Tag: Confidence Building

Essays, Publications

The Solution to the Iranian Nuclear Crisis and Its Consequences for the Middle East

Posted on

After a decade of failed nuclear negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1), they have finally fleshed out a temporary agreement that will hopefully restore trust in the peaceful character of Iran’s nuclear program among all parties. To do so, the temporary agreement must become the basis for renewed discussions on a final deal and the contours of a regional nuclear order in the Middle East. In a broader sense, the outcome of the nuclear negotiations with Iran will have a profound impact on nuclear nonproliferation, a nuclear weapons−free zone (NWFZ), and a zone free of nuclear weapons and of other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems (WMDFZ) in the Middle East.

This article examines the consequences of the breakthrough in nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1. A negotiated settlement will be based on the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with measures to address key demands from all parties involved. For the P5+1, this includes transparency and verification over the nature of the Iranian nuclear program, ensuring there will be no breakout. Iran’s main demand includes respecting its rights under the NPT, including enrichment and lifting sanctions, as negotiated in the November 2013 interim agreement between it and the P5+1. Furthermore, a permanent settlement on the Iranian nuclear issue will inevitably introduce modified and newly formulated measures and technical modalities at the regional level, which will enhance nonproliferation efforts. These milestones, which are described in this article, will pave the way toward strengthening the call for concerted efforts to realize a WMDFZ in the Middle East and will help preserve the global nuclear nonproliferation regime in the future.

Read Paper

“The Solution to the Iranian Nuclear Crisis and Its Consequences for the Middle East,” Hossein Mousavian, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 529-544. Published by Global Governance, October 2014.

Interviews

Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View

Posted on

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, the lead author of Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace, has two objectives: to help American readers understand the Iranian perspective on the fraught US-Iranian relationship, and to advocate a sustained attempt to break the cycle of hostility that was triggered by the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Such is the suspicion on both sides of this relationship that some readers may wonder about the extent to which Mousavian’s descriptions of the Iranian perspective in this book, which was co-authored by Shahir Shahidsaless, can be trusted. This reviewer’s opinion is that Mousavian—a former Iranian ambassador who has been living in the US since 2009—whom the reviewer has known since 2004, is not trying to pull wool over anyone’s eyes. There is corroborating evidence for much of the information he advances. If in places the reader senses that he or she is not getting the full story, a respectable explanation is to hand: those who have worked at the heart of a government, as Mousavian has done, are bound to be “economical” with certain truths, as a British cabinet secretary once put it.

Read More

“Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View,” Peter Jenkins, BBC Farsi, October 13, 2014.

Articles, Publications

Opinion: A Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East

Posted on

The Middle East is witnessing too many challenges: a return of a regional cold war, the increasing role and weight of non-state actors, the threat of failed or failing states, the reemergence of strong transnationalism through the rise of Islamism and sectarianism, the rise and consolidation of jihadist terrorism on the shores of the Mediterranean, and the revival of sub-national identities fearful of the present or of the future. All of this threatens the fabric of existing states, providing an attractive space for interference, intervention, and confrontation by proxy.

The people of the Arab world, Iran and Turkey are forever condemned to live together in this region. They need to talk to, rather than about, each other. They are facing common threats, and they each have huge potential and influence in the region and beyond. Restoring peace and stability in the Middle East will not be possible so long as individual preferences and influences are not channeled into a coordinated approach to securing the common interest.

Once established, the conference would convene at the ministerial level at regular intervals; it could convene any other time at a lower level as well. It could also entrust small committees of experts and officials with exploring solutions to certain crises or ways to contain issues, or with developing confidence-building measures for such purpose. Such committees could, perhaps, report to the general conference with policy suggestions.

The four major regional powers—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Turkey—can and should take the initiative to launch such a process. This quartet, along with other countries in the region, have too many overlapping, intersecting and interdependent issues and areas of mutual interest. Such concerns can be better addressed within the framework of a conference such as we are proposing, which would give the opportunity to avoid new crises, contain existing ones, develop better understandings, and work out common approaches to problems.

Indeed, there are crises in this region that could escalate into war—and this is a region witnessing a proliferation of crises. Most of them are complex in nature, bringing together internal and external factors in a highly volatile Middle East. Even more, all sorts of links exist between these various crises.

The question that remains now is whether these four main powers will rise to this challenge and take the initiative to develop a comprehensive vision of the role of such a forum. Will they join forces with others to turn this idea into a working reality, or will they remain entangled in an increasingly fragmented Middle East?

Read More

“Opinion: A Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East,” Hossein Mousavian with Nassif Hitti, Asharq Al-Awsat, June 10, 2014.

Lectures

Atlantic Council: Toward Better US-Iran Relations (Video)

Posted on

Lessons can be learned from 30 years of mistrust, misperception, and misconception that has persisted between the United States and Iran. While rapprochement is far from inevitable, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, diplomat and author, outlined the path to success for current negotiations while speaking at a South Asia Center panel. Mousavian argued that, rather than focusing on the nuclear dimension alone, the United States and Iran must complement negotiations with extensive unilateral dialogue on all outstanding issues, including human rights, terrorism, and regional cooperation. However, the underlying key to rapprochement is simply “to reciprocate goodwill with goodwill.” Fellow panelistJohn Marks, founder and president of Search for Common Ground, urged the need for significant people-to-people diplomacy for the two nations to reconcile with the past and enable alternative solutions. “To pursue a better future, we must face the past—understanding differences & acting on commonalities.”

“Without Iran, you would have never dismantled Syria’s chemical weapons,” said Mousavian, citing an example of how the United States and Iran can cooperate at the highest levels to solve the most challenging regional issues of the day. Emphasizing Iran’s role as a predominant regional actor and the United States’ role as a preeminent international actor, both nations ought to make up for the multitude of missed opportunities –most notably the lack of cooperation in Afghanistan. Mousavian emphatically endorsed the idea that Iranian Americans are a unique asset capable of shifting the tide in favor of rapprochement due to their ethnic links to Iran and cultural affinity to both nations. Alternatively, Marks suggests that the best way to eradicate, if not reduce, the fog of misperception is via “the exchange of technical expertise and scientific insights that can promote alternative solutions.”

Both speakers agreed that the two states stand on the brink of progress on the nuclear conflict. Peace on this issue alone, however, would be temporary and unstable if other sources of mistrust are ignored. For that reason, any resolution on the nuclear front “should be regarded as the foundation for greater cooperation or a grand bargain between the two states.” The Iranian-American relationship does not have to be a zero-sum game. “Peace between Iran as a regional power and the United States as a global power could lead to the creation of a framework for cooperation that would bring stability to the Middle East, from Lebanon in the west to Afghanistan in the east.”

Watch Video

Event Coverage: “U.S.-Iran Relations, Past, Present and Future,” POMED, June 3, 2014. 

Event Coverage: “Toward Better US-Iran Relations,” Derek Davison, LobeLog, June 4, 2014.

“US‐Iran Relations Past, Present and Future,” Presentation at the Atlantic Council, June 3, 2014. (Video)