Publications

Articles, Publications

It was not sanctions that brought Iran to the table

Posted on

As Iran meets world powers in Geneva today for this month’s second round of talks on its nuclear programme, there is much self-congratulation about the supposed effectiveness of the sanctions after decades of intransigence.

But the idea that it is sanctions that have brought Tehran to the table is wrong. The real cause is the desire of new President Hassan Rouhani to reach a rapprochement with the US, the EU, its neighbours and other world powers, alongside the fact that the US red line has changed from “no enrichment of uranium” to “no nuclear bomb”.

“It was not sanctions that brought Iran to the table,” Hossein Mousavian, Financial Times, November 19, 2013.

Essays, Publications

Does Iran Seek Nuclear Weapons?

Posted on

This paper presents a comprehensive explanation as to why Iran is not after a nuclear bomb and provides twenty-five reasons to strengthen this position. Examples range from a chronology of Israeli accusations that claim Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; elaborating on the findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors of Iranian nuclear facilities; the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s viewpoint on nuclear weapons; the findings of US and other Western intelligence agency’s regarding the Iran’s nuclear capability; and instances of missed opportunity that have evaded a resolution of the nuclear dossier. Furthermore, the paper elaborates on a framework for diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff and its contribution to the realization of Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East.

Read Paper

“Does Iran Seek Nuclear Weapons?” Hossein Mousavian, International Studies Journal (ISJ), Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 129-142. Published by the International Studies Journal, November 2013.

Articles, Publications

7 Reasons Iran nuclear deal a win-win for all parties

Posted on

The negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program held in Geneva, Nov. 7–9, made unprecedented progress toward an agreement. US Secretary of State John Kerry announced at the conclusion of the talks, “We came to Geneva to narrow the differences, and I can tell you without any reservations, we made significant progress. It takes time to build confidence between countries that have really been at odds with each other for a long time now.”

The French position, however, surprised everyone. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned that a rush to an agreement would be a “fool’s game.” Informed sources told Al-Monitor that Britain, China, Germany, Russia, and the United States and Iran had been amenable to signing a draft agreement but that Paris then moved to block the deal. There are 7 reasons to help France, the US Congress, Israel and some of the Arab states rethink their position, which is blocking a win-win deal.

Read More

“7 Reasons Iran nuclear deal a win-win for all parties,” Hossein Mousavian, Al-Monitor, November 9, 2013.

Essays, Publications

Fissile Material Controls in the Middle East: Steps toward a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and all other Weapons of Mass Destruction

Posted on

We suggest possible initiatives for fissile material control that could serve as initial steps toward an eventual Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction. These initiatives include actions that Israel, the only regional state with nuclear weapons, could take towards nuclear disarmament; and measures of collective restraint regarding fissile material production and use to be taken by all states of the region to foster confidence that their civilian nuclear activities are indeed peaceful in intent and not being pursued as a cover to develop nuclear-weapon options.

For Israel, these initial steps include ending production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, declaring its stockpiles of these materials, and placing increasing portions under international safeguards as steps toward their elimination. The eventual nuclear disarmament of Israel would be a necessary condition for any Middle East nuclear weapon-free zone and for a broader weapon of mass destruction free zone.

The regional measures that we propose would serve to bring a Middle East nuclear- weapon-free zone closer and make the zone more robust when it is in force. These measures include no separation of plutonium, no use of highly enriched uranium or plutonium as fuel, and no national enrichment plants. It would greatly strengthen the global nonproliferation regime if these measures were adopted worldwide, including by the nuclear weapon states.

All these measures are worth pursuing in their own rights and states should take initiatives to make progress on them wherever possible. Progress should not be held up by the imposition of linkages, time ordering or sequencing between steps.

Although we do not discuss chemical and biological weapons in this paper, it is critical that all countries in the region ratify and comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This has become especially important after the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria in 2013 and Syria’s subsequent decision to accede to the CWC, declare its stockpile and verifiably destroy its chemical weapons. Egypt and Israel should follow suit on the CWC. All three states also should ratify the BWC.

Finally, we propose that discussions be launched on the design of regional verification arrangements strong enough so that all countries in the region can have confidence in the absence of secret nuclear weapon programs. Similar verification arrangements also should be developed to increase confidence in the region that countries are complying with the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions.

