Tag: Nuclear weapons
The Supreme Leader leads supremely
The bleak outlook for the June 14 Iranian elections was discussed yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Panelists Ali Vaez, Barbara Slavin and Meir Javendafar weighed in on the likely front runners. A second discussion at Brookings was not for attribution.
The bottom line is clear. The Guardian Council has exercised its authority to eliminate the more interesting candidates and limit competition. There is little likelihood of fundamental change. The disputed the 2009 presidential election has made the Supreme Leader extra cautious. He thinks it is better to prevent dissent by controlling the selection of candidates, rather than deal with an angry population after the votes have been counted. Nothing will be left to chance.
The election will exclude President Ahmedinejad and his friends from positions of power and strengthen the position of Supreme Leader Khamenei. But Ahmedinejad may remain influential after the election by using his knowledge of corruption and electoral fraud to challenge the establishment.
All remaining eight candidates make up in loyalty to the Supreme Leader what they lack in charisma. Possible front runners include:
- Saeed Jalili, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, is uncontroversial and willing to work with other political factions. His election would help the Supreme Leader, to whom he is notably loyal, to marginalize the presidency.
- Hassan Rowhani, another former nuclear negotiator, and Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the current mayor of Tehran, are popular, centrist candidates, but both likely more independent than the Supreme Leader wants.
Six of the eight candidates were appointed by the Supreme Leader at some point in their careers. Khamanei wants a president who will stay loyal to him and to his vision as he gets older and weaker.
The Iranian leadership plans to keep the election lackluster in an attempt to prevent the growing undercurrent of dissent from spilling over. Candidates will not even be participating in televised debates. Voter turnout is expected to be historically low, though the state media may report record high turnout. Slavin quipped about the 2009 elections:
80% of the population sat a home and watched the news report that 70% of the population had turned out to vote.
From the US perspective, election of Rowhani might seem the best outcome, as he is the closest thing left in the race to someone interested in reform. But he would also likely be the one most at odds with the Supreme Leader. On the nuclear issue in particular, any division in the Iranian regime, as occurred under Ahmedinejad, could cause paralysis rather than generate progress.
The odds of success in the nuclear negotiation are in any case slim. The Iranians see the US as having taken its best shot with sanctions whose impact has been absorbed and is now declining. With time, they figure the sanctions will fray. The aging and ossified Khamenei is extraordinarily suspicious and cautious. For him to decide in his dotage that what Iran really needs is an agreement with the United States to limit Iran’s nuclear program would be out of character.
Revival of the Green opposition, defeat in Syria or a sharp drop in oil prices are all possible “black swans” that could dramatically affect the situation, before or after the election. But all seem unlikely this year.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ten things the president should be doing
Herewith my short list of ten international issues more worthy of presidential attention than the issues that are getting it this week:
- Drones: Apparently the President is preparing to address how and why he uses them soon.
- Syria: Secretary of State Kerry and the Russians are ginning up a peace conference next month, while Moscow strengthens Syrian defenses against Western intervention.
- Iraq: The Syrian war is spilling over and posing serious challenges to the country’s political cohesion.
- Egypt: President Morsi is taking the Arab world’s most populous country in economically and politically ruinous directions.
- Israel/Palestine: With the peace process moribund, the window is closing on the opportunity to reach a two-state outcome.
- Libya: The failure to establish the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force leaves open the possibility of further attacks on Americans (and on the Libyan state).
- Afghanistan: The American withdrawal is on schedule, but big questions remain about what will be left behind.
- Pakistan: Nawaz Sharif’s hat trick provides an opportunity for improved relations, if managed well.
- Iran: once its presidential election is over (first round is June 14, runoff if needed June 21), a last diplomatic effort on its nuclear ambitions will begin.
- All that Asia stuff: North Korean nukes, maritime jostling with China, Trans-Pacific Partnership, transition in Myanmar (how about trying for one in Vietnam?), Japan’s economic and military revival…
In the good old days, presidents in domestic trouble headed out on international trips. Obama doesn’t seem inclined in that direction. He really does want to limit America’s commitments abroad and restore its economy at home. Bless him. But if things get much worse, I’ll bet on a road trip.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Fool me twice, shame on me
The discussion Monday at the Wilson Center of “The Media and Iran’s Nuclear Program: An Analysis of US and UK Coverage, 2009-12” began with the familiar litany of complaints about the media’s pre-Iraq war coverage: lack of critical analysis, an over reliance on White House sources, lack of precise wording and a narrow pre-war context. Are we falling into the same trap with Iran?
The panel discussed a new report from the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. Co-author Jonas Siegel laid out the reports major findings:
- The media’s coverage of the Iranian nuclear program lacks context and diversity of sources.
Newspapers relied heavily on government officials. A narrow range of sources leads to a narrow set of policy options. Alternative approaches to conflict resolution are often overlooked. The media ignore the wider context of the crisis and rarely discusses Iran’s domestic politics or security needs. Panelist John Steinbruner of the University of Maryland agreed that the media ignores the obvious diplomatic solution of allowing Iran to enrich uranium under international supervision. Iran has good reason to feel threatened, he added, and exercise of military options would further solidify Iran’s resolve in pursuing a nuclear program. - The media use imprecise language and hawkish rhetoric. The most common terms used on average in press coverage of Iran are “nuclear program” and “nuclear weapon.” This usage affects the reader’s assumptions and essentially jumps to the conclusion that Iran wants or already has a nuclear weapon.
- The media increasingly use commentary as the story, instead of in-depth journalism. The majority of coverage on Iran consisted of “he said, she said” stories about policy makers. News articles increasingly covered the nuclear debate instead of the nuclear issues, emphasizing stories about US or Israeli reactions to Iran and the implementation of sanctions.
- The media place the burden of resolution in Iran. “Iran needs to accept…” was a staple line in news articles. The media rarely discusses compromise from the American side and most often uses “negotiations” as code for Iranian concessions to US demands. Policy makers rely on news coverage for information on foreign affairs. Questions of Iran’s motives, intentions and capabilities should be at the center of the media’s coverage, but they are worryingly absent.
Panelist Walter Pincus of the Washington Post was critical of the report. He thought the authors had shown their own bias toward the issues while also giving their prescription for how the press should act. Every newspaper need not provide deep coverage of an issue. The press should represent one side of a discussion and leave it to the citizen to reach an informed conclusion. Commentary from the audience reflected Pincus’ point: “How can the media be held to such a high standard when dealing with an issue like Iran that no one can get to the truth of?”
Steinbruner concluded with a general point. This report is an indication that our discussion of Iran’s nuclear program is defective and prone to political mis-coverage. Sensationalist and selective reporting has far reaching and damaging repercussions. He ended saying, “that’s not really who we are, and in this situation, that’s not how we want to be.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 29-May 3
Too many good events in DC this week:
1. The Media & Iran’s Nuclear Program: An analysis of US and UK coverage, 2009-2012, Monday, April 29 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004 5th Floor Conference Room
Speakers: Jonas Siegel, Saranaz Barforoush, John Steinbruner, Susan Moeller, Reza Marashi, Walter Pincus
How does news coverage of Iran’s nuclear program affect public understanding and policy outcomes? News media traditionally play an important role in communicating about foreign policy is this the case with coverage of Irans nuclear program? How specifically are news media framing the relevant issues? To answer these questions, researchers from the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) undertook a topical analysis of English-language newspaper coverage from 2009 through 2012, a period in which there was considerable public discussion about how the United States and others could and should resolve the dispute.
Register for the event here:
(http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/rsvp?eid=27221&pid=112)
2. Iran-Azerbaijan Relations and Strategic Competition in the Caucasus, Monday, April 29 / 9:00am – 11:30am, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006 Basement Level Conference Rooms A & B
Speakers: Andrew C. Kuchins, Farhad Mammadov, Asim Mollazade, Heydar Mirza, Alex Vatanka, Sergey Markedonov and more
Despite common cultural and religious heritage, relations between Iran and Azerbaijan remain tumultuous. Issues ranging from the status Iran’s ethnic Azeri minority to the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh to relations with Israel all complicate bilateral ties between Baku and Tehran. Iran-Azerbaijan relations also shape larger geopolitical questions related to the strategic balance in the Caucasus and the role of major regional powers Turkey and Russia. With tensions over Iran’s nuclear program again in the spotlight, the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program is hosting a discussion about the current dynamics of Iran-Azerbaijan relations and their regional and international implications.
