Tag: Peaceful Settlement

Book Review

Book Review: Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View of the Failed Past and the Road to Peace

Posted on

There cannot be progress toward a worthwhile cooperative security architecture for the Middle East region unless the Iranian system, in all its multi-faceted complexity, arrives at the conclusion that such outcomes are to Iran’s overall strategic advantage, or at least are compatible with Iranian interests. Building a reasonably predictable basis for engagement between Iran and the United States on regional security issues, including of course in regard to the search for an agreed outcome on the Iranian nuclear program, Iraq and Syria, is among the major challenges facing the regional outlook. Iranian perceptions of the United States and US regional agendas need to be understood in considerable depth.

The publication by Iranian diplomat and negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian of an analysis, from an Iranian perspective, of past failures in the management of the US-Iran relationship is therefore noteworthy. As could be expected from a seasoned foreign policy practitioner, Mousavian’s account of the relationship with the United States is far from balanced: in some respects it is at least as much a matter of advocacy or gentle chiding of US approaches as it is of history. It is, nevertheless, a significant insight into the world view of a senior Iranian official with considerable exposure to both western interlocutors and the Iranian leadership.

Read More

“Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View of the Failed Past and the Road to Peace,” Bob Bowker, Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, The Australian National University, June 12, 2015.

Articles, Publications

How do we solve the Iran talks’ verification dilemma?

Posted on

After Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, expressed his opposition to the inspection of Iranian military facilities and the interrogation of Iranian scientists as part of any would-be nuclear deal, the issue quickly became the most controversial aspect of the nuclear negotiations in Iran. It is only natural that allowing foreign inspectors access to Iranian military facilities and making Iranian scientists vulnerable to such questioning would damage Iranian national pride, as it would in any country. In fact, this is a matter that threatens to scuttle the entire negotiating process.

This unprecedentedly invasive type of inspections hearkens back to the issue of possible military dimensions (PMD) to the Iranian nuclear program. Western concerns over PMD go back to even before 2003, when the Iranian nuclear program first came under international spotlight. In his 2006 book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” The New York Times journalist James Risen revealed that the CIA had attempted to plant evidence in Iran that would make it seem the country was pursuing nuclear weapons in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Such “evidence” could feasibly have been used as a pretext for military intervention against Iran. With that said, in 2011 the United States and its NATO allies released thousands of pages of documents and pictures to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that allegedly revealed there had been military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.

Read More

“How do we solve the Iran talks’ verification dilemma?” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, June 6, 2015.

Essays, Publications

America’s Middle East Challenge

Posted on

The Middle East is in dire need of cooperation on issues of long-term interest to the stability and well-being of the whole region. The Arab Spring has resulted in political instability in many countries, while extremist and terrorist groups have wreaked havoc across the region. It is imperative for Middle Eastern countries to work collaboratively in order to tackle these region-wide challenges.

The United States faces lack of trust from Iran and suspicion from its Arab allies. America’s oil-centered involvement in the Middle East is becoming less strategically important as the United States moves toward becoming the leading exporter of oil and gas. As a result, the Arabs are losing their oil leverage with Washington and are resorting to suicidal strategies to destabilize the region, by funding various extremist groups, in hopes that it would compel America to stay involved.

America’s increased involvement in the Middle East is inevitable as a result of the expansion of ISIS and other terrorist groups. This heightened involvement could result in positive outcomes if it is calculated carefully. The United States should come to the realization that its military might is not capable of bringing about peace in the Middle East. As Chas W. Freeman Jr. argued in his bookAmerica’s Misadventures in the Middle East, “How do we propose to manage the contradiction between our desire to assure the stability of the Persian Gulf and the fact that our presence in it is inherently destabilizing?” However, U.S. military superiority could be applied positively and used to support regional governments to fight terrorism in the region. Washington’s efforts toward a regional cooperation system in the Persian Gulf (akin to that of the European Union) would fill the vacuum caused by an eventual U.S. departure and assuage Arab fears of a resurgent Iran. President Rouhani, in his 2014 address to the UN General Assembly, pointed out, “The right solution to this quandary comes from within the region and regionally provided solutions with international support and not from outside the region.”

Read Essay

“America’s Middle East Challenge,” Cairo Review, Hossein Mousavian with Mehrdad Saberi. Published by the Cairo Review of Global Affairs, April 6 2014.