In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.
Anit Mukherjee
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran",
"Iraq",
"Afghanistan"
],
"topics": [
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Iran continues to be a critical national security challenge for the United States. A different approach is required. In a new policy brief, Karim Sadjadpour explains that the relevant question is not whether to talk to Iran but how to talk to Iran, and prioritizes U.S. engagement with Iran on six critical issues.

WASHINGTON, Oct 16—Iran continues to be a critical national security challenge for the United States, despite decades of effort to change Tehran’s behavior by isolating the country politically and economically. A different approach is required. In a new policy brief, Karim Sadjadpour explains that the relevant question is not whether to talk to Iran but how to talk to Iran, and prioritizes U.S. engagement with Iran on six critical issues: Iraq, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, the Arab–Israeli conflict, energy, and terrorism.
The next U.S. president should:
Sadjadpour concludes with a note of caution:
“Around the same time the next U.S. president is inaugurated, the Iranian revolution will mark its thirtieth anniversary. Given three decades of compounded mistrust and ill will, the results of any process of engagement will not be quick; such antagonism will not melt away after one, two, or even many meetings. The initial pace will likely be painfully slow, as each side ascertains whether the other truly has good intentions. Furthermore, given the potentially enormous implications that a changed relationship with Washington would have for the Islamic Republic’s future, there are a variety of reasons why even a sincere, sustained American attempt at dialogue may not initially bear fruit.”
###

Carnegie India 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.
In any defense establishment, change is an ongoing process. However, despite the best of intentions, existing bureaucracies, bound by habit and years of socialization, have their limits in implementing transformative change.
Anit Mukherjee
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia