DOCSLIB.ORG

Iran: 2008 Assessing U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GEORGI A ARMENI A TURKEY AZERBAIJAN K AZAKHSTA N LEBANON ISRAEL SYRIA UZBEKISTA N T URKMENISTA N JORDAN KYRGYZSTA N IRAQ TAJIKISTA N KUWAIT AFGHANISTA N SAUDI ARABIA BAHRAI N QATA R PAKISTA N U . A . E . INDIA OMAN SEPTEMBER Iran: 2008 Assessing U.S. Strategic Options Edited by James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, Kurt M. Campbell Contributing Authors: Dennis Ross, Suzanne Maloney, Ashton B. Carter, Vali Nasr, Richard N. Haass Editors’ Acknowledgements We warmly thank Dennis Ross, Suzanne Maloney, Ashton Carter, Vali Nasr, and Richard Haass for participating in this project. Each of their chapters significantly informed our chapter on game-changing diplomacy, and also stands on its own as an essential contribution to the debate over U.S. policy on Iran. We also thank members of the Experts Group convened for this project (listed in Appendix B), whose contributions were invaluable. Our colleagues at the Center for a New American Security have our thanks for their assistance. Michèle Flournoy provided many important insights and suggested the title of “game-changing diplomacy.” Shawn Brimley, Sharon Burke, Brian Burton, Roger Carstens, Derek Chollet, Colin Kahl, Vikram Singh, and Jaron Wharton all provided helpful suggestions. Shannon O’Reilly, Whitney Parker, and Zachary Hosford assisted in event logistics and report production. Any errors of omission or commission are attributable solely to the authors and editors of this volume. Cover Image Iran and surrounding region. TABLE OF CONTENts Chapter I: Game-Changing Diplomacy: 3 Chapter IV: Military Elements in a Strategy 77 A New American Approach to Iran to Deal with Iran’s Nuclear Program By James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, By Ashton B. Carter Kurt M. Campbell Chapter V: The Implications of Military 89 Chapter II: Diplomatic Strategies 33 Confrontation with Iran for Dealing with Iran By Vali Nasr By Dennis Ross Chapter VI: Living with a Nuclear Iran 109 Chapter III: Diplomatic Strategies 55 By Richard N. Haass for Dealing with Iran: Appendix A: About the Authors 121 How Tehran Might Respond Appendix B: Iran Expert Group Participants 123 By Suzanne Maloney SEPTEMBER 2008 Iran: Assessing U.S. Strategic Options Edited by James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, Kurt M. Campbell Contributing Authors: Dennis Ross, Suzanne Maloney, Ashton B. Carter, Vali Nasr, Richard N. Haass Iran: SEPTEMBER 2008 Assessing U.S. Strategic Options RUSSIA GEORGIA KAZAKHSTAN TURKEY ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN LEBANON ISRAEL SYRIA UZBEKISTAN JORDAN TURKMENISTAN KYRGYZSTAN IRAQ TAJIKISTAN CHINA IRAN KUWAIT AFGHANISTAN SAUDI ARABIA BAHRAIN QATAR PAKISTAN U.A.E. INDIA OMAN YEMEN 2 | CHAPTER I: GAME-CHANGING DIPLOMACY: A NEW AMERICAN APPROACH TO IRAN By James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, Kurt M. Campbell | 3 Iran: SEPTEMBER 2008 Assessing U.S. Strategic Options IRAN NUCLEAR SITES ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN Tehran: BakuBaka u UZBEKISTAN Bonab: Mo-Allem Kalayeh: Karaj: Kalaye Electric: enrichment Research and Suspected nuclear Cyclon accelerator Nuclear Research Center Development research center research Sharif University research Atomic Energy of Iran Bonab Chalus: Weapons TURKEY Tabriz development facility Jabr Iban Hagan: Research and conversion Caspian Tabriz: Rasht Engineering Sea Bandar-e Gorgan: TURKMENISTAN Torkeman defense research Zanjan Chalus Research Facility Mo-Allem Gorgan Sari Sarakhs Kalayeh Qazvin Ramandeh Karaj Shahrud Damarand: Jabr Iban Hagan Uranium Tehran Plasma physics Damarand Natanz: Lashkar-Abad enrichment Eslamslahr Semnan research Enrichment Khondab Facility Lashkar-Abad: Hamadan Qom Uranium Arak Natanz Kashan Esfahan: enrichment Nuclear Khorramabad IRAN Baghdad Research Birjand UCF Facilities IRAQ Esfahan Dezful Saghand Saghand: Khondab: Shahr-e Kord Narigan Zarigan Uranium mine Heavy water plant Yazd Ahvaz Bafq Narigan: Arak: Darkhouin Uranium mine Heavy Water Reactor Khorrmshahr Abadan Yasuj AFGHANISTAN Ardakan Kerman Darkhouin: Suspected uranium Shiraz Zarigan: Sirjan Zahedan enrichment site KUWAIT Bandar-e Bam Uranium mine Bushehr Nok Ardakan: Fasa Kundi Uranium ore Yazd: Bazman purification Kangan Bandar-e Milling plant Abbas Bushehr: Persian Gulf Light water Bandar-e Strait of Hormuz nuclear reactor BAHRAIN Lengeh PAKISTAN 1000MW Jask QATAR Bandar Beheshti Gwadar Fasa: Doha Gulf of Oman Uranium Abu Dhabi conversion Muscat United Arab Arabian Sea SAUDI ARABIA Emirates OMAN Produced for Nuclear Threat Initiative by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Used with permission. game-CHANGING diplomacy: Introduction A new American approach Coping with Iran’s nuclear program will be at or to Iran near the top of the list of thorny foreign policy challenges the next American president