Commentary
Ensuring that cities’ perspectives shape international discussions at this year’s forums is not just equitable; it is likely to produce better outcomes.
Liliana Gamboa, Marissa Jordan
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"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": [
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Press Release
The power of legitimacy in dealing with Iran
Talks last week between Iran and world powers in Geneva—and the first public, bilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran in 30 years—yielded unexpected progress. Iran has been forced onto the defensive by its loss of legitimacy, exacerbated by the gains President Obama made by demonstrating resolve to negotiate a peaceful accommodation with the Islamic Republic.
Published on Oct 8, 2009
WASHINGTON, Oct 8—Talks last week between Iran and world powers in Geneva—and the first public, bilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran in 30 years—yielded unexpected progress. Iran has been forced onto the defensive by its loss of legitimacy, exacerbated by the gains President Obama made by demonstrating resolve to negotiate a peaceful accommodation with the Islamic Republic, contends a new paper by George Perkovich.
Perkovich explains that the Iranian government is determined to be seen acting within international law, in order to defend the government’s legitimacy at home and to ward off international sanctions or the use of force. Getting caught on the wrong side of the law in building the Qom nuclear facility endangers the government’s legitimacy and adds to the international legitimacy President Obama has gained. The United States and other powers negotiating with Iran should press Iran to accept legally precise definitions of what are peaceful nuclear activities and what are not.
Key Conclusions
- The revelation of the Qom enrichment facility endangered a winning Iranian strategy and angered many within and outside Iran who gave Tehran the benefit of the doubt.
- Obama’s willingness to negotiate with the Iranian regime—even as critics within the United States urged a tougher stance following Iran’s disputed elections and subsequent repression—put pressure on Tehran and helped bring them to the table.
- Tehran’s violation of international law will undermine the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at home and could magnify his domestic challenges.
- International rules are key to maintaining pressure on Iran and developing an enforceable agreement that will ensure Iran’s nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.
“Iranian leaders are caught between the law and a hard place,” writes Perkovich.” Either they negotiate back into compliance with the rules and restore international confidence, or they abandon any pretense of being law-abiding members of the international community and accept the risks of being known to seek nuclear weapons.”
###
NOTES
- George Perkovich is vice president for studies and director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His personal research has focused on nuclear strategy and nonproliferation, with a focus on South Asia and Iran, and on the problem of justice in the international political economy.
- The Carnegie Nonproliferation Program is an internationally recognized source of knowledge and policy thinking on efforts to curb the spread and use of nuclear weapons. Carnegie’s analysis consistently stays at the forefront of proliferation developments and nonproliferation policy debates.
- Carnegie Proliferation News provides synopses of top news stories related to preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons every Tuesday and Thursday.
- Press Contact: David Kampf, 202/939-2372, dkampf@ceip.org
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
- Cities Have a Crucial Role to Play in Advancing Climate Mobility Priorities
- Deciphering Europe’s Relationship with TurkeyCommentary
Debate is heating up on how Turkey could be integrated into a common European defense framework. Commercial and industrial deals offer a better chance at alignment than sweeping political efforts.
Marc Pierini
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
- The Iran War Isn’t the Only Challenge Facing Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030Commentary
As the monarchy appears to question its grandest projects, the state could do with more critical debate than rote cheerleading.
Andrew Leber
- Taking the Pulse: Is it Worth it for Europeans to Placate Trump?Commentary
After spending much of 2025 trying to placate Donald Trump, some European leaders are starting to change posture. But is even a hostile Washington still so important to Europe that the U.S. president’s outbursts are worth putting up with?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
