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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- The West’s Climate Colonialism in the Greater Middle EastCommentary
There is a disturbing structural parallel between the old global energy economy and the new green transition.
Angie Omar
- New Syria, Old Lebanon: Absence of the StateCommentary
Any move by the United States to make good on Trump’s suggestion that Washington persuade Damascus to confront Hezbollah militarily would have catastrophic consequences.
Kheder Khaddour
- Lebanon Should Try to Place Hezbollah on the U.S.-Iran TableCommentary
As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.
Michael Young
- Board Up Donald Trump’s Failed Board of PeaceCommentary
What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?
Zaha Hassan
- Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-IsraelCommentary
Policy discussion is ignoring that the Palestinian national project is hollowed out and apartheid is a present danger.
Nathan J. Brown
