Search

Begin New Search Topic Weapons of Mass Destruction Political Geography Iran

1. Assessing the JCPOA from a Historical Perspective

Author:
Christian Koch, Marc Finaud, and Bernd W. Kubbig
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
This Policy Forum issue analyses the 2004-2006 initiative to establish a sub-regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the Gulf (GWMDFZ) as a tool to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapon state. The initiative’s gradual approach which aimed at the ultimate goal of encompassing the entire Middle East (including Israel) was innovative, and the assertive role of some smaller Gulf states in expressing their security concerns/interests and verification standards that Tehran would have had to meet was unprecedented. But the entire sub-regional idea remained confined to the declaratory level. In contrast, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or greement/accord) – endangered as it currently is – struck between the E3/EU+3 and Iran exceeds some of the concerns of the earlier initiative, yet misses others. We conclude that new – and ultimately sustainable – regional forums as communication mechanisms are needed to tackle these issues without touching on the JCPOA. The challenges go beyond Iran and include the nuclear activities of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and even more so of Saudi Arabia. Our Cooperative Idea emphasises that moving beyond the purely declaratory policy of the GWMDFZ initiative could also help to overcome the current stalemate regarding a zonal disarmament arrangement for the whole Middle East/Gulf region.
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Weapons
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, and Gulf Nations

2. A Comprehensive Israeli Concept for a WMD/DVs-Free Zone in the Middle East/Gulf

Author:
Shemuel Meir
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
Attempts to achieve a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD-Free Zone) in the Middle East have become even more complicated than in the past. This Policy Forum issue provides a fresh look at the topic in order to offer common ground for positive discussions on Middle East disarmament. Its main novelty is to look at the security threat as perceived by Israel in the context of an Israeli-Egyptian-Iranian triangle that complements the old paradigm of an Israeli-Egyptian dyad. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or agreement/accord) with Iran is a challenge for some regional actors but at the same time could form a basis for bridging the disarmament gap, especially with its unprecedented robust verification regime. From a purely strategic angle, the JCPOA is beneficial to Israel’s national security interests. It is therefore to be hoped that this multilateral agreement will withstand the Donald Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle it.
Topic:
National Security, Treaties and Agreements, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weapons, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, and United States of America

3. Assessing the JCPOA from a Historical Perspective:

Author:
Christian Koch, Marc Finaud, and Bernd W. Kubbig
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
This Policy Forum issue analyses the 2004-2006 initiative to establish a sub-regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the Gulf (GWMDFZ) as a tool to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapon state. The initiative’s gradual approach which aimed at the ultimate goal of encompassing the entire Middle East (including Israel) was innovative, and the assertive role of some smaller Gulf states in expressing their security concerns/interests and verification standards that Tehran would have had to meet was unprecedented. But the entire sub-regional idea remained confined to the declaratory level. In contrast, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or greement/accord) – endangered as it currently is – struck between the E3/EU+3 and Iran exceeds some of the concerns of the earlier initiative, yet misses others. We conclude that new – and ultimately sustainable – regional forums as communication mechanisms are needed to tackle these issues without touching on the JCPOA. The challenges go beyond Iran and include the nuclear activities of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and even more so of Saudi Arabia. Our Cooperative Idea emphasises that moving beyond the purely declaratory policy of the GWMDFZ initiative could also help to overcome the current stalemate regarding a zonal disarmament arrangement for the whole Middle East/Gulf region.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and History
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Gulf Nations

4. Slow Thaw: Testing Possibilities for Cooperation with Iran After a Nuclear Deal

Author:
Ilan Goldenberg, Jacob Stokes, and Nicholas Heras
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for a New American Security
Abstract:
With nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States restarting today, Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Middle East Security Program Director Ilan Goldenberg, CNAS Bacevich Fellow Jacob Stokes, and CNAS Middle East Program Research Associate Nicholas Heras have produced a new policy brief on potential cooperation with Iran in the wake of a nuclear deal. The authors argue any thawing of the relationship would face tremendous challenges.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Nuclear Power
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

5. United Nations Sanctions on Iran and North Korea: An Implementation Manual

Author:
Enrico Carisch and Loraine Rickard-Martin
Publication Date:
04-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
This manual is intended as a tool for officials of UN member states, international organizations, companies, and corporations to support sanctions implementation. The manual delivers to frontline actors in the public and private sectors specific guidance to enable more effective compliance with UN non-proliferation sanctions on Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).
Topic:
Nuclear Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North Korea, and United Nations

6. Sanctions Implementation and the UN Security Council: The Case for Greater Transparency

Author:
Astrid Forberg Ryan
Publication Date:
04-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
While it is the responsibility of member states to ensure that sanctions adopted by the United Nations Security Council are implemented, the council plays an equally important role in facilitating and promoting effective implementation. This paper discusses the role of the Security Council with a view to providing guidance for those involved in the council's work, making the case for greater transparency. It briefly reviews current council practices and procedures relating to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran sanctions regimes, including the working methods of the 1718 and 1737 Committees, and it identifies possible options for the council aimed at enhancing sanctions implementation through transparency-related measures.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Cooperation, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
Iran and United Nations

7. Geneva Action Plan: Its Nature and Implications

Author:
Nasser Saghafi-Ameri and Pirooz Izadi
Publication Date:
12-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs
Institution:
Center for Strategic Research (CSR)
Abstract:
The adoption of the Geneva Accord between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, UK, France, Russia, China plus Germany) to resolve issues related to Iran's nuclear program on November 24, 2013, brought about a series of debates in political circles. In many ways, it could be considered a historic event with international and regional implications and also ushered in a new chapter in Iran-U.S. relations. At the international level, it could have a great impact on the ways in which world affairs are managed. In fact, it was a victory for diplomacy, multilateralism and a thrust towards a multi-polar international system after more than a decade of unilateralism and military interventionist policies with all its catastrophic consequences. At the regional level, by fostering new alignments, it may have a positive impact on current problems; be it elimination of weapons of mass destruction or countering terrorism and extremism that is now expanding beyond the region. The Accord in Geneva also fosters hope for solid and productive relations between Iran and the U.S. after more than three decades of estrangement. Considering that a new geostrategic situation is unfolding in the region, this article tries to answer the questions related to its international and regional implications, as well as its impact on the very delicate issue of Iran-U.S. relations. At the end, some of the major challenges that lay ahead in the implementation of the Accord are examined.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Geneva, Russia, United States, China, United Kingdom, Iran, East Asia, France, and Germany

8. Iran's Nuclear Missile Delivery Capability

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan
Publication Date:
11-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Recently there has been a lot of attention given to the “Possible Military Dimension” of the Iran Nuclear Program, in particular concerns over Iran's ballistic missile program and its nuclear delivery capability. Iran's potential acquisition of nuclear weapons, and future ability to arm its missiles and aircraft with such weapons, represents the most serious risk shaping US, Arab, Israeli, and EU relationship with Iran. It is also an area where the exact details of threat perceptions are particularly critical, although many key aspects of Israeli, US, and G ulf perceptions – as well as the perceptions of other states – are impossible to determine at an unclassified level.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and International Security
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Iran

9. Iran and the Arab Spring: Between Expectations and Disillusion

Author:
Henner Fürtig
Publication Date:
11-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Global and Area Studies
Abstract:
The 1979 Iranian Revolution undoubtedly belongs to the "great" revolutions of modern times – all of which were characterized by universalistic efforts and the claim to have set new social, political and cultural norms with global validity. In this sense, the Iranian revolutionaries felt the obligation to actively reintroduce Islam as a revelation for the whole world, not only for Muslims. Yet, they soon became aware that most Muslims viewed their export strategy as either an attempt to enforce Shiism, or – even worse – to conceal mere national megalomania. Therefore, the current leadership argues that the revolution should no longer be exported actively, but that Iran should serve as an example. Consequently, Supreme Leader Khamenei called the events of the Arab Spring a "natural enlargement of Iran's Islamic revolution of 1979" and credited his country for being the catalyst of this "Islamic awakening." The present article will analyze selected regional reactions to the Islamic awakening concept, which did not altogether meet Iranian expectations.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Development, Islam, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Armed Struggle
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

10. Crisis Stability and Nuclear Exchange Risks on the Subcontinent: Major Trends and the Iran Factor

Author:
Thomas F. Lynch III
Publication Date:
11-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Crisis stability—the probability that political tensions and low-level conflict will not erupt into a major war between India and Pakistan—is less certain in 2013 than at any time since their sequential nuclear weapons tests of 1998. India's vast and growing spending on large conventional military forces, at least in part as a means to dissuade Pakistan's tolerance of (or support for) insurgent and terrorist activity against India, coupled with Pakistan's post-2006 accelerated pursuit of tactical nuclear weapons as a means to offset this Indian initiative, have greatly increased the risk of a future Indo-Pakistani military clash or terrorist incident escalating to nuclear exchange. America's limited abilities to prevent the escalation of an Indo-Pakistani crisis toward major war are best served by continuing a significant military and political presence in Afghanistan and diplomatic and military-to-military dialogue with Pakistan well beyond 2014.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, America, Iran, India, and Asia