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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- “It’s Not Like Turning a Switch On and Off”Commentary
Why the Iran ceasefire isn’t a quick fix to the Strait of Hormuz energy crisis.
Helima Croft, Aaron David Miller
- The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week CeasefireCommentary
Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.
Michael Young
- China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of EverythingCommentary
Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.
Damien Ma
- Unstrategic Ambiguity: Trump’s Erratic Approach Leaves Europe GuessingArticle
The behaviors, public statements, and policies of Donald Trump’s administration have perverted America’s strategic posture toward Europe.
Dan Baer, Erik Brown
- On NATO, Trump Should Embrace France Instead of Bashing ItCommentary
Donald Trump’s repudiation of NATO goes against the Make America Great Again vision of a U.S.-centered foreign policy. If the goal is to preserve the alliance by boosting Europe’s commitments, leaning into France’s vision is the most America First way forward.
Rym Momtaz