Register for the event here:
(http://csis.org/event/iran-azerbaijan-relations-and-strategic-competition-caucasus)
3. Why the United States Should Err on the Side of Too Many (Not Too Few) Nuclear Weapons, Monday, April 29 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052 Lindner Family Commons
Speakers: Matt Kroenig, Assistant Professor of Government, Georgetown University
Enthusiasm for nuclear reductions is driven by three beliefs about arsenal size widely held by experts in Washington: First, a secure, second-strike capability is sufficient for deterrence and nuclear warheads in excess of this requirement can be cut with little loss to our national security. Second, proliferation to rogue states and terrorist networks is a greater threat than nuclear war with great powers, and reductions can advance our nonproliferation objectives in Iran and elsewhere. Third, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear weapons since 1945 and, in a time of budget austerity, reductions will result in cost savings. There is just one problem: all three beliefs are incorrect. A more pragmatic assessment suggests that the United States should not engage in additional nuclear reductions and should instead make the necessary investments to maintain a robust nuclear infrastructure for decades to come.
Register for the event here:
(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDYwNmFlbk41QjZlZ1pySHUxNklHZFE6MA#gid=0)
4. Political Islam and the Struggle for Democracy in Egypt, Monday, April 29 / 6:30pm – 8:00pm, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS – Bernstein-Offit Building 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Room 500
Speakers: Michele Dunne, Nathan Brown
During this panel, our participant speakers will discuss the political situation in Egypt two years after the revolution. They will consider the results achieved, met and unmet objectives, and political reforms enacted since the spring of 2010. Furthermore, they will indicate the roles of the Muslim Brotherhood as a ruling party and President Morsi. They will discuss the recent happenings and unrest in Egypt and future scenarios.
RSVP to:
menaclub.sais@gmail.com
5. The Bread Revolutions of 2011 and the Political Economies of Transition, Tuesday April 30/ 10:00am – 11:30am, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars-1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 200046th Floor Flom Auditorium
Speakers: Pete Moore, Holger Albrecht, Haleh Esfandiari
The Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the United States Institute of Peace Present The Bread Revolutions of 2011 and the Political Economies of Transition. During the 2011 uprisings, Arab protestors channeled decades of discontent with failed economic policy. However, the demise of leaders will not be enough to answer this discontent nor ensure productive development. Scholarship on the political determinates of economic development finds that the common recipe of expanding the private sector and increasing trade openness may be valuable, but alone are not sufficient for successful development. The Arab World’s economic path to 2011 included implementation in these areas, yet reform in underlying socio-economic structures and interests lagged. Addressing these conditions constitutes one of the most serious challenges facing Arab economies and politics.
This event will be the fourth in a series of five papers and presentations on “Reshaping the Strategic Culture of the Middle East.
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the…
6. The Imperatives of the Inter-Religious Dialogue in Nigeria, Tuesday April 30/ 2:00pm-3:30pm, Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: H.E. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Sa’Adu Abubakar, John Onaiyekan
This dialogue seeks to ascertain the true nature and scope of religious tensions in Nigeria, as well as elaborate possible ways forward.
The Wilson Center’s Africa Program continues to monitor Nigeria’s progress and welcomes the opportunity to hear from a panel of such respected government and religious leaders.
Speakers:
H.E. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Governor of the Rivers State, Nigeria
Sa’adu Abubakar, Sultan of Sokoto and President of the Society for the Victory of Islam
John Onaiyekan, Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Abuja
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the…
7. Ten Years After Saddam, Tuesday April 30/ 2:00pm-3:00pm, Center for International Media Assistance
Venue: National Endowment for Democracy, 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Abir Awad, Tim Eaton, Theo Dolan, Shameem Rassam
It is a decade since the U.S.-led coalition troops entered Iraq in March 2003. “The years that have followed have been turbulent for an Iraq riven by divisions and sectarian violence, as elites have battled one another for control,” according to a policy briefing by BBC Media Action, The media of Iraq ten years on: The problems, the progress, the prospects. “It remains a country that is anything but stable and united.” The report, which the panelists will present and discuss, examines one element of Iraq’s journey over the last ten years: that of its media reform. The paper makes the point that while the Iraqi media landscape of 2013 may not be the free, pluralistic, and professional fourth estate that many in the West had envisioned in 2003, it nonetheless has real strengths. Those strengths–as well as weaknesses– reflect the complexity and reality of modern Iraq.
