Paper
George Perkovich
{
"authors": [
"George Perkovich"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Iranian Proliferation",
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
The Iran Deal: No Better Alternative, Now Make The Most Of It
The domestic debate over the Iran deal demonstrates politicians’ increasing aversion to compromise.
Published on Sep 28, 2015
Source: The Institute of International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley
Carnegie’s George Perkovich spoke about the domestic implications of the Iran deal and what the debate over the deal reveals about the capacity of the United States to lead in international affairs. Specifically, he pointed out that the debate demonstrated that a significant fraction of U.S. elected officials—and many commentators—don’t understand the fundamental role of compromise in domestic politics and in foreign policy. Without compromise, he says, the United States runs the risk that negotiated agreements and treaties could become impossible.
In the course of discussing how the domestic debate revealed this aversion to compromise, Perkovich also delivered a thorough analysis of the Iran deal itself. He described its upsides and downsides, discussed the important facets of the deal that were glossed over in the debate, and examined whether or not a better deal could have realistically been achieved.
About the Author
George Perkovich
Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow
George Perkovich is the Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program. He works primarily on nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and disarmament issues, and is leading a study on nuclear signaling in the 21st century.
- How to Assess Nuclear ‘Threats’ in the Twenty-First Century
- “A House of Dynamite” Shows Why No Leader Should Have a Nuclear TriggerCommentary
George Perkovich
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Taking the Pulse: Is the EU Ready for Rapprochement With the UK?Commentary
Closer EU-UK ties could help address urgent European concerns. But is the EU ready for rapprochement with the United Kingdom?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With IranCommentary
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
- What We Lost When Washington Walked Away From Climate-Health EffortsCommentary
Our new report offers a path forward for local officials and future policymakers.
- +2
Joe McCannon, Jenny Keroack, Lauren Jensen, …
- Advancing Climate Health for Vulnerable Groups in the United States: Looking Back and Looking AheadPaper
Present and future policymakers seeking to address climate-related health challenges can draw lessons from the successes and failures of the Biden administration.
- +1
Joe McCannon, Jenny Keroack, Lauren Jensen, …
- Duterte’s Populist Foreign Policy as Illiberal Defiance: Consequences and ProspectsPaper
In the Philippines, Duterte-era discourse emphasizing sovereignty, anti-Western skepticism, and strongman diplomacy mirrors tenets of populist foreign policy around the world.
Aries A. Arugay
