Iran's nuclear program is one of this century's principal foreign policy challenges. Despite U.S., Israeli, and allied efforts, Iran has an extensive enrichment program and likely has the technical capacity to produce at least one nuclear bomb if it so chose. This study assesses U.S. policy options, identifies a way forward, and considers how the United States might best mitigate the negative international effects of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Iran's nuclear program is one of this century's principal foreign policy challenges. Despite U.S., Israeli, and allied efforts, Iran has an extensive enrichment program and likely has the technical capacity to produce at least one nuclear bomb if it so chose. This study assesses U.S. policy options, identifies a way forward, and considers how the United States might best mitigate the negative international effects of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Examines Iran's current nuclear potential while charting America's future course of action, recounting the prolonged clash between both nations to outline options for American policymakers.
Since the 1979 Revolution in Iran and the end of a close relationship between the US and the Shah, successive American administrations – including the Obama Administration – have tried to contain Iran by various means, particularly sanctions and military threats. Even though President Obama came to office promising to engage Iran, in reality his administration has followed the policy of “tough diplomacy,” which has included, among other acts, imposing draconian sanctions against Iran. Following the author’s earlier book on the history of containment of Iran and Iraq, the current book examines closely the Obama Administration’s policy toward Iran, as well as the role played by Israel, the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the implementation of this policy. Specifically, it is argued that the policy of “tough diplomacy,” designed mostly by those associated with the Israeli lobby groups, was intended to give an ultimatum to Iran in some direct meetings, telling Iran to either accept the US-Israeli demands or face aggression. The meetings were also intended to create the illusion of engaging Iran in order to gain international support for aggressive actions. Barack Obama announced this policy in his speeches as a Senator, particularly at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conferences. After he became president in 2008, the policy of “aggressive diplomacy” was put in motion. While pretending to engage Iran in diplomacy, the Obama Administration, in coordination with the US Congress and the government of Israel, pushed for the most confrontational IAEA reports on Iran and an unprecedented set of unilateral and multilateral sanctions. The US and Israel also engaged in a campaign of military threats, sabotage and assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Yet, after four years of hostilities, the policy of “tough diplomacy” failed to achieve many of its goals and failed to contain Iran.
With tensions between Iran, Israel, and Western powers reaching new highs over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear enrichment program, the tenth edition of the Munk Debates investigates how the world should respond to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For some, the case for a pre-emptive strike on Iran is ironclad. An Iranian bomb would flood the volatile Middle East with nuclear weapons and trap Israel in a state of perilous insecurity — along with much of the world’s oil supply. Others argue that a nuclear Iran could be the very stabilizing force that the region needs, as the threat of nuclear war makes conventional conflicts more risky. These same voices also ask: can the West and Israel afford to attack Iran when doing so could roll back the Arab Spring and re-entrench reactionary forces throughout the Middle East? In this edition of the Munk Debates — Canada’s premier international debate series — former Israel Defense Forces head of military intelligence Amos Yadlin, Pulitzer Prize–winning political commentator Charles Krauthammer, CNN host Fareed Zakaria, and Iranian-born academic Vali Nasr debate the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran. For the first time ever, this electrifying debate, which played to a sold-out audience, is now available in print, along with candid interviews with the debaters. With tempers flaring between governments, the world’s oil supply in peril, and global security at risk, the Munk Debate on Iran tries to answer: Can the world tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons?
On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took sixty-six Americans captive. Thus began the Iran Hostage Crisis, an affair that captivated the American public for 444 days and marked America's first confrontation with the forces of radical Islam. Using hundreds of recently declassified government documents, historian David Farber takes the first in-depth look at the hostage crisis, examining its lessons for America's contemporary War on Terrorism. Unlike other histories of the subject, Farber's vivid and fast-paced narrative looks beyond the day-to-day circumstances of the crisis, using the events leading up to the ordeal as a means for understanding it. The book paints a portrait of the 1970s in the United States as an era of failed expectations in a nation plagued by uncertainty and anxiety. It reveals an American government ill prepared for the fall of the Shah of Iran and unable to reckon with the Ayatollah Khomeini and his militant Islamic followers. Farber's account is filled with fresh insights regarding the central players in the crisis: Khomeini emerges as an astute strategist, single-mindedly dedicated to creating an Islamic state. The Americans' student-captors appear as less-than-organized youths, having prepared for only a symbolic sit-in with just a three-day supply of food. ABC news chief Roone Arledge, newly installed and eager for ratings, is cited as a critical catalyst in elevating the hostages to cause célèbre status. Throughout the book there emerge eerie parallels to the current terrorism crisis. Then as now, Farber demonstrates, politicians failed to grasp the depth of anger that Islamic fundamentalists harbored toward the United States, and Americans dismissed threats from terrorist groups as the crusades of ineffectual madmen. Taken Hostage is a timely and revealing history of America's first engagement with terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, one that provides a chilling reminder that the past is only prologue.
This book assesses Iran’s role in contemporary geopolitics. In particular, it examines three main intertwining circles: Iran’s development and political challenges, its relationships with neighbouring countries, as well as its relations with the major global powers — China, the European Union, Russia, and the United States. With contributions from over 20 authors, the book spans such critical aspects of contemporary geopolitics as modern history, natural resources, the economy, the social-political context, and strategic thinking. Particular focus is placed on Iran’s relations with its neighbours - Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf States. Furthermore, the book offers both a bilateral and multilateral dimension on how nuclear sanctions imposed on Iran have impacted its strategic planning, from the economic and military perspectives.
With the advent of the Trump Administration, relations between Iran and the United States have become increasingly conflictual to the point that a future war between the two countries is a realistic possibility. President Trump has unilaterally withdrawn the US from the historic Iran nuclear accord and has re-imposed the nuclear-related sanctions, which had been removed as a result of that accord. Reflecting a new determined US effort to curb Iran's hegemonic behavior throughout the Middle East, Trump's Iran policy has all the markings of a sharp discontinuity in the Iran containment strategy of the previous six US administrations. The regime change policy, spearheaded by a hawkish cabinet with a long history of antipathy toward the Iranian government, has become the most salient feature of US policy toward Iran under President Trump. This turn in US foreign policy has important consequences not just for Iran but also for Iran's neighbors and prospects of long-term stability in the Persian Gulf and beyond. This book seeks to examine the fluid dynamic of US-Iran relations in the Trump era by providing a social scientific understanding of the pattern of hostility and antagonism between Washington and Tehran and the resulting spiraling conflict that may lead to a disastrous war in the region.
Purpose: A one-day international symposium hosted by the Marine Corps University (MCU) and the Marine Corps University Foundation to enhance the overall understanding of Iran, exploring its internal dynamics, regional perspectives, and extra-regional factors and examining its near-term political and strategic options and their potential impact on the course of action of the United States and the USMC.
Iran is the most significant current threat to the United States, the Middle East, and the West. As the evidence demonstrating this threat mounts, one thing remains clear to Ilan Berman: 'Washington is woefully unprepared to deal with this mounting peril.' Berman's approach is hard-hitting, provocative, alarmist, and unflinchingly critical. But he takes the indictment of Iran one step further providing what has been missing so far in the foreign policy discourse regarding Iran_both within the U.S. government and outside it_policy prescriptions designed to contain Iran's strategic ambitions.
