Paper
George Perkovich
{
"authors": [
"George Perkovich"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Can Sanctions Work Against Iran?
The UN Security Council should better define what constitutes peaceful nuclear activities to ensure that Iran cannot cross the line and covertly pursue nuclear weapons projects.
Published on Sep 25, 2009
Source: New York Times
The leaders gave Iran gave two months to comply with international demands or face increased sanctions. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said the international community “has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.” Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denied that the plant was a secret.
What kinds of sanctions would work in this situation? What strategies might be deployed against Iran now?
Define and Isolate
Iranian leaders insist they do not want nuclear weapons. That is good. The United States and others should not assert otherwise. Rather, the focus should be on defining what are peaceful nuclear activities, which are all that Iran says it wants to pursue, and what are military nuclear activities.
Iran acknowledges it has no right to do the latter so we should cooperate with Iran in peaceful nuclear activities. For example, we could offer to help it build a small new reactor to produce medical isotopes without using highly enriched uranium, once Iran has answered all the International Atomic Energy Agency’s questions and restored international confidence.
At the same time we should define with Russia, China and other Security Council members a list of nuclear-related activities that have no non-military purposes. These activities would, in effect, define weaponization and mark the firewall between peaceful nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. If Iran, despite its pledges, undertook one of these specified weaponization-related activities, Russia, China and other Security Council members would be committed to the strongest possible sanctions.
Defining the line between peaceful and military nuclear programs would apply to all countries. However, some activities — like uranium enrichment — can be done for peaceful or military purposes. To give confidence that they are peaceful, states that want to undertake those activities would have to adopt reporting and transparency requirements at least as robust as the I.A.E.A. additional protocol.
U.N. Security Council members should clarify that cat-and-mouse games like Iran is playing with the agency are not consistent with purely peaceful nuclear programs, especially if the activity in question has inherent military applications.
What deters Iran from going too far is isolation — not only from the West, but from the East, North and South. Such isolation would strengthen the breadth and depth of sanctions to come. As important, it would further delegitimize the rulers who put the country in this embarrassing situation. Iranian nationalism is now wedded to resistance against anyone forcing it to abandon a peaceful nuclear program.
But if Iran’s leaders have been caught lying about their program, and will not make an accommodation to end their isolation by foregoing military nuclear activities, frustration with that leadership will mount.
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
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer MarketCommentary
The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- The Problem With the Idea That Netanyahu Made Trump Attack IranCommentary
Going to war was the U.S. president’s decision, for which he alone is responsible.
Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller
- The Diverging U.S. and Israeli Goals in Iran Are Making the Endgame Even MurkierCommentary
The cracks between Trump and Netanyahu have become more pronounced, particularly over energy and leadership targets.
Eric Lob
- How the Hormuz Closure Is Testing the Korean President’s Progressive AgendaCommentary
The crisis is not just a story of energy vulnerability. It’s also a complex, high-stakes political challenge.
Darcie Draudt-Véjares
