Essays, Publications

Building on the Iran Deal: Steps Toward a Middle Eastern Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone

The July 14 agreement between Iran and the six-country group known as the P5+1 established a set of important limitations and related transparency measures on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Approved unanimously by the UN Security Council on July 20, the agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aims “to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful” and thus to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation. To this end, it imposes limits for a decade or more on Iran’s use of the key technologies required to make highly enriched uranium (HEU) and to separate plutonium, the fissile materials that are the critical ingredients in nuclear weapons.

Other states in the Middle East, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are planning to establish their own nuclear power programs during the period that the Iran deal is expected to be in force. This has led to concerns about how Iran and other countries in the region will act when restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program end. To address such concerns, this article proposes that the P5+1 and the states of the Middle East use the next decade to agree on region-wide restraints based on the key obligations of the Iran deal as steps toward establishing a Middle Eastern nuclear-weapon-free zone, preferably as part of a regional zone free of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD).1 These measures would ban the separation of plutonium, limit the level of uranium enrichment, place enrichment plants under multinational control, and cap and reduce Israel’s existing stocks of fissile materials available for use in nuclear weapons, in time eliminating its arsenal through a step-by-step process.

These are intermediate steps to a nuclear-weapon-free zone that would establish strong, new technical and political barriers to any future attempts by countries in the region to seek a nuclear weapons capability. Although different Middle Eastern states may favor different sequencing of these and other steps, all of the intermediate steps presented below have nonproliferation and disarmament value in their own right. Individually and in groups, states in the region should be encouraged to adopt these steps as way stations toward the larger goal of a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East. They also should be pursued globally as steps toward global nuclear disarmament, especially by the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), who all have nuclear weapons and with Germany make up the P5+1.

As in the Iran deal, verification arrangements will be important. Covert proliferation has a long history in the Middle East, starting with Israel’s nuclear program in the 1960s and continuing with the violations by Iraq, Libya, and Syria of their commitments under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and most recently the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program. Given this history and the deep mutual suspicions of countries in the region, a robust regional safeguards, monitoring, and verification regime may add to the confidence provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nuclear safeguards system.

Read More

“Building on the Iran Deal: Steps Toward a Middle Eastern Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone,” Arms Control Today, Alexander Glaser, Zia Mian, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, and Frank von Hippel. Published by Arms Control Today (12/2015).

Articles, Publications

‘Coalition of the Coalitions’ Needed in ISIS Fight

On July 14, after 12 years of crisis and negotiations, Iran and six major world powers agreed on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which marked a peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear dispute. The JCPOA is the most comprehensive agreement ever achieved on non-proliferation; containing the most intrusive transparency and verification mechanisms ever implemented in the history of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). It shuts down all possible “pathways” to a nuclear weapon and prevents any potential covert weapons programs as well. There is no doubt that this agreement represents the most important diplomatic and non-proliferation achievement in several decades and that the global nonproliferation regime is stronger as a result of this deal.

Read More

‘Coalition of the Coalitions’ Needed in ISIS Fight,” Hossein Mousavian, Defense News, December 13, 2015.

Articles, Publications

To Solve the Syria Crisis, We Need to Overcome These Three Obstacles

The global powers that met two times in Vienna for landmark discussions on ending the war in Syria may meet again in New York this month while several hurdles remain. In a March 2015 op-ed for the National Interest, I proposed a six step plan with 10 principles to resolve the Syrian conflict. During the past two years, I have sought to promote this proposal in numerous international seminars and conferences.

 

Read More

To Solve the Syria Crisis, We Need to Overcome These Three Obstacles,” Hossein Mousavian, The Huffington Post, December 7, 2015.

Articles, Publications

Will Iran’s nuclear diplomacy lead to regional solutions?

Ayatollah Khamenei first permitted direct negotiations between Iran and the United States on the nuclear issue after US President Barack Obama came into office, during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Direct talks were held first in Vienna in 2009 and continued in Muscat in 2012. With the election of Rouhani in June 2013, a more professional nuclear negotiating team was appointed and a more favorable international political climate for serious negotiations was created. To accommodate a nuclear deal, Ayatollah Khamenei gave permission again for direct talks between Iran and United States, allowing for the bilateral negotiations that proved to be the critical prerequisite to the nuclear deal to eventually be reached.

Indeed, it is of crucial importance to note that the Rouhani administration would not have been able to reach and uphold the nuclear deal without the support of Ayatollah Khamenei. Hard-line domestic opponents of Rouhani would have certainly killed the deal if not for the supreme leader’s explicit support for the administration and nuclear negotiators. When the parliament was debating the nuclear deal these past several months, I was in Iran and witnessed firsthand the bellicose nature of the opposition. The rhetoric reached such a level of hostility that at one point a hard-line parliament member menaced Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, threatening to put him and Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi in the “heart” of Iran’s plutonium reactor and “bury” them “in cement.”

Read More

“Will Iran’s nuclear diplomacy lead to regional solutions?” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, November 3, 2015.

Articles, Publications

Why Bridging the Iran-Saudi Divide Is Vital for Peace in Syria and the Region

Archrivals Saudi Arabia and Iran are experiencing their first regional talks in Vienna on the Syrian conflict. Since assuming office in August 2013, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has initiated several overtures to Saudi Arabia, attempting to mend what has steadily devolved into a dangerously adversarial relationship in the years since the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Rouhani, who called for better ties with Saudi Arabia shortly after his inauguration, made his first diplomatic outreach to Saudi Arabia at a critical juncture. He dispatched his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, to visit several of the Arab Persian Gulf states shortly after the November 2013 interim nuclear deal was reached between Iran and the P5+1 group of nations.

