Iran

All

    • TV/Radio Broadcast

    A New Map of the Middle East

    Given the last two weeks in the Middle East — client entities like Hizbollah provoking a conflict, the Saudis and Egyptians speaking without power from the sidelines, Western uncertainty about the role of Syria and Iran — is it possible to draw a new map of the Middle East?

    • Article

    Crisis in the Middle East

    This is a dangerous moment for the Middle East, because the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon could easily escalate to involve the broader region. Any strategy to address the present crisis must deal with the realities of the Middle East as they are now, not try to leapfrog over them by seeking to impose a grand new vision. Such a vision would be bound to fail as it did in the case of Iraq.

    • Op-Ed

    Needed: American Diplomacy, Help Wanted

    Over the last few decades most, if not all, Arab-Israeli crises have occurred when the United States has been either unable or unwilling to play an aggressive role as a mediator; and most have only abated after the United States has finally thrown itself into the middle of them.

    • Op-Ed

    On Iran, Giving Futility Its Chance

    • Proliferation Analysis

    Why Iran Should Suspend First

    In the latest move in the wrestling match with the international community, Iran is being pushed back to the UN Security Council.  Iran’s unwillingness to negotiate over the recent international incentive package was too much for France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and even Russia and China to take.  This is not the last move, however, and it is important that the international community not waver on the need for Iran to  resume without further delay suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

    We say this because in Washington and elsewhere, the erroneous and unhelpful impression was being promoted that the United States is the actor holding up negotiations with Iran.  Seymour Hersh’s insightful article in the July 10 & 17 issue of The New Yorker begins by reporting that the Bush Administration’s offer to join talks with Iran was conditioned on the President’s demand that “‘the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.’”  Hersh continues that in essence “Iran, which has insisted on the right to enrich uranium, was being asked to concede the main point of negotiations before they started.”  Herein lies a damaging fallacy.

    The facts are that the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors has called for Iranian suspension nine times in resolutions between September 2003 and February 2006, and the UN Security Council Presidential Statement of March 29, 2006 also calls for Iran to re-establish “full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development”.  In each case, the demand is for immediate Iranian suspension.  The logic follows the November 15, 2004 Paris Agreement between the EU-3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom) and Iran, whereby Iran agreed that “the suspension will be sustained while negotiations proceed on a mutually acceptable agreement on long-term arrangements”. The aim of the agreement was to provide objective guarantees that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes, while meeting Iran’s interests in developing peaceful nuclear technology and gaining the economic benefits of ties with Europe and the security benefits of broader rapprochement in the Middle East.  Iran broke that suspension last August before it bothered to consider an offer of incentives by the EU-3.  It is risible that Iran now says it needs months to analyze and respond to the more ambitious incentive package offered by the EU-3 and supported by the US, Russia and China. 

    In other words, the call for Iran to suspend enrichment now is an international demand, not an exceptional American one, and it does not prejudge the outcome of subsequent negotiations.  (Read More)

    • Event

    How Russians and Americans View Each Other, Themselves, China and Iran

    Stephen J. Weber, of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, presented the findings of his recent poll on how Russians and Americans view each other, themselves, China, and Iran.

    • Proliferation Analysis

    Israel Urges U.S. Diplomacy on Iran

    • Ze'ev Schiff
    • May 30, 2006

    Many observers believe that Israel is pushing the U.S. to take military action against Iran's nuclear program. We asked Israel's senior defense journalist, Ze'ev Schiff, a man with outstanding contacts, to describe Israeli establishment thinking today on the Iran challenge.

    When in Washington, I was amazed to hear on a number of occasions that Israel was urging the United States to go to war with Iran and that its strategic objective was to induce the United States to attack Iran, thus putting an end to that country's nuclear program. To the best of my knowledge and understanding this claim is totally false. It is an error based on ignorance or on disregard for important details in Israeli strategic thinking. It may even be founded on a deliberate lie.

    To the best of my knowledge, Israel does not believe war against Iran to be the best way to eliminate the Iranian nuclear project. There is a common tendency to forget that Israel lies on the frontline of such a war. Israel stands to suffer more than anyone else, including the United States, should such a war break out. It would certainly be the prime target of Iranian retaliation should the United States decide to use force against Iran. It is a known fact that the attack on the Israeli consulate in Buenos Aires some years ago was the work of Iranian agents. Also in Buenos Aires, Iranian agents were responsible for the destruction of the Jewish community offices, causing many casualties. In fact, the Iranian government aims its violence against Jewish institutions in countries outside the Middle East. (Read More)

    • Proliferation Analysis

    Testimony by Patrick Clawson: More Subtle Pressure and Inducements Needed for Iran

    • Patrick Clawson
    • May 30, 2006

    The following are excerpts from the prepared remarks by Patrick Clawson, deputy director at The Washington Institute, on "Iran's Motives and Strategies: The Role of the Economy" delivered at a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on May 17, 2006. Click here to access his full testimony.


    The Limitations of Economic Instruments

    Economic instruments alone are unlikely to be sufficient to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear program. The principal levers of power in Iran are in the hands of revolutionaries who are not motivated primarily by economic concerns, while those who care about the state of the economy do not have sufficient influence on their own to persuade the real power-holders to change policies. Success at influencing Iranian policy is much more likely if action on the economic front is combined with action on other fronts...

