Israel – Page 3 – Seyed Hossein Mousavian

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

Posted on November 15, 2014

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

David Ignatius: An Iranian who could balance Tehran’s factions?

Posted on November 15, 2014

“David Ignatius: An Iranian who could balance Tehran’s factions?” Interview with Hossein Mousavian, David Ignatius, Washington Post, October 30, 2014.

Articles, Publications

Netanyahu’s Gaza war: Changing Aims but Predictable Consequences

Posted on August 15, 2014

The US failure to secure a firm ceasefire in the Gaza, as a result of the objections from Egypt and Israel, reflects the new geopolitical reality in the region.

Whether Israel’s rejection of Washington’s diplomacy is a prevailing trend remains to be seen. But it is apparent, now more than ever, that the interests of the US and Israel have started to diverge at a quickening pace and maybe even conflict. The outcome of such an eventuality is that Israel would take the liberty of advancing its interests without any consideration for international laws and norms as well as the consequences of its acts for US interests.

Against this backdrop, you do not have to be a genius to realize that Israel’s current acts only result in the radicalization of the Palestinian movement, possibly the emergence of the third Intifada, and the strengthening of jihadi movements in the region as a whole.

Even the Arab states who side with Israel, either with their obvious acts and policies, or by remaining as mute spectators, must know that they are just adding fuel to the flame of jihadi extremism that will eventually come back to haunt them.

“Netanyahu’s Gaza war: Changing Aims but Predictable Consequences,” Hossein Mousavian and Shahir Shahidsaless, Iran Review, August 15, 2014.

Articles, Publications

Collapse of the Arab world necessitates a regional solution

Posted on August 1, 2014

The Arab world is in turmoil. The Arab Spring, which raised hopes and dreams for a wave of democratic reforms throughout the Middle East, is turning into a cold winter.

The new US policy in the Middle East departs from the policies of the past decades whereby it does not wish to heavily invest money and blood for the long term. Meanwhile, the United States’ hegemonic position in the region is on the verge of collapse. Because of the current crises in the region, Washington cannot count on its Arab allies nor can US allies count on the United States as a superpower capable of helping them confront the challenges they are facing. US President Barack Obama is clever enough to remain cautious about embroiling the United States in new adventures. While the key regional players — Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan — struggle with domestic challenges, a new geostrategy is urgently needed. Iran and the United States should overcome their differences to lead the international community in helping prevent further state collapse within the Arab world.

“Collapse of the Arab world necessitates a regional solution,” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, July 31, 2014.

Articles, Publications

Diplomacy, not sanctions, key to deal with Iran

Posted on March 3, 2014

As the American Israel Public Affairs Committee holds its annual policy conference, it would do well to remember that the Obama administration’s diplomacy, not sanctions, has yielded better results, according to a former senior Iranian diplomat.

History shows that coercive US policies toward Iran over the past 35 years have not helped the United States neutralize perceived Iranian threats from any angle. On the contrary, those policies have contributed to creating new dimensions of security concerns and the elevation of those American security concerns that prevously existed.

Despite over three decades of this approach toward Iran, today, the country enjoys an unmatched stability and power in the region while Israel is more isolated than ever. Contrary to the escalation of hostilities, on occasions when the United States has adopted conciliatory tones toward Iran, there has been great success in protecting peace and stability in the region.

“Diplomacy, not sanctions, key to deal with Iran,” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, March 3, 2014.

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 November 6, 2013

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

Netanyahu’s Threats Undermine Possible Nuclear Deal With Iran

Posted on July 22, 2013

Regrettably, Iran and its European counterparts failed to reach a final agreement because President George W. Bush continued to deny the legitimate rights of Iran under the NPT, altering the balance of forces in Iran toward those in favor of radicalism. Once again, with President-elect Rouhani, there is a golden opportunity for the US to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.

Netanyahu needs to know that Rouhani is neither wolf nor sheep. He is a pragmatic politician who has already proved his sincerity to realize a peaceful, sustainable and realistic solution to the nuclear dilemma. The US should not miss or dismiss this unique opportunity. President Obama should be brave and invest political capital to pursue a direct and broad deal with Iran and end over three decades of hostilities. Such historical achievements require Netanyahu to recognize a fact: US-Iran rapprochement is the only way to decrease tensions between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

Articles, Publications

Strategic engagement: Iran, Iraq and the GCC

Posted on June 12, 2013

The Gulf is facing new challenges in an array of issues, such as: Arab awakening in the Middle East and North Africa, Arab-Israeli conflict on the peace process, extremism, the widening gap between Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on the crisis in Syria and tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme. Relations between Iran and its Arab neighbors in the Gulf have historically been strained under the rule of both the Pahlavi monarchy and the Islamic Republic. Since 1980 and the GCC support of Iraq’s invasion of Iran (1980-88), relations experienced the most hostile era. How to build trust between Iran and the GCC has remained one of the most critical issues facing the region.

“Strategic engagement: Iran, Iraq and the GCC”, Hossein Mousavian, Gulf News, March 24, 2013.

Articles, Publications

Red line on Iran: No, here are Netanyahu’s real objectives

Posted on June 10, 2013

Although US officials do not believe Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb, Israel has gone into overdrive to convince the world that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon and must have all its uranium enrichment activities stopped by all means possible, including the military option. Under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, these efforts thus far have not garnered much support.