Read More

Why Bridging the Iran-Saudi Divide Is Vital for Peace in Syria and the Region,” Hossein Mousavian, The Huffington Post, October 30, 2015.

Articles, Publications

Why Iran Doesn’t Trust America — And What Can Be Done to Change That

During his speech before the United Nations General Assembly, U.S. President Barack Obama accused Iran of using “violent proxies to advance its interests,” which he claimed served to “fuel sectarian conflict” in the region. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani shot back during his speech, decrying what he said were “baseless accusations” against Iran and calling for the United States to halt its “dangerous policies in defense of its regional allies who only cultivate the seeds of division and extremism.”

Obama and Rouhani’s comments highlight a broader issue underlying the troubled U.S.-Iran relationship. In the West, many commentators often portray Iran’s leaders as being unreasonably suspicious about the intentions of outside powers, particularly the United States. Often dovetailing with this mentality is that Iran is irrationally and innately aggressive. While President Obama’s remarks at the UNGA reflect this black-and-white thinking about Iran to a degree, other high-level U.S. officials have been far more brazen in their dishonest condemnations of Iran. For instance, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, remarkably proclaimed in a March 2015 interview that “Iran and radical Islamist extremists” have opposed the United States simply because they “do not like our way of life.”

Read More

Why Iran Doesn’t Trust America — And What Can Be Done to Change That,” Hossein Mousavian, The Huffington Post, October 5, 2015.

Articles, Publications

Should Congress Approve the Iran Deal?

The Iran nuclear deal represents the most comprehensive international agreement ever reached in the area of nuclear nonproliferation. The confidence-building measures it elicits from Iran in order to ensure that its nuclear program will remain peaceful—ranging from intrusive inspections to novel verification mechanisms—are the most powerful of their kind that a Nuclear Nonproliferation member-state has agreed to. If the objective was to certify Iran’s compliance with NPT and block all possible paths toward a bomb, then this agreement represents the maximum that could have been achieved.

 

Read More

Should Congress Approve the Iran Deal?” Hossein Mousavian, Foreign affairs, September 7, 2015.

Articles, Publications

It’s Time for Republicans to Abandon Their Short-Sighted Approach to Iran

Republican intransigence over the Iran nuclear deal has proven to be futile, with Democratic senators successfully filibustering a Republican motion of disapproval last Thursday. However, this has not prevented the GOP from pursuing other inventive ways to derail this landmark diplomatic achievement. Sadly, the main consequence of dead-end Republican revanchism over the Iran deal is that it has reinforced highly insular mindsets — characterized by an “us-against-them” mentality — with respect to Iran.

In no circumstance has black and white moralizing ever given an accurate depiction of reality, least of all in regards to modern day Iran — a society far more complex and pluralistic than what many Westerners believe. By constantly shouting crude slogans denigrating Iran and spinning a spider’s web of misinformation about the country, Iran deal obstructionists are in fact acting in ways wholly counterproductive to the cause of international peace and security.

Read More

“It’s Time for Republicans to Abandon Their Short-Sighted Approach to Iran,” Hossein Mousavian, The Huffington Post, September 14, 2015.

 

Articles, Publications

What Obama should say to King Salman during his visit

The relationship between Iran and its southern Arab neighbors — namely, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states — has been turbulent for the past few decades. The GCC states were under the shadow of Iraq and Iran, the two prevailing powers in the Persian Gulf, for much of the 20th century, with the latter historically being the more dominant power. Stricken with internal disputes, weak central governments and rivalries among themselves, the Arab states along the Persian Gulf’s southern coast were never in a position to challenge the powers to their north.

The situation changed after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, which brought political Islam to the geopolitical scene. The autocratic Persian Gulf monarchies immediately felt threatened by this new political force, which had the potential to undermine their legitimacy and jeopardize their rule. Within this context, in 1981 they established the GCC, comprised of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980 had provided a convenient excuse to exclude Iraq and Yemen, notable omissions even though the latter does not border on the Persian Gulf, and Iraq has close to 40 miles of coastline.

Read More

What Obama should say to King Salman during his visit,” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, September 4, 2015.

Articles, Publications

A rejection of the nuclear deal could lead to radicalism in Iran

With the ongoing domestic in-fighting in the United States and Iran over the nuclear deal — which has already become legally binding by way of a U.N. Security Council resolution — it has become clear that Congress poses the biggest risk for the deal falling through. Congress’s ability to play a spoiler role comes not only from the power it has to scuttle the deal altogether but also from its efforts at fostering an uncertain atmosphere regarding the removal of sanctions on Iran.

The effectiveness of the nuclear deal will rely largely on the P5+1 instilling confidence in the global business community that sanctions have been removed and the country is open for business. Truly removing sanctions in a way that would have tangible benefits for Iran would require shaping expectations in such a way that businesses do not feel their investments are precarious and susceptible to the political machinations of Congress or a future U.S. president.

Read More

A rejection of the nuclear deal could lead to radicalism in Iran,” Hossein Mousavian, The Washington Post, August 28, 2015.