Paper
George Perkovich
{
"authors": [
"George Perkovich"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Iranian Proliferation"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Iran and the Bomb 2: A New Hope
The world would be a safer place if Iran did not enrich uranium, but neither more sanctions nor military strikes will push Iran out of the enrichment club.
Published on Feb 4, 2014
Source: Foreign Affairs
The special collection Iran and the Bomb 2: A New Hope pulls together a broad range of pieces that illuminate Iran’s turn toward negotiations, the pros and cons of the interim agreement, and the geopolitical and psychological intricacies of the crucial U.S.-Iranian-Israeli triangle.
The authors include world-renowned experts from several disciplines and professional backgrounds, and their arguments span every significant position on the political spectrum. Iran and the Bomb 2: A New Hope offers an excellent overview of the current situation and all the material required for readers to develop their own opinions about how to proceed.George Perkovich’s chapter, Demanding Zero Enrichment From Iran Makes Zero Sense, argues that the world would be a safer place if Iran did not enrich uranium. But, even if Iran deserves to be singled out for having broken conditions that other uranium-enriching states uphold and offering weak civilian rationales for enriching, the unfortunate fact is that neither more sanctions nor military strikes will push Iran out of the enrichment club. If Tehran rejected a diplomatic solution that allowed carefully limited enrichment in Iran, or if Iran agreed to such an arrangement and then violated it, military action then would be legally and politically defensible. That is why the Obama administration’s strategy should not be impeded by Israel and ill-conceived congressional gambits.
Iran and the Bomb 2: A New Hope is published by Foreign Affairs.
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
- Is the U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal Moving From the Gold Standard to a Gilded Standard?Commentary
Congress should ask tough questions about the agreement’s more unique features and whether they advance U.S. interests or compromise them.
Jane Darby Menton
- The Two Key Takeaways From Xi’s Egypt VisitCommentary
Amid celebrations of bilateral ties was a deeper focus on stability in the Middle East.
Amr Hamzawy
- Less of America is MoreCommentary
Middle Eastern states should welcome an accelerated U.S. disengagement from their region.
Michael Young
- A Strategic Disaster that Devalues U.S. Military ProwessCommentary
In an interview, former ambassador Charles Freeman assesses the Trump administration’s war against Iran.
Michael Young
- Gas and Peace: Can Energy Trade Contain Egypt-Israel Conflict?Commentary
Can economic ties help contain conflict between Egypt and Israel, or do they simply postpone confrontation? Drawing on the German-Russian experience, the article examines how the gas deal creates mutual dependence, keeps channels of cooperation open, and raises the cost of conflict, without necessarily delivering lasting peace.
Nourhan Hefzy
