Today Iran met with the P5+1 which consists of the permanent members of the U.N. security council (Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States), and Germany at a United Nations palace to address the current international concern of Iran's nuclear program as reported Foreign Policy. While at the meeting the U.S. counterparts, led by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman and other Americans met with Iran, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, for about an hour to discuss different diplomatic efforts according to The Los Angeles Times. This provides hopeful signs of peaceful negotiations, as Iran and the U.S. have not met in over seven years to discuss anything about Iran's nuclear program. Along with the meeting with the United States, the Geneva talks also sparked signs of hope when Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif began the day with an hour long PowerPoint presentation "Closing an Unnecessary Crisis — Opening New Horizons." The meeting so far has shown promise as it has ended a six month period in which Iran refused to get rid of uranium enrichment in exchange for the easing of international sanctions.
While the talks between the Iranian government and P5+1 will not necessarily resolve any major issues, it shows Iran's willingness to discuss issues with the U.N. and seek possible agreements as read in globalpost. This could prove beneficial to the world as nuclear tensions continue to rise throughout the world constantly threatening world security and war. This also will help ease tensions in the Middle East especially between Israel and Iran. As the discussions continue, international sanctions on Iran are likely to ease up helping spread more peace into the region. As discussed in class, the security dilemma plays a huge role as well as the threat of other nations constantly try to gain power over other countries. The threat of nuclear force also serves as a powerful offensive power that Iran wishes to attain in order to provide more dominance in the region. This also incorporates the ideas of having alliances to be able to defend one another and seek out diplomatic problems in venues such as the United Nations. While there are no guarantees anything good will come from these talks it does show that Iran is finally willing to meet over its nuclear program and possibly come up with a diplomatic resolution.
I agree with your posts optimism Thor. The new peace talks I certainly hope will help to stop nuclear proliferation particularly in the Middle East. I think it is interesting how you bring up the security dilemma and the difficult decisions both Iran and Israel face in regards to a nuclear Iran. Sure, Israel does not want an Iran who has already threatened war with Israel on numerous occasions (the most recent coming when Israel discussed possibly intervening in the Syrian Civil War) but at the same time, how can we or any nation with nuclear weapons blame Iran for wanting to join the "Big Boys" table and acquire nuclear weapons? So while these peace talks may be a step in the right direction for both sides, it may be possible that these peace talks are meant simply to lull the P5 and Germany long enough for them to acquire weapons. This may just be warmongering conservative talk but it is worth noting.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether these peace talks are genuine or not from Iran, the bigger question is what is to be done if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons? Should there be a military response that seeks to disarm Iran and thus eliminate the threat of Iran attacking Israel/gaining more power in the Middle East and possibly selling nuclear weapons to terrorist networks? Or should the P5 and Germany concede to Iran and accept a nuclear Iran in return for peace? Both courses of action present numerous difficulties and among the most important is the idea of whether or not the P5 will seek to use Iran as a sort of "case study" for future policy. In other words, will the P5 take a back seat and allow nations who refuse to quit nuclear programs to develop weapons or will the P5, primarily the US, Britain, France, and Germany seek to disarm Iran and thus promise large scale military conflict for countries who seek to develop these weapons. Again, we cannot be certain, and we do not know the correct answer, but one thing remains certain, the UN's final word will be meaningless if countries cannot come to a decision on their own.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood post Thor. While it is hard to be optimistic that any resolution will come over these meetings , I do think it is a powerful step in the right direction. I did not know before reading your post that Iran has not agreed to sit down with the US in over seven years to discuss nuclear politics. Iran's demand for nuclear power is not completely without reason, because as you said, it creates a strong offensive power. That being said, it is important to have alliances when ever talk of nuclear weapons are brought into discussion. If peaceful terms can be made with Iran, that creates just one less threat to the security of the US and other members of the United Nations. I both like and agree how you brought up the connection with the security dilemma because it does play a huge role in these ongoing issues.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that it is a positive thing that Iran is now so much more willing to talk and negotiate, especially about issues like nuclear weapons. However, I think there is still going to be a lot of suspicion among other countries about Iran's true motivations. For example many would speculate that Iran is only now so willing to cooperate because of the weight of the sanctions that are currently being enforced. Still, regardless of motivations that fact the Iran is even at all involved is an important development.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Crystal, I think it sounds good on paper but whether or not Iran fully cooperates is yet to be seen. What happens once the sanctions begin to ease up? Is this a case of giving someone an inch and they try to take a mile? It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds and see the US's reactions to these developments.
ReplyDeleteWhile these talks are hopeful, they are far too vague and underdeveloped to offer a real sense of security. For one, part of our initial agreements is to continue to allow Iran the right to enrich (not weaponize) uranium. This will certainly not sit well with our allies in Israel and will definitely be critiqued domestically as a demonstration of the president's weak negotiating. Similarly, a necessary factor in these agreements will surely be an increased presence of IAEA in Iran; an intruder not historically welcomed by the country and who, in the future, will have a much more intrusive role (Economist) . That being said, Iran is in a vulnerable position economically giving the P5 an advantageous bargaining position. So long as we do not prematurely make too soft of an agreement, there is great potential in these developments.
