“The United States, Russia and the Middle East,” presentation at the John Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, December 5, 2013. (Video)
Tag: Middle East
Solution to Iranian nuclear dossier & its role on the Middle East Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (MEWMDFZ)
Over a decade of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and Germany) have failed. The window for a diplomatic resolution will be most opportune during the second term of President Obama and the election of moderate Iranian president Hassan Rouhani. They have both voiced their readiness for a diplomatic resolution to the current standoff. There is, however, a risk that if the current US/Western policy of pressure politics continues, we will inch toward a military confrontation. In a broader sense, the outcome of the nuclear negotiations will have a profound impact on nuclear non-proliferation, Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) and Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) in the Middle East. The proposed paper will examine the prospects for a 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 (NPT), with measures to address key demands from all parties involved. For the P5+1, this includes transparency and verification over the nature of Iranian nuclear program, ensuring there will be no breakout capability. For the Iranians, their main demand includes recognition of their rights under the NPT, including enrichment and lifting sanctions. Any negotiated settlement on the Iranian nuclear file will inevitably introduce modified and newly formulated measures and technical modalities, which will enhance non-proliferation efforts. These milestones will pave the way to strengthen the call for concerted efforts to realize the WMDFZ in the Middle East.
“Solution to Iranian nuclear dossier & its role on the Middle East Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (MEWMDFZ),” Hossein Mousavian, European University Institute, Policy Paper, No.22. Published by Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Global Governance Program, December 2013.
Una nueva era nuclear en el golfo Pérsico (Spanish)
El enriquecimiento de uranio ha sido el foco de la disputa sobre el programa nuclear iraní entre este país y las potencias mundiales, especialmente Estados Unidos, desde el año 2003. Irán viene argumentando que el enriquecimiento es su “derecho inalienable” en virtud del Tratado de No Proliferación (TNP) y que detener ese proceso es una “línea roja” que no se puede cruzar. Estados Unidos se ha opuesto a la posición de Irán.
El 24 de noviembre, después de cuatro días de conversaciones maratonianas, Irán y el Grupo 5+1 (los cinco miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU más Alemania), firmaron finalmente el acuerdo provisional de Ginebra; debe interpretarse como el preámbulo para una solución integral y a largo plazo. Poco después, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores iraní, Mohamed Javad Zarif, aseguró en una conferencia de prensa, que hay en el acuerdo, en dos ocasiones, “una muy clara referencia sobre el hecho de que el programa de enriquecimiento iraní continuará y será parte de cualquier acuerdo, ahora y en el futuro”. Zarif estaba aludiendo a un texto en el Plan de Acción Conjunto que establece que el acuerdo final implicará “un programa de enriquecimiento definido de mutuo acuerdo, con límites prácticos y medidas de transparencia para garantizar el carácter pacífico del programa”.
“Una nueva era nuclear en el golfo Pérsico,” Hossein Mousavian, El Pais, December 11, 2013. (Spanish)
International interests in Middle East security and Non-Proliferation (Video)
“International interests in Middle East security and Non-Proliferation,” presentation at the Manama Dialogue, December 8, 2013. (Video)
Watch Speech [starting at 41:50 minute]
Watch Mousavian’s statement to US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
Iran nuclear deal may be start of new era in Persian Gulf
The Geneva pact was a historic success because both Iran and the United States demonstrated that they have learned pivotal lessons from the past. The nonconciliatory, Cold War stance that they adopted toward each other during the last 34 years benefit the national interests and security of neither state. It is significantly momentous that Iran and the United States, after more than three decades, were able to conduct meaningful negotiations at the highest diplomatic level and bring a complex dispute to a mutually agreeable conclusion aimed at reaching a permanent solution “in less than one year.”
Rather than distancing themselves from the United States by exacerbating their differences with Iran while the United States and Iran are striving to settle theirs, the countries in the region should embrace the move toward a new Middle East. The countries in the region could instead positively respond to Iran’s efforts at rapprochement with the United States, which are paramount in the Rouhani government’s near-term agenda. Detente between Iran and the United States may leave no choice but for this to occur.
“Iran nuclear deal may be start of new era in Persian Gulf,” Hossein Mousavian and Shahir Shahidsaless, Al-Monitor, December 1, 2013.
The Neighbors and Interested Parties: Iranian perspective
“The Neighbors and Interested Parties: Iranian perspective,” presentation at Lehigh University’s Workshop on Global and Regional Implications of the Syrian Crisis, November 3, 2013.
Road Map for Iran’s New Foreign Policy
“Road Map for Iran’s New Foreign Policy,” presentation at Körber Dialogue Middle East, Körber Foundation, Hamburg, October 10, 2013. (Video)
Asharq Al Awsat Opinion: Turkey needs to rethink its regional policy
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.
“Opinion: Turkey needs to rethink its regional policy,” Hossein Mousavian, Asharq Al Awsat, September 21, 2013.
The US with Iran in Syria
Both Iran and the US consider the use of weapons of mass destruction a grave crime. Indeed, Iran was a major victim of chemical-weapons attacks during its 1980-1988 war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Iran can be a major partner to halt proliferation of WMDs in Syria, the Middle East, and beyond.
Iran maintains that the Security Council is the only body legally authorized to verify allegations concerning the use of such deadly weapons and to decide on the appropriate response. One promising avenue for US-Iran cooperation on Syria could be joint support for a fact-finding mission by the Security Council to identify the perpetrators. Obama has his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons. So does Ayatollah Khamenei.
“The US with Iran in Syria,” Hossein Mousavian, Project Syndicate, September 11, 2013.
Drawing a Line on Syria, U.S. Keeps Eye on Iran Policy
“Drawing a Line on Syria, U.S. Keeps Eye on Iran Policy,” Interview with Hossein Mousavian, Robert Worth, New York Times, September 2, 2013.
