Giving Thanks for the Iran Nuclear Deal

Every year around Thanksgiving, it is typical, if not cliché, to sit around the table and give reasons to be thankful. This year, I’m thankful for the nuclear deal between the UN and Iran, and said as much at my family dinner, to many groans and eye rolls. Alternately celebrated as a successful performance of diplomacy and decried as the harbinger of nuclear war, the deal has already generated enough controversy to run for New York City mayor. Yet overall, its critics seem to have concerns that have little to do with nuclear weapons, and everything to do with local and regional geopolitics. The deal itself can be hailed as a huge diplomatic success for the United States – which received nearly every concession that it asked for in the negotiations – and a positive first step towards a less nuclear world.

While some are posing the deal as the Iranians pulling one over on the US, in reality the P5+1 negotiators were very successful at extracting concessions from Iran. The deal, outlined in this excellent New York Times infographic, capped enrichment at levels safe for nuclear power only, halted production of new centrifuges as well as construction of the Arak heavy water reactor, mandated that uranium already enriched to 20% be diluted or converted, and overall, extended Iran’s “breakout time” – the time necessary to build a complete nuclear weapon – from less than two months to three or even four months. Essentially, the deal delays Iran’s ability to produce a weapon while still allowing it to have a peaceful nuclear program, which was the entire idea behind the original (US-approved and supported) nuclear program in the 1960s.

In return, Iran has received about $6 billion in sanctions relief over the next six months. Many among the anti-Iran lobby have argued that this will give the government economic breathing room while it continues to develop its nuclear capabilities. While it is true that the sanctions relief, largely in the form of unfreezing petroleum revenue stuck in foreign banks, will provide some breathing room to the Iranian people, in a country that is losing an estimated $5 billion a month due to sanctions, it is just a drop in the bucket. To get further and more meaningful sanctions relief, Iran will need to finalize a permanent deal to come into force after the current six-month deal expires. That will mean more concessions, more oversight, and more opportunities for wary partners like Israel and Saudi Arabia to express their concerns and address them in negotiations. Since the entire point of sanctions is, in theory, to bring a belligerent actor to the negotiating table, the current deal appears to be a rare example of when sanctions actually succeed.

There are still major obstacles to striking a permanent deal with Iran, or even fulfilling the current deal. First and foremost is that the deal includes an agreement on no new sanctions against Iran, something that the US Congress may ignore as they consider passing new sanctions this month. Republicans and many Democrats for once seem able to come together and pass a bill; unfortunately it is one that could compromise a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Another obstacle is the attitudes of two of the United States’ strongest allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Israel, who, like the Congress, are divided on almost every other issue except for Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the deal an “historic mistake” that has thrown Israel’s entire future into jeopardy. Saudi officials have also made rare public statements deploring the secrecy of back-channel talks prior to the public negotiation of the deal.

While the populations of Israel and Saudi Arabia may certainly fear Iran’s acquisition of the bomb, the two countries’ governments are more preoccupied with the threat of an Iran fully integrated into the international economy. These fears were more than amply laid out by Stephen M. Walt in a recent Foreign Policy piece, but in sum, the deal’s opponents have far more to lose from an integrated Iran than a nuclear bomb (no, really). Saudi Arabia has long vied with Iran for dominance in the Middle East, and especially fears Iranian influence on its Shi’ite population, which happens to be located exactly where the largest Saudi oil reserves are. Israel also fears the economic power that Iran could wield if sanctions were lifted, foreseeing that its large, well-educated population could soon overtake Israel as the most developed country in the Middle East An economically empowered Iran would at least would take a bigger piece of the economic pie, which would give it opportunities to project power throughout the region. Detractors (ahem, Ted Cruz) have already held up the example of North Korea (which signed an agreement aimed at denuclearization in 1994 only to test its first nuke in 2006) to decry the current deal. Yet Iran is different for so many reasons, and the bleak warning signs that existed with North Korea have yet to materialize within Iran.

Supporters of Rouhani hold up his picture and celebrate

In Iran, too, there are still challenges to overcome. The country at large reacted with joy at news of the deal: the prospect of sanctions relief, economic recovery, and a legitimate and recognized peaceful nuclear program were greeted with jubilation. Yet many powerful Iranians actually benefit from the sanctions regime through the black market and corruption, and security hardliners who have the ear of Ayatollah Khamenei are unlikely to come on board anytime soon. If the benefits of sanctions relief outweigh the rhetoric of the hardliners, however, the Iranian population and its current administration might stay the current course and remain on track to a permanent deal.