ReplyDeleteFurther reading:
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21588100-iran-sounds-serious-about-wanting-nuclear-deal-getting-one-will-be
Very interesting post! I do have a couple other points to raise though. While I applaud the positive nature of this post, we must keep in mind that nothing is yet to have been agreed upon, guarantees of any kind have been left off the table and, like in any bargaining situation, there remains a heavy looming doubt as to whether anything will actually be accomplished. That's not to say that positivity is not appropriate going forward, but it can often it pays to move forward with a caution and skepticism. Additionally, when you stated that states are constantly trying to increase their power relative to other states, you were correct, and in Iran's case it is certainly using nuclear weapons as its raison d'etre. However, in the United States' case, they have reduced their nuclear stockpiles drastically, as has Russia, thereby reducing their "traditional" power sources. These power sources have been replaced by other means, predominately economic and diplomatic "soft power" mechanisms.
ReplyDeleteI completely support the thought of these meetings ability to help quell then tensions that the international community has been facing in regards to the proliferation of Iranian nukes. However, I personally see this as more of a strategic move on their part rather than a true attempt to establish peace. If they make the apparent notion to aim for peace than they could very well avoid being in the spot light in the future. Right now every move that they make is being monitored by the UN, and I am sure this is making them uneasy. They have lived for so long in the shadow and had the ability to do whatever they pleased, to an extent, and now they cannot do this. I view their “new foreign policy" simply as a way to avoid further observation for the international community. The UN needs to continue to monitor their actions even after peace is eventually established to ensure the aim was honest.
ReplyDeleteI am hesitant to be as optimistic that Iran's new shift in leadership really reflects the true goals of the country. While I do believe Hassan Rouhani has had many genuine comments, I do not believe it truly reflects the ambitions and goals of some of the other party leaders. Rouhani seems to be a figurehead rather than a true representation of the Iranian government. The true leader of the Iranian government is Ali Khamenei and his Supreme National Security Council are the true leaders of government and they inevitably decide the ultimate fate of the nuclear program in Iran.
ReplyDeleteThus, Rouhani might actually a political figurehead to assist in gaining international appeal. This is probably because the prior President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "too successful" at alienating the country from the rest of the globe. Therefore, the P5 may be examining the potential of Iran's nuclear program, but implementation may be extremely more difficult because of other major political players in Iran that can misconstrue public appeal for personal benefit.
Unfortunately the iatola have all of the political power within Iran, so it is hard it could be hard to say he has a lot of power over policy. This can be seen as a cultural shift within the country, were they become open to working within the international community.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that in the past 6 months or so the UN has been intimately involved in the negotiating process in two high-level international disputes; nuclear weapons in Iran and chemical weapons in Syria. This is the UN serving the purpose it was destined for, to help to deter armed conflict by offering an unbiased medium for negotiations. Because of the offsetting votes within the Security Council of the US and the USSR during the Cold War, the UN accomplished little in its first 45 years or so. Consequently, the UN is viewed by many as a talking shop of little consequence, but I think if the UN can prove its value in negotiations over international disputes such as the two aforementioned, it will become a much more prominent actor in international relations.
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to read some positive optimistic news Thor. Iran showing even the willingness to negotiate is a large step forward. Whether or not these talks will lead to any noticeable change in Iran's nuclear policies is doubtful. In my opinion, this summit signifies not a change in Iran's nuclear policy, but rather a change in their diplomatic policy. Because of this I believe sanctions should be loosened. A more open, and interactive Iran is a great benefit in regards to world security.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Thor's optimism about this situation. This is a huge step forward for US-Iran relations, one of the biggest steps in a very long time. As with any newly establishing relations between countries, there are factors that make actors hesitant and full trust from either side has not yet been established. However, as Crystal mentioned above, one of the most important aspects of these talks are that Iran is participating. The US should be suspicious because these are newly forming relations, but things are looking good with both sides participating.
ReplyDeleteThe questions Thor raises, however, are definitely something of concern. The US could, in the event Iran acquires nuclear weapons, reassure Israel that as an ally we would support them if conflict arose, but take no action until then. There are many other options as well, and this is definitely a pivotal event that will be interesting to keep up with.
Great post, Thor!
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if anyone heard about that interview he did with Christiane Amanpour on CNN in which he supposedly acknowledged the Holocaust? I didn't do much research I just saw the interview & then an article Fox News put out saying the translation was botched. I know it may be completely off topic, but I was curious.
I agree with the comments on this post that express optimism as Iran shows a new willingness to negotiate and discuss the future of its nuclear program. The powerpoint presentation by Iran's foreign minster regarding the diffusion of tension along with the "opening of new horizons" suggests that the country may be ready or willing to integrate further into the international economy which, as we have discussed, often fosters peace and understanding between nations. It will be interesting to see what Israel does or says as a result of these perceived easing of tensions as they traditionally have not trusted or wanted to cooperate with Iran under any conditions.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Thor and the comments left behind in this discussion showing clear signs of optimism for forms of negotiation to happen between the US and Iran. However all this sounds good on paper but the truth is, is Iran willing to dismiss what happened in the 1970's? Is this notion of anti-western ideology really over and how can they move on to hopefully find peace with the United States.
ReplyDelete