nuclear program with the negotiation of a grand bargain would have the impetus and public support for initiation of a bilateral strategic dialogue. Creating political consensus among the elites is key to any possible future opening up or progress on the nuclear and various other geo-strategically pertinent fronts."

"Concern over nuclear proliferation is likely to increase in the coming years. Many observers believe that the spread of nuclear weapons to one or two more states will trigger a wave of new nuclear states. More states may turn to nuclear power to meet their energy needs as other sources of energy become more costly or undesirable because they emit carbon that contributes to global climate change. As more nuclear reactors are built, the world's stock of nuclear expertise and fissionable materials is likely to grow."

"No country has yet encountered major problems in its nuclear fuel supply specifically because of commercial disruptions. However, past political constraints on supply may be part of the motivation for countries like Iran to seek enrichment capability. Thus far it is unclear what other countries might be on the fence about acquiring a full fuel cycle and could be swayed not to enrich if an effective assurance mechanism could address the simply political risk. It is important for IAEA to identify these countries and the assurances they would need so that the best supply assurance mechanism can be crafted. Anticipating nuclear needs—not just for enriched uranium but also for fabricated fuel, transport, spare parts, etc.—and deciding whether and how government should help satisfy such needs is the best way to ensure that the industry develops in ways that serve the public's interests."