The Iranian Nuclear Riddle after June 12

{
  "authors": [
    "Shahram Chubin"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "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"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Nuclear Energy"
  ]
}

In The Media

The Iranian Nuclear Riddle after June 12

International threats and sanctions unify Iranians behind an unloved regime while inducements threaten the regime's foundations, which are built on hostility to the world, embattlement, and "resistance."

By Shahram Chubin

Published on Dec 14, 2009

Source: Washington Quarterly

The Iranian Nuclear Riddle after June 12Attempts since 2002 to roll back or at least slow Iran's nuclear ambitions have proven fruitless, imparting a sense of urgency to the issue. Neither threats of punishment nor inducements have worked. Instead, threats unify Iranians behind an unloved regime while inducements threaten the regime’s foundations, which are built on hostility to the world, embattlement, and "resistance." In addition, Iran fears the U.S./West's friendship more than its enmity.

The dilemma today for the United States is that neither the military nor the diplomatic track appears likely to yield results soon. This dilemma is further accentuated since the June 12, 2009 elections highlighted the fractures in Iranian elite, as well as society, and the current regime's sickening repression of the public. The elections also brought forth the regime’s newfound interest in at least tactically engaging the West, as in Geneva in October 2009. By engagement, the regime not only hopes to deflect external pressures, but also to gain a measure of legitimacy and to dishearten its political opponents.

About the Author

Shahram Chubin

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program

Chubin, who is based in Geneva, focuses his research on nonproliferation, terrorism, and Middle East security issues. He was director of studies at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Switzerland, from 1996 to 2009.

Recent Work

In The Media
Iran and the P5+1 in Moscow: Time is Running Out (Again)
- Shahram Chubin
In The Media
The Revolution in Cairo is a Serious Warning for the Mullahs
- Shahram Chubin

Nuclear Policy Nuclear Energy North America United States Middle East Iran

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

Commentary
Diwan
The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire
Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Hezbollah’s Wartime Strategy
The party’s objectives involve tying together the Lebanese and Iranian fronts, while surviving militarily and politically at home.
Mohamad Fawaz
Commentary
Diwan
Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.
The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.
Nathan J. Brown
Commentary
Diwan
What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center