Website: http://cima.ned.org/events/upcoming-e…
8. Future of US Ground Forces Report Roll-out Event, Wednesday May 1 / 9:00am-10:30am, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
Speakers: David J. Berteau, Nathan Freier, Barry Pavel, James Dubik, Frank Hoffman
The Center for Strategic and International Studies presents the roll-out event for the report
Beyond the Last War: Balancing Ground Forces and Future Challenges Risk in USCENTCOM and USPACOM with introductory remarks by
David J. Berteau
CSIS Senior Vice President and Director, International Security Program
followed by a discussion with
Nathan Freier
Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies
and
Barry Pavel
Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, The Atlantic Council
and
Lieutenant General James Dubik
U.S. Army (Ret.), Senior Fellow, Institute for the Study of War
and
Frank Hoffman
Senior Research Fellow, Institute for National Strategic Studies,
National Defense University
9. Drones and the Rule of Law and War, Wednesday May 1 / 10:00 am-11:15 am, Bipartisan Policy Center
Venue: Bipartisan policy Center, 1225 I Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: John Bellinger, Dafna Linzer, Hina Shamsi, Philip Zelikow
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Homeland Security Project will host a discussion convening legal and policy experts on the rule of law and war to discuss the use of drones and targeted killings. Join us as panelists evaluate issues like the current frameworks regarding the use of drones, the ramifications of a ‘drone court,’ the targeting of U.S. citizens abroad, and whether Congress should examine what these policies mean for the country.
Thomas Kean
Former Governor of New Jersey
Co-chair, 9/11 Commission
Co-chair, BPC Homeland Security Project
John Bellinger
Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP
Former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State
Former Legal Adviser, National Security Council
Dafna Linzer
Managing Editor, MSNBC.com
Follow @DafnaLinzer
Hina Shamsi
Director, ACLU’s National Security Project
Follow @HinaShamsi
Philip Zelikow
Associate Dean, University of Virginia’s Graduate School of Arts & Sciences
Former Counselor, U.S. Department of State
John Farmer
Dean, Rutgers School of Law
For viewing purposes, we recommend the latest version of the following browsers: Google Chrome, Safari or Internet Explorer.
Having trouble viewing the webcast player below? Please click here.
If you are experiencing issues, please visit the webcast troubleshooter page here. Conduct a firewall test (see the side menu on the troubleshooter page) if the test video does not play.
Homeland Security Project
Website: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/20…
10. Afghanistan after 2014: Regional Impact, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Wednesday May 1/ 2pm-5pm, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Noah Coburn, Marlène Laruelle, Simbal Khan
Spotlight on Central Eurasia Series //
This event explores local and regional perspectives on the future of Afghanistan against the backdrop of the planned NATO withdrawal of military forces from the region. The first session focuses on local politics and governance in Afghanistan, and the second session investigates the ways in which Afghanistan’s neighbors have been discussing and planning for the upcoming changes.
This event is free and open to the public but requires event registration. Please RSVP.
Cosponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute and Asia Program, and the Central Asia Program, George Washington University.
Speakers:
Noah Coburn, Professor, Bennington College, and author, ‘Bazaar Politics: Pottery and Power in an Afghan Market Town’ (2011)
Marlène Laruelle, Research Professor and Director, Central Asia Program, IERES, George Washington University
Simbal Khan, Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia, Institute for Strategic Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/afg…
11. The Strategic Environment in Southern Asia, Wednesday, May 1 / 3:30pm – 5:00pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Frederic Grare, C. Raja Mohan, C. Uday Bhaskar
The strategic environment in Southern Asia is rapidly changing. Over the next decade, the United States, China, and India will form a critical strategic triangle while the individual relationships of these three nations with ASEAN, Iran, and Pakistan will have significant regional and global implications. Although globalization will lead to more robust engagement among the major actors, this will inevitably result in dissonances that pose complex challenges in the southern Asian security domain. Please join Uday Bhaskar and C. Raja Mohan as they discuss the critical role of the United States and China in dealing with the delicate strategic framework in South Asia. Carnegie’s Frederic Grare will moderate.