At this moment, I remain cautiously optimistic that this deal will delay the Iranian nuclear project and set the stage for a long-term treaty. While I agree that Iran has a right to a peaceful nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I am opposed to a nuclear-armed Iran, not least because this would likely lead to a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and a ramped up regional Cold War. This deal is the first step to ensuring that all sides get the best possible outcome, and is the first shot that diplomats have had in years to end the antagonism between Iran and the United States and its allies. A best-case scenario would be a halt to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, a thawing of relations between Iran and the US and its allies, reintegration of Iran into the global economy, and a better standard of living for Iranian citizens. In international affairs, however, the best-case scenario is rarely the one that plays out. For now, I’ll settle for a temporary halt to the weapons program, and a glimmer of a hope that the decades-long culture of dangerous US-Iran animosity is finally drawing to a close.

Netanyahu's Misguided Attack Against Iran - One Step Back for Nuclear Talks?

U.S.-Iran relations in recent weeks have been at their highest point in probably the last 4 decades, leaving many optimistic about continuing progress in nuclear talks. Iranian President Rouhani and President Obama have had the first President-to-President talks in years, and eagerness from Rouhani on improving Iran's relationship with the western world seems genuine and refreshing, compared to the bellicosity and harsh words former President Ahmadinejad was know for. But despite these improvements, U.S. ally and stalwart in the Middle East, Israel, has not been convinced. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has remained steadfast in his disapproval and leeriness of Iranian intentions, continuously referring to Rouhani as "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Although it has not appeared to affect talks between Iran and the U.S., it is not guaranteed that it won't in the future.

In possibly the worst move in recent weeks, Netanyahu gave an interview to the Persian arm of the BBC news channel on Thursday night regarding Iran, drawing serious ire from not the Iranian government, but this time the Iranian public. Ironically, Netanyahu's appeal to the Iranian public to stand up against their government backfired entirely; Netanyahu ignorantly referenced the Iranian people's inability to listen to western music or to wear denim jeans, while also repeatedly discrediting the most recent presidential election and saying the Iranian public "deserved better."

Obviously, this interview was not warmly received by the intended recipients. Iranian youth took to twitter and other social media outlets ridiculing Netanyahu, showing pictures of their jeans, iPods, and other western cultural items. Furthermore, Netanyahu referenced 2009 antigovernment protests - specifically a women who's death was caught on camera and ignited sympathy and anger from around the world - without seeming to have recalled (or cared) that the women who had died was in fact wearing jeans in the video. The question all of this leaves is whether Netanyahu had ulterior motives in giving the interview, something perhaps unseen by someone like myself or the countless other individuals who saw it, or whether he truly was so in the dark on contemporary Iranian culture that he could make such inaccurate comments.

Given that Israel is significantly closer in proximity to Iran, and that the two have experienced an arguably worse relationship over the years than the U.S. has, it is understandable that Netanyahu has been unmoved by what others would see as optimistic progress in the recent nuclear talks. And, in defense of Netanyahu, the talks as of yet have been preliminary, and it will be important to see President Rouhani step up to the plate and begin implementing serious changes in the way Iran runs its nuclear program. Until then, talk is just talk, and it won't be the first time promising nuclear attacks have failed. However, there is serious reason to believe Rouhani is committed to changes - due to crippling economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and European countries, Iran's economy is in serious trouble, and improving relations with the western world could over time substantially mitigate this. And Netanyahu's stubbornness when it comes to Iran, while not hurting nuclear talks yet, is certainly not helping them. Expressing concern and raising legitimate qualms is a reasonable thing for a country in Israel's position to do; publicly making inaccurate, disparaging remarks is not. It is in the best interest of Israel, and the United States, that Netanyahu begin to trust the talks more and join the nuclear talks as a productive state, and begin helping move things along more.

The Truth Behind Russia's Proposal on Syria

The world breathed a collective sigh of relief after President Obama's speech last night, a speech in which Obama indicated that a vote from Congress on military force in Syria would be put on hold while we once again revisited the idea of diplomacy. In fact, it's safe to say President Obama himself was breathing a sigh of relief, having averted what would have been a dramatic failure when Congress undoubtedly voted against authorizing military force. Instead, the world's attention has been turned towards Russia, who days ago unveiled their proposal for seizure of Syrian chemical weapons by the international community in place of any military action. True, this alternative satisfies the international community's need to stand up against chemical weapons and show that there are repercussions to their use, and also avoids dragging any other country's army into the conflict - nobody will argue that these are the main stipulations for any proposal put on the negotiating table. However, the proposal is nothing more than a vapid, empty attempt by Russia and Syria to delay any international reaction of substance. President Obama may have successfully avoided an embarrassing defeat by Congress of his authority to use military force, but the time for that will ultimately come when the veil has been lifted and Russia's proposal is seen for what it really is.

