Search

Begin New Search Topic Diplomacy Political Geography Israel

271. Russian Foreign Policy in the Middle East: New Challenge for Western Interests?

Author:
Nikolay Kozhanov
Publication Date:
03-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
This paper is part of CTR's Working Paper Series: "Russia and the West: Reality Check." The current level of Russian presence in the Middle East is unprecedented for the region since the fall of the Soviet Union. Records of diplomatic and political contacts show increased exchange of multilevel delegations between Russia and the main regional countries. After 2012, Moscow has attempted to cultivate deeper involvement in regional issues and to establish contacts with forces in the Middle East which it considers as legitimate. Moreover, on September 30, 2015, Russia launched air strikes against Syrian groupings fighting against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Before that time, Russia had tried to avoid any fully-fledged involvement in the military conflicts in the region. It was also the first time when it adopted an American military strategy by putting the main accent on the use of air power instead of ground forces. Under these circumstances, the turmoil in the Middle East, which poses a political and security challenge to the EU and United States, makes it crucial to know whether Russia could be a reliable partner in helping the West to stabilize the region or whether, on the contrary, Moscow will play the role of a troublemaker.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Russia, Iran, Middle East, Israel, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, United States of America, European Union, and Gulf Cooperation Council

272. Vienna meeting on Nuclear Energy and Proliferation Risks

Author:
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Abstract:
There was general agreement that the JCPOA was a very positive solution to a complex issue, providing a constructive and peaceful way forward for the Middle East in particular, and the non-proliferation regime in general. The deal contained in the JCPOA is working as intended. Iran has been determined by the IAEA on multiple [6] occasions to be in full compliance with its obligations, and now has the most comprehensive safeguards and verification regime in history. World powers have followed through with some sanctions relief thereby aiding the Iranian economy. Furthermore, there have been other positive dimensions, including an effective joint commission process, greater transparency among parties, as well as communications and interactions taking place in a more positive atmosphere. At the same time, it was recognized that the deal is unstable: although the terms of the JCPOA were ring-fenced from the wider geopolitical environment of the Middle East, political manoeuvring can threaten its continued implementation. The spill-over of non-nuclear issues, often labelled under “Iranian behaviour”, should not be allowed to derail the process. It was noted in a positive sense that all the main candidates in the Iranian Presidential campaign have signalled their desire to continue with the JCPOA. However, several participants felt that some of Iran’s regional policies could undermine this, risking a negative reaction from the US and other states. Some argued that given Iran’s disputed compliance history with IAEA safeguards agreements (which even two years later remains heated) and, in general, the uneasy relations in the past between Iran and IAEA, it is important that Iran continue to strictly comply to the letter of the JCPOA. The US domestic context provides perhaps the greatest potential risk to the sustainability of the JCPOA. It was noted that President Trump may not, after all, ‘tear up’ the deal. The possibility was raised that, because many in his national security team were seen as hostile to Iran, any minor safeguards violation may be seized upon to terminate the deal. Such a hard-line approach could isolate the US from a global consensus and weaken its hand in other relevant matters. There is further danger that Congress could act alone in enacting a bill (of which many are on the table) that would be in contravention of the JCPOA. This possibility was considered unrealistic by some participants. Some details of Security Council resolution 2231 were seen as problematic in a number of ways: the explicit provisions on ballistic missiles were viewed as an unnecessarily punitive measure unrelated to the main goals of the JCPOA; equally, some of the inquiry and resolution mechanisms were seen by some as unbalanced. The JCPOA should in any case be understood as a temporary solution. Even though continuing to implement it effectively would build more confidence, ultimately trust between Iran and some Western states will likely never be high. However, the deal does hold the potential for transformative progress in Iran-US relations, pending further steps to de-escalate and normalize relations. Many of Iran’s neighbours worry that the remaining latent nuclear capacity has only delayed the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran down the road; at the same time, many regional states are also pursuing nuclear fuel cycle programs. The JCPOA should also offer the international community an opportunity to consider how to extend some measures indefinitely and extend them to other countries. Regional stability and non-proliferation could be enhanced by extending some of the JPCOA provisions to the Middle East and beyond it. As such, Pugwash should make efforts to convene and organize meetings to explore far-reaching initiatives that are in the spirit of the agreement; for example: initiatives to discuss ‘internationalizing’ the nuclear fuel cycle; forward-looking regional agreements, such as a threshold of uranium enrichment, a ban on plutonium reprocessing, or limits on stockpiles of LEU; innovative safeguards measures, such as advanced monitoring technology, enhanced access to centrifuge production facilities, or explicitly set times for snap inspections; further multilateral scientific and technical cooperation, such as the SESAME project.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Nuclear Power, and Nonproliferation
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, and Israel