Read Report

Read Princeton University Press Release

“Fissile Material Controls in the Middle East: Steps toward a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and all other Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Frank N. von Hippel, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Emad Kiyaei, Harold A. Feiveson and Zia Mian, Research Report No. 11 International Panel on Fissile Materials. Published by the International Panel on Fissile Materials, October 2013.

Articles, Publications

Success is in sight, if sanctions can be lifted

Posted on

Although the contents of the Iranian package has been kept confidential, during two different conferences representatives of two members of the international delegation attending the recent nuclear talks in Geneva informed me that “the new Iranian nuclear package addresses all major concerns of the world powers.” Russia’s “Step-by-Step Proposal” from 2011, plus credible media reports and statements by former US officials engaged on the nuclear issue, reveal that the major demands of the world powers are twofold.

Firstly, they insist that Iran show the maximum level of transparency by implementing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’s Additional Protocol, Subsidiary Arrangement Code 3.1 and cooperating with the IAEA to resolve the so-called “possible military dimension” issues.

Secondly, they want Iran to accept measures to prevent the chance of a “breakout” to a nuclear weapon: cap uranium enrichment at 5 percent, limit the number and type of centrifuges, accept a maximum ceiling on stockpiles of enriched uranium, ensure no reprocessing takes place at the heavy water facility in Arak, and forbid plutonium separation.

The Russian step-by-step plan contained all these major elements required by the world powers, and was welcomed by Iran because it includes two major Iranian demands: the recognition of Iran’s right to enrichment, and the lifting of sanctions. Reliable sources informed me that the Russian proposal failed because of US inability to provide sanctions relief in return for substantive Iranian measures.

All of the above suggests that a comprehensive deal on the nuclear issue is possible if the US and the world powers respects the rights of Iran under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and if Iran gets proportionate sanction relief in return for accepting their major demands. This, in effect, places the demands of both parties within a package and implements a step-by-step, proportionate, and reciprocal process.

To prevent such a breakthrough from materializing, hawks in Tel Aviv and Washington are pushing a misleading proposal on “freeing up funds.” “My biggest concern is that if the administration takes out a brick from the sanctions regime, you won’t be able to put it back together,” asserted Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He called the “freeing up funds” plan a way to offer a concession without changing the sanctions.

About USD 50 billion of Iran’s oil revenue is currently held in escrow accounts in countries that continue to import oil from Iran. Iran employs these assets to pay for imports from these countries. The resumption of nuclear negotiations has provided Israeli hawks and US hardliners the opportunity to freeze these funds entirely. Their suggestion that President Obama temporarily allow Iran access to those funds is most likely tied to nuclear concessions. Iran’s compliance will result in monetary rewards which leave the structure of the current unilateral and multilateral sanctions regimes imposed by United Nations, US, and Europeans intact.

Failure to comply, however, will result in the freezing of Iran’s assets abroad and placing it under a virtual embargo. Therefore, this proposal is in fact nothing but a Trojan horse. This policy not only blocks the nuclear deal, but would complicate the situation further at a time when—after a decade—the world powers and Iran are in a position to reach a final deal if the US can deliver real action on sanctions relief.

Read More

“Success is in sight, if sanctions can be lifted,” Hossein Mousavian, Asharq Al Awsat, November 6, 2013.

Articles, Publications

Rouhani is West’s best bet in Iran

Posted on

Iran defines its political system as independent from outside powers — of most significance, the US. This has been the case throughout the revolution and remains a focal priority, even as Iran seeks reconciliation with the West.

This edict of independence arises not only from Iran’s rich culture, but its resistance to outside pressure also stems from its system of theocracy. Ultimately, if Iran governed its state out of fear from US threats, then further threats would beget further concessions, costing Iran’s Islamic government its identity and independence.

Historical analysis evidences that once Iran sets a goal, it accomplishes its goal despite external pressure and obstacles.

Read More

“Rouhani is West’s best bet in Iran,” Hossein Mousavian and Shahir Shahidsaless, Gulf News, October 20, 2013.

Articles, Publications

Finding a way out of the nuclear dispute with Iran: back to basics

Posted on

The international diplomatic, economic and intelligence conflict over Iran’s nuclear program has now been in full flow for over a decade. Few crises have lasted this long at such tempo. It has involved complex games of diplomatic poker, missed opportunities and overplayed hands. Proposals have come and gone involving careful balancing of red lines and attempts to find common interest. With Hassan Rouhani’s election and his clear and articulated desire to find a breakthrough in the deadlock, expressed last month at the United Nations General Assembly and on his historic phone call with President Obama subsequently, it is time to take a step back and look at the situation afresh.

