Journal of International Studies

Sanctions, centrifuges and personalities aren’t the only forces pushing Iran and the U.S. toward a détente.

The recent intensive negotiations in Geneva between Iran and P5+1—the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany—over Iran’s nuclear program did not result in an interim agreement. The negotiations are to be resumed in Geneva on November 20. One of the thorniest issues is Iran’s claim that, as a signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has, under Article IV of NPT, a fundamental right to accessing all aspects of nuclear technology for peaceful uses, including uranium enrichment on its soil. So far the United States has refused to explicitly recognize Iran’s right to uranium enrichment. In her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 3, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, who leads the U.S. delegation in the Geneva negotiations, made the following  statement : it has always been the U.S. position that that article IV of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not speak about the right of enrichment ...

Does Congress have the ability to scuttle a potential nuclear deal with Iran? White House Spokesman Jay Carney thinks so. During Tuesday’s press briefing, he declared  that, if Congress acts in such a way that a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue is “disallowed or ruled out”, it could create “a march to war.” Many Iran hawks have   taken issue  with Carney’s remarks, with John Bolton   saying that "Neville Chamberlain would be proud.” However, a common feature of these critiques is that they mischaracterize Carney’s argument, by asserting that Carney believes that the imposition of  any  new sanctions on Iran would derail negotiations and prompt a march to war. Elliot Abrams, for example,   wrote  that Carney “called any effort to adopt additional sanctions against Iran ‘a march to war.’” Carney did no such thing. Carney was not necessarily arguing against the imposition of any new sanctions; rather, he was taking issue with...

WASHINGTON - Two pillars of the US foreign policy establishment urged Congress on Monday to forgo any new sanctions legislation directed against Iran, warning that it will risk "undermining or even shutting down" ongoing negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program.  In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, General Brent Scowcroft (retired), who served as national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H W Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served in the same post under President Jimmy Carter, said that an interim agreement with Iran - the focus of critical talks the next round of which is to begin Wednesday in Geneva - "would advance the national security of the United States, Israel, and other partners in the region".  "More sanctions now as these unprecedented negotiations are just getting underway would reconfirm Iranians in their belief that the US is not prepared to make any agreement with the current government of Ira...

The 1972 Shanghai Communique’s language on Taiwan can help solve a thorny P5+1–Iran issue.

Newsweek says Beijing has agreed to have Chinese nationals lead IAEA inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites. Image Credit: IAEA Imagebank By  Zachary Keck China is considering taking the lead on implementing more robust inspections of Iran’s nuclear program, a new report says. An article  in this  week’s issue of  Newsweek  magazine reports on a track two meeting about Iran’s nuclear program that took place in France at the same time as the official P5+1-Iran negotiations were going on in Geneva last weekend. According to the report, the participants at the meeting were retired military leaders from Israel, Iran and China, as well as elder statesmen from the U.S., Australia and France. The meeting—which was hosted by Jean-Christophe Iseux von Pfetten, the first foreigner to serve in the upper house of China’s parliament and an advisor to Chinese leaders—was aimed at opening up an important back channel between the parties to hammer out solutions ...

As the participants in the nuclear talks with Iran prepare for the next round on November 20, it is as yet unclear why the dramatic negotiations in Geneva failed, indeed, whether they failed at all, or a small number of outstanding issues remain to be resolved. Israel, Saudi Arabia and others in the region, leading members of Congress and even the French foreign minister have charged in one form or another that the P5+1, the group of leading international powers negotiating with Iran, were too eager to reach what would have been a bad deal. The Iranians themselves apparently broke off the talks over recognition by the P5+1 of their “right” to enrich uranium. The deal discussed in Geneva was to have been an interim phase, pending conclusion of a final agreement within six months, designed to freeze Iran’s nuclear program during negotiations so that it could not use the passing time to further develop it. Indeed, the best estimates today put Iran  as little as two months ...