    Much as pressure should be applied on several fronts rather than just on the economy, so inducements offered Iran should take multiple forms rather than only being trade and investment incentives. Indeed, economic inducements look suspiciously like bribes paid for bad behavior. Besides being odious, such bribes give the impression that bad behavior is more profitable than good behavior...

    A much more appropriate form of inducement would be security inducements. Such security inducements should be designed to counter the argument that Iran needs nuclear weapons for its defense. There are many confidence- and security-building measures and arms control measures that would provide gains for both Iran and the West, similar to the way such steps reduced tensions between the old Warsaw Pact and NATO during the Cold War. One example would be an agreement to reduce the risk of incidents at sea between the U.S. and Iranian navies.

    A further security inducement which the United States could offer would be to address the reported concern that the Bush administration's real goal is regime change in Iran and that the Bush administration will use force to that end. Such complaints sound peculiar coming from an Iranian government whose president lectures President Bush on why the United States should abandon its liberal democracy and who sponsored a conference last fall on theme "The World Without Zionism and America"...

    It would of course be inappropriate for the U.S. government to offer any security guarantees to the Iranian or any other government; what government is in power in another country is up to the people of that country to decide. But what Washington could offer Tehran would be a "conditional security assurance" -- jargon for the simple proposition, "We will not attack you if you do not attack us." (Read More)

    • Event

    Can Anyone Save This Marriage: Russo-Chinese Energy Relations

    Stephen J. Blank, of the U.S. Army War College, and energy consultant Edward Chow looked at the future of Russian oil and gas and the possibility of shipping it to China.

    • Event

    Congressional Progressive Caucus Forum on Iran and Preemption

    Carnegie President Jessica Tuchman Mathews discusses U.S.-Iran Relations and whether war with Iran would help or hurt U.S. national security.

Carnegie Experts on
Iran

  • expert thumbnail - Acton
    James M. Acton
    Jessica T. Mathews Chair
    Co-director
    Nuclear Policy Program
    Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  • expert thumbnail - Adebahr
    Cornelius Adebahr
    Nonresident Fellow
    Carnegie Europe
    Adebahr is a nonresident fellow at Carnegie Europe. His research focuses on European foreign policy.
  • expert thumbnail - Blanc
    Jarrett Blanc
    Senior Fellow
    Geoeconomics and Strategy Program
    Jarrett Blanc is a senior fellow in the Geoeconomics and Strategy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  • expert thumbnail - Cammack
    Perry Cammack
    Nonresident Fellow
    Middle East Program
    Perry Cammack is a nonresident fellow in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on long-term regional trends and their implications for American foreign policy.
  • expert thumbnail - DiMaggio
    Suzanne DiMaggio
    Senior Fellow
    Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Suzanne DiMaggio is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where she focuses on U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East and Asia, especially Iran and North Korea.
  • expert thumbnail - Hamzawy
    Amr Hamzawy
    Nonresident Senior Fellow
    Middle East Program
    Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
    Amr Hamzawy studied political science and developmental studies in Cairo, The Hague, and Berlin.
  • expert thumbnail - Hibbs
    Mark Hibbs
    Senior Fellow
    Nuclear Policy Program
    Hibbs is a Germany-based senior fellow in Carnegie’s Nuclear Policy Program. His areas of expertise are nuclear verification and safeguards, multilateral nuclear trade policy, international nuclear cooperation, and nonproliferation arrangements.
  • expert thumbnail - Levite
    Ariel (Eli) Levite
    Nonresident Senior Fellow
    Nuclear Policy Program
    Levite was the principal deputy director general for policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission from 2002 to 2007.
  • expert thumbnail - Lynch
    Marc Lynch
    Nonresident Senior Fellow
    Middle East Program
    Marc Lynch is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Middle East Program where his work focuses on the politics of the Arab world.
  • expert thumbnail - Muasher
    Marwan Muasher
    Vice President for Studies
    Muasher is vice president for studies at Carnegie, where he oversees research in Washington and Beirut on the Middle East.
  • expert thumbnail - Perkovich
    George Perkovich
    Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Chair
    Vice President for Studies
    Perkovich works primarily on nuclear strategy and nonproliferation issues; cyberconflict; and new approaches to international public-private management of strategic technologies.
  • expert thumbnail - Sadjadpour
    Karim Sadjadpour
    Senior Fellow
    Middle East Program
    Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.
  • expert thumbnail - Sokolsky
    Richard Sokolsky
    Nonresident Senior Fellow
    Russia and Eurasia Program
    Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. His work focuses on U.S. policy toward Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.
  • expert thumbnail - Ülgen
    Sinan Ülgen
    Visiting Scholar
    Carnegie Europe
    Ülgen is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where his research focuses on Turkish foreign policy, nuclear policy, cyberpolicy, and transatlantic relations.
  • expert thumbnail - Volpe
    Tristan Volpe
    Nonresident Fellow
    Nuclear Policy Program
    Tristan Volpe is a nonresident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and assistant professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School.
  • expert thumbnail - Wehrey
    Frederic Wehrey
    Senior Fellow
    Middle East Program
    Wehrey specializes in post-conflict transitions, armed groups, and identity politics, with a focus on Libya, North Africa, and the Gulf.

Sign up for
Carnegie Email

Personal Information
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。