Bread over Bombs: Why the US Should Not Strike Syria

Over the last week, The Global Atlas’s metaphorical lights have been off as the three lead contributors were either out of town, dealing with Allston Christmas, and starting the new school year and the flood of students and work that comes with it. In that week, Pres. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have raised the decibel level on the rhetoric surrounding the Syria crisis. Both have confirmed their belief that a chemical attack took place in late August, possibly followed by another; both have pointed the finger at Syrian President Bashar al-Asad; and both have hinted that military strikes will begin soon, but only with congressional approval. The likelihood of a strike increased this morning with the State Dept. ordering all of its non-emergency personnel out of Beirut, and issuing travel warnings for Turkey and Lebanon.

I’ve been pretty vocal in my criticism of the handling of the Syrian crisis, and I’m not about to change now: bombing Asad’s forces would be a huge mistake. It could have the allegedly unintended effect of toppling Asad; it could also very well prevent the use of chemical weapons by either side or others in the future, which of course is a desirable outcome. Yet its other effects would be so negative and detrimental to finding a sustainable peace in Syria that they would vastly outweigh any positives that could result from such a strike. As I have written before, the time for a military intervention has long passed, and toppling Asad without a negotiated settlement in place leaves us with unsavory choices for his replacement.

USAID: Global Reach to Build Civil Societies Big and Small

GHANA—In a remote village hours from Tamale, USAID worker Valerie DeFillipo and her colleagues arrived to a warm welcome from the small town’s 200 inhabitants. Villagers greeted the team to show gratitude and support for a USAID-funded Planned Parenthood of Ghana clinic, the village’s only source of medical care. Dozens of locals came to hail the clinic as a fixture of community wellness and women’s empowerment and health, by providing a

fusion of family planning and other education and health services. Today, the small clinic continues to educate, heal and empower community members.

USAID’s activities in isolated communities such as the one DeFillipo visited challenge the notion that foreign aid should be reserved for and has the greatest impact on governments and large-scale programs. Of the agency’s 2,642 projects across more than 170 countries, many function in remote areas that have little or no infrastructure, health facilities nor the human and financial basis to sustain economic development. 

The Two-State Dissolution

The last round of negotiations in 2010. State Department Photo by Michael Gross

An entrenched stalemate persists between Israelis and Palestinians concerning a just and comprehensive two-state solution. The Intifadas, Oslo Accords and their shortfalls, Jewish and Palestinian terrorism, and domestic exhaustion place a potential agreement in uncertain waters. Recent developments in Israel and Palestine* suggest that the parties are not even close to reaching conditions for meaningful negotiations. Yet although the prospects of a two-state solution are slim at the moment, the case for a settlement is stronger than ever. Precarious as the situation is, both sides need to take bold steps to find middle ground before the floor disappears beneath their feet.

The Future of Global Energy

We've often heard the familiar warnings that the world's natural resources dwindle year after year, inching humanity closer to a point of no return. Damage to earth's forests, oceans and atmosphere, however, may not be enough to persuade policymakers to take bold steps toward cleaner, alternative energy sources and carbon emission reductions goals. Such steps shape global energy markets and trends, as does energy diversification, supply and demand. Unpredictable events, such as the Fukushima nuclear disaster, can also mold the energy markets of the future. Thus, it is critical to examine the various moving parts involved in world energy markets in order to accurately assess the future of these markets.

A few characteristics of global energy markets give some context for what we should expect in the future. The rise and fall of energy prices have ripple effects across other energy and energy-related industries. OECD countries, including  the United States, are demanding less and less oil, while burgeoning economies in East Asia see an increase in demand for petroleum that drives an expected overall increase in global demand for oil in the coming decades. Countries such as China and Germany are heavily subsidizing solar power, and new technologies in wind and solar could enable more efficient harnessing of these energy sources. And finally, much of the predictions for the future of global energy markets depend on two critical points: bringing Iraq's vast oil reserves online and the potential of unconventional oil and gas extraction (by fracking, for example), especially in the United States.

From Iron Dome to the Arrow 3

Last November, as delineated in a past article, Israel launched a military operation targeting Islamist militants--chiefly Hamas--and their capacity to fire rockets into mainland Israel. Operation Pillar of Defense, as it was called, debuted the Jewish state's Iron Dome missile defense system, which intercepted just under a third of the missiles launched from Gaza. The Iron Dome was an important step forward for Israel's "multilayered defense system" and adds extra missile defense capacity along with the existing David's Sling and Arrow 2 missile defense systems. The new missile defense system--dubbed the Arrow 3--is designed to target Iranian Shihab 3 missiles and other long-range rockets. The joint Israeli-American project was tested today with remarkable success, and it's set to be fully operational by 2016.

A diagram of the Arrow 3 defense system. From JPost.