Iran’s Domestic Politics & the Nuclear Standoff

Lecture

“Iran’s Domestic Politics & the Nuclear Standoff with the United States: Internal dynamic of Iran’s Nuclear Intentions”

Speaker: Bahman Baktiari

Wednesday, April 18, 2012
12:00 to 1:30 pm
Eilts Conference Room, 154 Bay State Road, Room 203, Boston, MA

Bahman Baktiari is the Executive Director of the International Foundation for Civil Society in Salt Lake City, UT. He received his PhD in Government from Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs at University of Virginia. He has published extensively on Iranian politics and society. His major publication Parliamentary Politics in Revolutionary Iran was published by University Press of Florida in 1997.

His most recent publications include “Sharia Politics and the Transformation of Islamic Law in Iran ” was published in Shari‘a Politics: Islamic Law and Society in the Modern World , edited by Robert W. Hefner, Indiana University Press ( 2011), Seeking International Legitimacy: Understanding the Dynamics of Nuclear Nationalism in Iran, in Nuclear Politics in Iran, edited by Judith S. Yaphe, published by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University (2010), Iran’s Conservative Moment, Current History ( January 2007), Voices within Islam: Four Perspectives on Tolerance and Diversity, Current History (January 2005), Doubting Reforms in Iran ( coauthored with Haleh Vaziri ) Current History ( January 2003), Impact of September 11th on Iranian Foreign Policy, Middle East Policy ( December 2002), Exporting the Islamic Revolution: Iranian-Egyptian Relations, With Asef Bayat in N. Keddie and R. Mathee edited, Iran and the Surrounding World: Interactions in Culture and Cultural Politics, University of Washington Press ( 2002). He also published several opinion pieces the Christian Science Monitor on Iranian political developments and its impact on foreign policy and relations with the United States.He has been interviewed on several national media outlets, including the NPR Morning Edition, Talk of the Nations, The Todd Feinburg Radio, and Jim Lehrer NewsHour.

Free and open to the public. Includes lunch.

Iran's Nuclear Program, as seen in mid January

This is part of an interview that I gave more than two weeks ago. Since the interview, Iran has rejected key components of the enriched fuel storage plan devised by the IAEA.

The point that I made emphatically was that the U.S. would occupy a more credible position if it emphasized a strong commitment to a nuclear free Middle East in its diplomacy. President Obama did raise the issue in his Cairo speech, and on a few other occasions, but these references have the quality of boiler-plate. In much of the commentary on the Iranian nuclear program, there is no mention whatsoever of Israel's substantial nuclear arsenal. Israel, of course, does not adhere to the NPT and declares pro forma that it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, whereas, if the estimates of the CIA (not to mention the Vanunu revelations in October 1986) are to be trusted, it already has. To presume that Israel's arsenal is not one of the factors that drive the Iranian program is willful ignorance. It would be naive to presume that Israel would easily agree to surrender its nuclear warheads. Nonetheless, silence about Israel's cache of weapons gives it more freedom of movement on the issue than U.S. interests dictate.

Were it possible to thwart Iran's drive for nuclear weapons without creating a host of other problems, that would obviously be beneficial to the U.S. and the states of the Middle East. My concern, as expressed in the interview, is that that is not very likely to be possible.

Five myths about Iran and nuclear weapons

1. Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon.
2. A military strike would knock out Iran's program.
3. We can cripple Iran with sanctions.
4. A new government in Iran would abandon the nuclear program.
5. Iran is the main nuclear threat in the Middle East.

Quoted from conclusion==A comprehensive plan must build barriers against acquiring nuclear weapons and must reduce the motivation to do so. This means dealing with the regional security and prestige issues that motivate most countries to start nuclear programs. It requires a global approach that deals with both sides of the nuclear coin: disarmament and proliferation. Reducing existing nuclear stockpiles creates the support needed to stop the spread of the weapons; stopping the spread creates the security needed to continue reductions. We must keep flipping that coin over. Each flip, each step, makes us a little safer.

The author is Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund. He is respected authority on nuclear profileration.

Letter From Tel Aviv: Netanyahu’s Iranian Dilemma

Letter From Tel Aviv: Netanyahu’s Iranian Dilemma: "And yet campaign promises, if repeated often enough, have a tendency to create their own momentum. Public pressure to act is considerable. Netanyahu knows that a successful Iranian nuclear test could destroy his political future. Moreover, the immediate political environment in which Netanyahu operates is conducive to authorizing a preemptive strike. His senior coalition partner, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, has made threats against Iran on numerous occasions. And, unlike many of the country's mid-level intelligence analysts and security officials, the current leaders of the Mossad and the Shin Bet believe in solving problems by force.