In this new publication, BASIC’s executive director, Paul Ingram, and former Iranian Ambassador to Germany, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, outline the current state of the nuclear dispute with Iran and suggest opportunities to take positive steps forward.

Read More

“Finding a way out of the nuclear dispute with Iran: back to basics,” Hossein Mousavian and Paul Ingram, British American Security Information Council, October 23, 2013.

Articles, Publications

The road to finalizing a nuclear deal with Iran

Posted on

A decade of nuclear negotiations failed because the U.S. was not ready to respect the rights of Iran to enrich uranium for civilian use under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). America’s stance changed in Geneva. “We found the Iranian presentation very useful,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said after four rounds of talks ended on Wednesday evening. “The Iranian proposal was a new proposal with a level of seriousness and substance that we had not seen before.”

Four major reasons accounted for the change in dynamics between Iran and the U.S. this time, compared with previous, unproductive discussions.

Read More

“The road to finalizing a nuclear deal with Iran,” Hossein Mousavian, Al-Jazeera America, October 18, 2013.

Articles, Publications

Obama and Rouhani Should Talk More Often

Posted on

Although the nuclear issue has priority in Kerry and Zarif’s mandates, the foreign ministers should also discuss other critical issues, such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and extremism in the region. The key to success is to discuss areas of dispute while pressing ahead with practical measures on areas of mutual interest. During my tenure as Iranian ambassador to Germany, Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani held periodic phone conversations that had positive impacts on bilateral, regional and international issues. The Middle East is in turmoil and on the verge of regionwide sectarian and civil war. The United States, as a major international player, and Iran, as a major regional player, have historical responsibilities to bring about peace, stability and security to the Middle East and beyond.

Obama and Rouhani have the capacity for much-needed cooperation. They both must stay firm and focused, concentrating on creating the context for positive negotiations. Obama stating on Sept. 30 that “we take no options off the table, including military options” was poorly received in Tehran and raised unfortunate questions about the United States’ good faith in negotiating. The two presidents should have periodic phone conversations and approve routine meetings of their foreign ministers to consult on bilateral, regional and international issues. They must also recognize the necessity of engaging the other regional and international players, including Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt. In the process, it is imperative that they avoid the traps and negativity of the skeptics, in the United States, Iran and elsewhere, who remain stuck in the old thinking — full of distrust and recrimination and still invested in hostility and confrontation — and would therefore miss the opportunity presented to resolve the nuclear issue.

Read More

“Obama and Rouhani Should Talk More Often,” Hossein Mousavian, Al-Monitor, October 3, 2013.

Articles, Publications

Asharq Al Awsat Opinion: Turkey needs to rethink its regional policy

Posted on

The Middle East is on fire and the constructive role of Turkey is essential. Ankara should try to revive the Zero Problems Policy with its neighbors. To achieve this urgent objective, Ankara should consider the following:

1) Turkey should not throw all its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood based on the wrong assumption that the future of the region rests with this party.
2) The Arab Awakening should not lead Turkey to abandon its policy of non-interference.
3) Turkey should maintain a position of neutrality, enabling Ankara to play a credible role in regional crisis management.
4) It must determine which direction its foreign policy is heading. Iranian foreign policy following the 1979 revolution was based on ideology and national interest. Turkey, as a secular state, is essentially acting more ideologically than Iran on its foreign policy.
5) Turkey should not harbor ambitions of reviving the Ottoman past, as it would have grave consequences for Turkey and the region. Turkey’s recent policies have made some countries think Ankara is after reviving the former Ottoman hegemony in the region, believing that the “zero problems policy” was just a cover for Ankara’s “neo-Ottoman” ambitions.
6) The country should not forget its internal challenges. Turkey’s credibility in the region and the world took a beating this summer with Erdoğan’s decision to put down the demonstrations with riot police, tear gas and water cannons leading to the arrest and injury of hundreds of demonstrators in about 50 cities.
7) Turkey should attempt to cooperate with regional powers, mainly Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt, to manage the crisis arising from the Arab Awakening. Such a policy should be based on non-interference, mutual respect and peaceful settlement.

Read More

“Opinion: Turkey needs to rethink its regional policy,” Hossein Mousavian, Asharq Al Awsat, September 21, 2013.