Website: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?…
12. The Nuclear Security Summit in 2014: Challenges and Opportunities, Thursday, May 2 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Togzhan Kassenova, Piet De Klerk
Following the Nuclear Security Summits in Washington in 2010 and Seoul in 2012, the Netherlands will host the next summit in The Hague on March 24 and 25, 2014. The summit process, begun in 2010, is a response to growing awareness of the risk that weapons-usable fissile material might be acquired by non-state actors and terrorist groups. It seeks to further the goal of securing all nuclear material worldwide through engagement with key heads of state and international organizations. Please join Ambassador Piet de Klerk for a discussion of the continued importance of nuclear security, how the Summit in The Hague will build on the meetings in Washington and Seoul, challenges for the future, the expectations for 2014 and the Dutch role in this process. Togzhan Kassenova will moderate.
Website: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?…
13. The Road to Damascus: U.S.-Turkish Cooperation Towards a Post-Assad Syria, Bipartisan Policy Center, Thursday, May 2 / 10:30am – 12:00pm
Venue: Bipartisan Policy Center, 1225 I Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Mort Abramowitz, Eric S. Edelman, Alan Makovsky
Ridding Syria of President Bashar al-Assad has been the goal of the United States for almost two years. Should this objective be achieved, however, an enormous challenge will still remain: stabilizing and rebuilding Syria in a way that advances U.S. strategic goals and values. However, this will require the cooperation of Turkey—a U.S. ally with keen interests in Syria. Ankara’s interests, however, do not perfectly match Washington’s, posing the challenge for policymakers of finding the right tools to align more closely the two countries’ visions of Syria’s future.
Join BPC as it announces the creation of its Turkey Task Force, co-chaired by former Ambassadors to Turkey Morton Abramowitz and Eric Edelman, and releases a paper on the opportunities and obstacles to U.S.-Turkish cooperation towards a post-Assad Syria.
Read the press release here.
Mort Abramowitz
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Co-chair, BPC Turkey Task Force
Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey
Alan Makovsky
Senior Professional Staff Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Paula Dobriansky
Former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
Press Release
Foreign Policy Project
Website: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/events/20…
14. Africa and The Global Arms Trade Treaty, Thursday, May 2 / 12:00pm – 2:00pm, Institute for Policy Studies,
Venue: Institute for Policy Studies, 1112 16th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036 Conference Room
Speakers: Rachel Stohl, Adotei Akwei
Join us for a remarkable panel discussion on the impact and future of the small arms trade in Africa.
Can an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) help? How can world leaders and national governments both within and without Africa best help leverage the ATT to help deal with existing small arms violence and prevent violence in the future?
Join IPS’ Foreign Policy In Focus for a panel discussion examining the ATT and its implications for Africa with a specific focus on what the ATT is and what it is not, as well as what is next to help the treaty come in to force. Key areas of concern, such as conflict, commission of human rights abuses, the impact of the unauthorized/illicit arms sales on development and security in Africa will also be addressed.
Panelists:
Rachel Stohl, Senior Associate with Managing Across Boundaries initiative, Stimson Center and
Adotei Akwei, Managing Director for Government Relations, Amnesty International
Co-sponsors: Travis Roberts – Founder of Fight Back/Rebuilt campaign, Carl LeVan – IPS Associate Fellow and professor in the School of International Studies at American University, Estelle Bougna Fomeju – Senior at American University and Sciences Po Paris, Intern for IPS’ Foreign Policy in Focus.
Website: http://www.ips-dc.org/events/africa_a…
15. Turkey’s Peace Process, Thursday, May 2 / 3:00pm – 4:30pm, SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Venue: SETA Foundation at Washington, DC1025 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Suite 1106, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Erol Cebeci, Kadir Ustun
Resolution of Turkey’s Kurdish question has been the subject of much debate. Today, there is more hope about the prospects of success than ever before with the ongoing peace talks with Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This latest attempt comes after previous initiatives such as the so-called “Democratic Opening” of 2009 and the following secret talks dubbed the “Oslo Process.” In the wake of heightened stakes in the Middle East, a possible end to PKK violence and resolution of the Kurdish question through democratic means could have dramatic implications for regional security and Turkey’s democratization. What are the possibilities and limits of finally resolving the Kurdish question?
Join us for a discussion with Henri Barkey, professor of international relations at Lehigh University, and Erol Cebeci, executive director of the SETA Foundation at Washington, DC, moderated by Kadir Ustun, research director at the SETA Foundation.