As Iran approaches nuclear weapons capability -- sometime in 2010, according to current Mossad estimates -- an increasing number of people in Netanyahu's circle will adopt the view that Israel needs to take action and that the United States will be understanding of Israel's needs. And if the Obama administration is not so understanding? Israel may decide that the existential danger posed by a potential second Holocaust warrants risking even a serious rift with the United States. Ultimately, the fear of a nuclear-armed state whose leader talks openly of destroying Israel may outweigh the views of the country's intelligence experts."

Should Israel's nukes be negotiable?: An important article

Israel's nuclear arsenal of at least 80 warheads is seldom discussed in Washington, yet it is the reality of that arsenal that helps to provide a rationale for other regional powers seeks a nuclear weapons capability. When the idea of a Middle East nuclear free zone is mooted, it is typically dismissed by U.S. officials and analysts as implausible given Israel's refusal to comply. This piece suggests that it is possible the Obama administration will be more open to the idea of an arms control regime in the Middle East that will include Israel Frankly, the evidence is little more than suggestive, although some officials are known to favor the idea.

As I have noted here previously, some experts known for their concern of the Middle East nuclearization are remarkably quiet about Israel's arsenal. Perhaps, just perhaps, that might change.

One intriguing items in the Washington Times article is a reference to a highly secret 1969 agreement between Golda Meir and Richard Nixon, in which Nixon committed the U.S. to preserving Israel's nuclear weapons program.
EXCLUSIVE: Secret U.S.-Israel nuclear accord in jeopardy - Washington Times

A link to the famous 1986 London Times article in which Mordechai Vanunu revealed, for the first time, evidence confirming Israel's nuclear bombs. [Informed reporting on the kidnapping of Vanunu.]

Timely exchanges on Iran's nuclear program

Comments on the widely read piece: "How to Deal with Iran"

Victor Gilinsky, one of the world's leading authorities on nuclear proliferation touches what he calls the "third rail," namely Israeli nukes.

"They [Luers, Pickering and Walsh] make the point that in negotiating with Iran everything should be on the table. What about putting Israel's nuclear weapons on the negotiating table? An immediate objection is that Israel hasn't even said it has them and, anyhow, who are we to put Israel's nuclear weapons on the table? But it is silly to continue with Israel's pretense, and the reality is that if we put them on the negotiating table, they are on the table. There are of course lots of other objections including Israeli intransigence, though once involved in negotiations they may see their security interests differently. Ultimately, is there any realistic alternative to nuclear weapons spread in the Middle East, not only to Iran but to Arab countries, other than a nuclear-free Middle East?"

One of the truly astounding aspects of the debate over Iran's nuclear program is the absence of any discussion of the Israeli arsenal, which Washington sources usually put at 300 or more nuclear weapons. As I noted here in 1995, some of the drum-beaters about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East even dismiss the idea that Israel's weapons might be a factor. Gilinsky suggests that the U.S. put the Israeli arsenal on the table, appropriately.

The U.S. and Iran: fleshing out policy options

The battle for Iran - The Boston Globe

Groups cited in the article:
Bi-partisan Policy Center report.
United Against Nuclear Iran website.
American Foreign Policy Project website and statement.

Previous posts:
November 22, 2008.
November 19, 2008.

Israel's nuclear weapons in the spotlight

Abizaid: "Iran Is Not a Suicide State; Deterrence Will Work"

Nathan Gardels: Abizaid: "Iran Is Not a Suicide State; Deterrence Will Work": "General Abizaid's implicit view seemed to be that the world would not be able to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that we would have to learn to live with it. He questioned whether war with Iran to stop that eventuality would be a wise idea 'at this particular time' not only because world oil flows would be shut down and turmoil would spread across the Middle East where Iran's Shia allies hold sway, but also because the US armed forces lacked strategic flexibility, bogged down as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan with 'our ground forces tapped out.'"

Israeli Nuclear Weapons--the WMDs that Washington (usually) dare not speak

The Media Line - News Detail

"U.S. AGAIN CALLS ON ISRAEL TO SHED NUKES… For the second time in two weeks, the Bush administration has called on Israel to foreswear the use of their nuclear weapons and adopt safeguards dictated by the International Atomic Energy Agency on all of its nuclear activities. Israeli officials are reportedly concerned by the Americans’ placing of Israel’s nuclear program on the same level as those of India and Pakistan according to the newspaper Haaretz. Analysts at The Media Line point out that the conspicuous absence of either language demanding that Israel renounce nuclear weapons or a call for a specific timetable to do so leads experts to believe that President Bush feels he must acknowledge the nuclear programs of Israel, India and Pakistan in order to have credibility as he continues to work against the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea."

Vanunu's Travails Continue