Unlike North Korea, Iran may well be motivated to live up to the terms of its nuclear deal, while the United States may find it even more difficult to deliver.
Could a potential nuclear deal strengthen the country’s civil society and private sector and bring about meaningful political reform?
Should the EU3+3 and Iran conclude an agreement, this might go far toward reducing Iran’s nuclear threat for ten years, but success will depend utterly on the detailed provisions.
Unlike Tehran, Pyongyang fears external threats more than internal ones and may at most agree to freeze its nuclear program. Though this scenario is arguably the best one imaginable, political considerations in Washington make it all but impossible.
Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu addressed the country’s evolving policy toward the Middle East, including its role in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
A nuclear deal with Iran would bring about change in the neighboring South Caucasus and Central Asia, where ostracized Iran failed to become a major actor after the end of the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Putin’s decision to lift a ban on the exports of the S-300 air defense missile system to Iran has caused shockwaves in the West and Israel. However, the Kremlin’s move was quite predictable with a rather clearly discernible logic behind it.
The nuclear deal’s potential benefits to sectarian relations in the Gulf have been offset by the escalating violence in Yemen and a wave of Sunni triumphalism.
Sanctions relief should be a reward for ending Iran’s nuke program. But the current deal is a massive payment to temporarily put it on hold.
President Putin’s decision to lift the ban on the transfer of the S-300 air defense system to Iran signals a new departure for Moscow’s policy in the Middle East.
















Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices