Леонид Гозман, Michael McFaul
{
"authors": [
"Michael McFaul"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Persian Dilemmas: The discouraging lessons of U.S.-Iranian relations
Carnegie senior associate Michael McFaul reviews Kenneth Pollack's new book, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and Ameri
Source: Slate
Last month, the foreign ministers of France, Great Britain, and Germany triumphantly announced a new accord with Iran. Formally, the agreement obligates Iran to suspend temporarily all enrichment of uranium in return for some as-yet-unspecified economic benefits, including a steady supply of enriched uranium to fuel Iran's light water nuclear reactor. Informally, the Europeans believe their diplomatic negotiations have helped to suspend Iran's nuclear weapons program. Of course, no one can claim openly that the new deal hinders a nuclear weapons program, since Iran has never admitted to having one. Still, the Europeans proudly point to their accomplishment as proof that diplomacy works.
President Bush and his foreign-policy team are not buying it. Based on intelligence given to them by an Iranian exile organization, the administration remains convinced that the mullahs who rule Iran are developing a nuclear weapon and no piece of paper will stop them. In response, hard-liners both outside and within the administration are pressing instead for a military solution. Only the lunatic fringes still advocate a full-scale military invasion and occupation of Iran. But the idea of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is floated as a serious option of last resort, since every senior Bush official has declared that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable.
Does this all sound familiar?
For the rest of the article, visit Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2110538
About the Author
Former Senior Associate
In addition to his role at Carnegie, McFaul is Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and associate professor of political science at Stanford University.
- Why a Democratic Russia Should Join NATOArticle
- Russia at a Crossroads: Upcoming Elections Defining IssueReport
Michael McFaul, Sanja Tatic
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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- What Is Israel’s Plan in Lebanon?Commentary
At heart, to impose unconditional surrender on Hezbollah and uproot the party among its coreligionists.
Yezid Sayigh
- Axis of Resistance or Suicide?Commentary
As Iran defends its interests in the region and its regime’s survival, it may push Hezbollah into the abyss.
Michael Young
- Can the Gulf Cooperation Council Transcend Its Divisions?Article
Without structural reform, the organization, which is racked by internal rivalries, risks sliding into irrelevance.
Hesham Alghannam
- U.S. Aims in Iran Extend Beyond Nuclear IssuesCommentary
Because of this, the costs and risks of an attack merit far more public scrutiny than they are receiving.
Nicole Grajewski
- Iran and the New Geopolitical MomentCommentary
A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.
Michael Young