Website: http://setadc.org/events/50-upcoming-…
16. Israel’s Periphery Doctrine: Then and Now, Thursday, May 2 / 3:30pm – 4:30pm, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Venue: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2121 K Street, NWSuite 801
Speakers: Yossi Alpher
During its first three decades, Israel employed a grand strategy whereby it leapfrogged over the ring of hostile Arab neighboring states and forged partnerships with non-Arab and non-Muslim countries and minorities in the region. Most well known are Israel’s alliances with Iran and Turkey and its aid to the Iraqi Kurds. Beginning in the late 1970s, the peace process and the collapse of friendly periphery regimes rendered the doctrine of secondary importance. Now, with Islamists and even Salafists threatening to surround Israel, is a new periphery strategy viable?
Yossi Alpher
Co-editor, The Bitterlemons Guide to the Arab Peace Initiative
17. The Way of the Knife, Friday, May 3 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Center for American Progress
Venue: Center for American Progress, 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Mark Mazzetti, Ken Gude
In his most recent book, Mark Mazzetti argues that the most momentous change in American warfare over the past decade has taken place away from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq in the corners of the world where large armies can’t go. The Way of the Knife is the untold story of that shadow war—a campaign that has blurred the lines between soldiers and spies and lowered the bar for waging war across the globe. The United States has pursued its enemies with armed drones and special operations troops, trained local assets to set up clandestine spying networks, and relied on mercurial dictators, untrustworthy foreign intelligence services, and proxy armies.
Please join us for a discussion with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Mark Mazzetti on his provocative new book.
Copies of The Way of the Knife will be available for purchase.
Featured author:
Mark Mazzetti, author, The Way of the Knife; correspondent, The New York Times
Moderated by:
Ken Gude, Chief of Staff, Vice President, Center for American Progress
A light lunch will be served at 11:30 a.m.
Website: http://www.americanprogress.org/event…
18. Post-2014 Afghanistan: Pakistan’s Concerns, Anxieties and Expectations: A Conversation with Ambassador Sherry Rehman, Friday, May 3 / 5:30pm – 7:00pm, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 1619 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. Rome Auditorium
Speakers: Sherry Rehman
Pakistani Ambassador to the US will speak about post 2014 Afghanistan. Question and answer session to follow Ambassador’s remarks.
19. The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat, Friday, May 3 / 7:00pm – 8:00pm, Politics and Prose
Venue: Politics and Prose, 5015 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008
Speakers: Vali Nasr
As senior advisor to Richard Holbrooke from 2009 to 2011, Nasr, dean of SAIS and author of The Shia Revival, witnessed both how the Obama administration made its foreign policy and how these decisions played out abroad. His book finds that Obama failed to chart a new course in the Middle East, and warns that the next Arab Spring may be an angry uprising against America.
Website: http://www.politics-prose.com/event/b…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Iran’s nuclear program is no bargain
The Iranian government prohibits the media from publicly discussing the nuclear issue, thus suppressing a domestic debate on the rationale behind the nuclear agenda. A joint Carnegie Endowment-Federation of American Scientists report, Iran’s Nuclear Odyssey: Costs and Risks, attempts to tackle the unanswered questions regarding efficiency and security. This week’s panel discussion at Carnegie concluded that domestic nuclear enrichment is illogical and most likely unsafe. Domestically enriching uranium incurs high costs and uncertain benefits for Iran.
Despite Iran’s claims that the country’s future energy security relies on the ability to enrich uranium domestically, Iran currently has little need for nuclear fuel. In its fuel security assessments Iran has failed to consider both the scarcity and the low grade of its domestic uranium resources. Ultimately these limitations would force Iran to procure uranium from abroad, completely defeating the purpose of domestic enrichment capabilities. The IAEA doesn’t even rank Iran as one of the top 40 countries with uranium reserves. Why would a major oil and natural gas supplier hold its economy hostage to development of its unimpressive nuclear capabilities?
In their report Ali Vaez –Senior Iran Analyst, International Crisis Group–and Karim Sadjadpour–Senior Associate of the Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment—conservatively estimate losses in foreign investment and oil revenue as a result of the nuclear program at $100 billion. The Bushehr reactor –one of the world’s most expensive–would provide only 2% of Iran’s electricity generation. To make matters worse, the reactor sits on the intersection of three tectonic plates. A non-signatory of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, Iran possesses some of the least secure nuclear materials in the world. James Acton, Senior Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at Carnegie, characterized Iran’s “regulatory complaisance”’ as symptomatic of the hubris that caused the Fukushima accident.
The ideological drive behind Iranian decision-making serves a political, not an economic purpose. Financial economist Mohammad Jahan-Parvar argued economic decision-making at the macro level is limited to Supreme Leader Khomenei and his underlings. Khomenei’s policies center on promoting “progress” in the esoteric fields of “spirituality,” “wellbeing” (not welfare) and “chronic knowledge.” Khomenei’s “progress” in no way promotes economic development. Twenty per cent of development funds are allocated to the agricultural sector, which produces 12% of GDP and 7% of Iran’s employment. But the agricultural sector represents the regime’s greatest support base.
As the report’s cost-benefit analysis suggests, Iran has not embarked on its nuclear odyssey for peaceful nuclear enrichment. Thus it concludes:
- Economic pressure and military force will not lead Iran to abandon its “sunk costs” and halt the nuclear program.
- The nuclear issue cannot be resolved without a mutually agreeable diplomatic solution.
- Iran should pursue alternative energy options, including solar and wind power.
- Public and nuclear diplomacy should complement each other, with the West demonstrating that an integrated and prosperous Iran is everyone’s goal.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sweeten the pot
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS) and the Iran Project this week presented a joint report on the strategic options available for dealing with Iran, compiled with input from former senior national security officials and experts on Iran. The event featured:
–Carla Hills: Chairman and chief executive officer of Hills & Company, International Consultants
–Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering: Career Ambassador; former ambassador to Israel, Russia, India, El Salvador, Nigeria and Jordan
–Dr. Jim Walsh: Research Associate as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program (SSP)
–Ambassador James Dobbins: Director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center
This is what they think needs to happen:
1. Time to recalibrate
The time has come for Washington to recalibrate its policy of simultaneously putting pressure on and engaging with Iran. The US should emphasize direct diplomatic engagement with Iran with the same fervor it has pursued its international alienation. Time is running out. The more time passes, the less satisfactory a potential nuclear deal will be for both parties. The sooner a nuclear deal is reached the sooner the US and Iran can engage in a broader dialogue on regional issues. Use of military force would entail serious difficulties and implications, while upping the ante on negotiations carries new promise.
The US should pursue bilateral relations with Iran beyond the context of the multi-lateral P5+1 negotiations. Ambassador Pickering insisted on the importance of establishing respect and mutual trust between the two parties: Iran needs to stop perceiving all US policy as a ploy for regime change, while the US needs to stop viewing Iranian intentions solely through the lens of nuclear weapons. To reach a deal the Iranians should accept a peaceful and civil nuclear program monitored by the IAEA, while the US will have to relax the sanctions and allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
2. Towards a nuclear deal
The report does not propose a magic formula for the resolution of the nuclear problem. It eschews tactical considerations in favor of addressing the broader issue: a lack of emphasis on diplomacy. Walsh argued the overemphasis on details encourages incrementalism, stating the P5+1 “play small ball” when they negotiate (unsuccessfully) on 20% enrichment. The difficulty the parties are encountering in overcoming small issues suggests progress cannot be made without greater trust and respect.
But how do two conflicting countries earn each other’s trust and respect?
Walsh suggests breaking the “cycle of expectations.” As a Bostonian, he had empathy on his mind. He felt Iran’s recent earthquakes offer an opportunity for more than just expressions of sympathy. Donating relief aid in an unexpected demonstration of empathy could help melt away some of the mistrust.
3. Pursuing the diplomatic track
Ambassador Pickering believes the time for negotiations is ripe even for the Iranians. If Iran truly opposed negotiating on the nuclear issue, they would have stopped agreeing to P5+1 talks. But for real progress, Ambassador Dobbins suggested the US sweeten the offer on sanctions relief. The sanctions regime would be difficult to reinstate should Iran not comply with a deal. However, offering a temporary suspension of (some, or all) sanctions would allow the US to easily and unilaterally reinstate them.
Although difficult, cooperation with Iran is possible. As Bruce Laingen, US Chargé d’affaires during the 1979 hostage crisis put it during Q&A: “if we can negotiate with Pyongyang, we can negotiate with Iran.”
RSS - Posts