273. Use of Force: The Only Way to Stop Iran

Author:
Efraim Inbar
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Western hopes that Iran will moderate and “engage” with the international community following the faulty 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA) have been gradually replaced with apprehension. More voices in the international community are joining Israel in expressing growing concern about Iran’s policies. While Iran seems to be abide by the JCPOA, it resists expanding the scope of inspections, continues its nuclear research and development (for example upgrading centrifuges) and continues to make progress on its long-range missile program. Recently it conducted a test of a missile designed to carry nuclear warheads. Moreover, Iran’s involvement in the region attests to its hegemonic plans, defying the notion, propagated by its propagandists, that it is a status quo power acting defensively. Rather, Iran is following its Persian imperial instincts that are reinforced by Muslim jihadist impulses. It already controls four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa; its Shi’ite militias and proxies are fighting in Iraq, Syria and Yemen and engaging in ethnic cleansing; and it is on the verge of solidifying the Shi’ite corridor from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Israel tries to capitalize on the new widespread global apprehension about Iran and a new American president who is not committed to the JCPOA to bring about the cancellation of the 2015 nuclear accord or its renegotiation, and the reinstating of the sanctions regime. Yet, these goals are difficult to attain and not useful in preventing a nuclear Iran.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Denuclearization, and JCPOA
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America

274. Between Pyongyang and Tehran: The Need for Urgent Action against Iran

Author:
Eran Lerman
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The Iranian situation is both more urgent and more malleable than the almost hopeless situation with North Korea.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Iran, Middle East, Israel, Asia, North Korea, North America, and United States of America

275. How Trump and Netanyahu Xan Transform Peace Diplomacy

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
By tabling creative coexistence proposals, pushing core issues to the top of the agenda, suggesting innovative alternatives to the problematic two-state paradigm, and articulating red lines that are clear and broad.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

276. Confronting the Con Artists of Iran

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
No duplicitous decrees by supreme or smiling ayatollahs should deflect our attention from Tehran’s dangerous moves.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America

277. For how long will the peace treaty with Egypt be robust?

Author:
Efraim Inbar
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Everything must be done by Jerusalem to preserve the peace treaty with Egypt, but Israel should still prepare itself for worst-case scenarios.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Conflict, and Peace
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, Israel, and Egypt

278. Jerusalem is the Test of US leadership in the Middle East

Author:
Emmanuel Navon
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
The Arab League’s Chairman, Ahmed Abul Gheit, has warned President Trump that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would do a disservice to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as well as ignite violence in the Middle-East. Given the absence of a peace process and given the abundance of violence in the Middle-East, Mr. Aboul-Gheit’s warning does not even pass the laughing test. Far from inflaming the region, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would actually send a sobering message to the Arab world: that the time of historical denial is over, and that Israel is being retributed for being the only country in the region that protects the holy sites of all faiths.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Religion, Territorial Disputes, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Jerusalem

279. Skeptical of the Saudis

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Israel should not bear-hug the problematic Saudis, nor fall prey to over-enthusiastic fantasies. Don’t assume that MBS is the answer to Israel’s prayers in facing-down Iran. Don’t expect overt Saudi peace overtures to Israel, and beware inevitable demands for down-payments to the Palestinians as the up-front price for lukewarm Saudi openness to Israel.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Arab Spring, and Peace
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia

280. Greeting Vice President Pence

Author:
David M. Weinberg
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
After recognizing Jerusalem, America’s next move should be banishing the EU from regional diplomacy.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Territorial Disputes, European Union, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jerusalem, North America, and United States of America