inherits. The atomic clock is ticking as Iran continues to pursue a uranium enrichment program that could provide enough material for a nuclear weapon within several years. Choices on Iran will also affect the next administration’s ability to manage other top-tier security and foreign policy prob- lems including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the pursuit of Middle East peace, relations with Russia and China, nuclear nonproliferation, energy security, and (given the involvement of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany in cur- rent negotiations) even transatlantic relations. In order to explore the full range of options available to the next president, in early 2008 the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) convened a bipartisan group comprised of experts By James N. Miller, Christine Parthemore, on foreign policy and national security, retired Kurt M. Campbell military personnel, former diplomats and other government officials, and specialists on Iran and the region. This Experts Group (for membership, see Appendix B) met four times to discuss and debate papers addressing a range of U.S. policy options. Ambassador Dennis Ross presented a paper on diplomatic strategies for dealing with Iran, and Dr. Suzanne Maloney wrote on Iranian perspectives and potential responses. Dr. Ashton Carter evaluated various U.S. military options, and Dr. Vali Nasr described likely Iranian reac- tions and other potential impacts. Ambassador Richard Haass considered the challenges of living with a nuclear Iran. Their insightful papers com- prise the subsequent chapters of this report. Based on these papers and Experts Group discus- sion, as well as additional research and analysis, three CNAS authors (Miller, Parthemore, and Campbell) wrote this integrating chapter that places U.S. policy on Iran in the context of broader U.S. strategic interests and objectives, | 5 Iran: SEPTEMBER 2008 Assessing U.S. Strategic Options and proposes a way ahead for the next admin- program, and negotiating directly with Iran on istration. This chapter builds heavily on the a broad range of issues. U.S. proposals would be chapters that follow and on comments from the designed to be credible to international audiences Experts Group, but represents solely the views of including the Iranian people. Prior and ongoing the three CNAS authors. consultation with American friends and allies would be critical to the success of this approach. The case for game-changing diplomacy is based “After a strike, Iran could on three key judgments. First, military strikes end IAEA inspections, would at best delay Iran’s nuclear program, and likely cement rather than weaken Iranian com- rebuild its facilities, and mitment to nuclear weapons. If undertaken without broad international support, military begin again. Within a strikes would undercut American prestige and power, complicate already challenging situations few years, Iran’s nuclear in Iraq and Afghanistan, and make prospects for program could be back progress on Middle East peace even more distant. Thus, military strikes should be seen as a highly to where it is now. Iran problematic last resort, to be considered only after all other options have failed. has surely prepared for Second, given the differing interests and views this scenario, hiding of key players including Russia and China, there is no realistic possibility that the current U.S. and dispersing the position — of applying coercive pressure on the key ingredients of a Iranian leadership to cause it to give up its right to enrich uranium — will work. Thus, the United reconstituted program.” States and the international community should pursue the more limited and urgent near-term — Ashton Carter goal of getting comprehensive verification in place, while continuing to work to convince Iran that it is in its interests to forego enrichment. The starting point for developing a strategy to Third, if properly vetted with U.S. friends and cope with Iran’s nuclear program is to define allies, a diplomatic initiative on Iran will help U.S. interests, and establish realistic objectives in build U.S. credibility internationally, while at support of these interests that take into account the same time increasing the likelihood of an Iranian perspectives. After addressing these acceptable resolution to the nuclear standoff. issues, this chapter describes and makes the case Depending on the Iranian response, it may also for the next administration to pursue game- serve other American interests, including stabiliz- changing diplomacy with Iran, which involves ing Iraq and Afghanistan and further suppressing de-emphasizing near-term threats of military al Qaeda. Thus, while its success is by no means action, giving first priority to getting compre- guaranteed, game-changing diplomacy is
Recommended publications
  • The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles

    The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles

    The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles DENNIS ROSS January 2021 he Middle East will not be a priority in the Biden administration’s approach to foreign policy. But the T Iranian nuclear program will require a response.* With the Iranian parliament having adopted legislation mandating uranium enrichment to 20 percent and suspension of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections if sanctions are not lifted by February 2020 in response to the targeted killing of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh— and with Iran now having accumulated twelve times the low-enriched uranium permitted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the administration will have to deal with the Iranian challenge.1 To be sure, the nuclear program and its potential to make Iran a nuclear weapons state are not the only challenges the Islamic Republic poses: the regime’s ballistic missile program and destabilizing and aggressive behavior in the region threaten conflicts that can escalate both vertically and horizontally. But it is the nuclear program that is most pressing. *The author would like to thank a number of his Washington Institute colleagues—Katherine Bauer, Patrick Clawson, Michael Eisenstadt, Barbara Leaf, Matthew Levitt, David Makovsky, David Pollock, Robert Satloff, and Michael Singh—for the helpful comments they provided as he prepared this paper. He also wants to give special thanks to several people outside the Institute—Robert Einhorn, Richard Nephew, David Petraeus, Norman Roule, and Karim Sadjadpour—for the thoughtful comments
  • Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians Appears to Be As Elusive As Ever. Following the Most Recent Collapse of American-Broke

    Peace Between Israel and the Palestinians Appears to Be As Elusive As Ever. Following the Most Recent Collapse of American-Broke

    38 REVIVING THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS: HISTORICAL LES- SONS FOR THE MARCH 2015 ISRAELI ELECTIONS Elijah Jatovsky Lessons derived from the successes that led to the signing of the 1993 Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization highlight modern criteria by which a debilitated Israeli-Palestinian peace process can be revitalized. Writ- ten in the run-up to the March 2015 Israeli elections, this article examines a scenario for the emergence of a security-credentialed leadership of the Israeli Center-Left. Such leadership did not in fact emerge in this election cycle. However, should this occur in the future, this paper proposes a Plan A, whereby Israel submits a generous two-state deal to the Palestinians based roughly on that of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008. Should Palestinians find this offer unacceptable whether due to reservations on borders, Jerusalem or refugees, this paper proposes a Plan B by which Israel would conduct a staged, unilateral withdrawal from large areas of the West Bank to preserve the viability of a two-state solution. INTRODUCTION Peace between Israel and the Palestinians appears to be as elusive as ever. Following the most recent collapse of American-brokered negotiations in April 2014, Palestinians announced they would revert to pursuing statehood through the United Nations (UN), a move Israel vehemently opposes. A UN Security Council (UNSC) vote on some form of a proposal calling for an end to “Israeli occupation in the West Bank” by 2016 is expected later this month.1 In July 2014, a two-month war between Hamas-controlled Gaza and Israel broke out, claiming the lives of over 2,100 Gazans (this number encompassing both combatants and civilians), 66 Israeli soldiers and seven Israeli civilians—the low number of Israeli civilians credited to Israel’s sophisti- cated anti-missile Iron Dome system.
  • Sunni – Shi`A Relations and the Implications for Belgium and Europe

    Sunni – Shi`A Relations and the Implications for Belgium and Europe

    FEARING A ‘SHIITE OCTOPUS’ SUNNI – SHI`A RELATIONS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR BELGIUM AND EUROPE EGMONT PAPER 35 FEARING A ‘SHIITE OCTOPUS’ Sunni – Shi`a relations and the implications for Belgium and Europe JELLE PUELINGS January 2010 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont - The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1538 9 D/2010/4804/17 U 1384 NUR1 754 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the permission of the publishers.
  • Working Paper: Do Not Cite Or Circulate Without Permission

    Working Paper: Do Not Cite Or Circulate Without Permission

    THE COPENHAGEN TEMPTATION: RETHINKING PREVENTION AND PROLIFERATION IN THE AGE OF DETERRENCE DOMINANCE Francis J. Gavin Mira Rapp-Hooper What price should the United States – or any leading power – be willing to pay to prevent nuclear proliferation? For most realists, who believe nuclear weapons possess largely defensive qualities, the price should be small indeed. While additional nuclear states might not be welcomed, their appearance should not be cause for undue alarm. Such equanimity would be especially warrantedWORKING if the state in question PAPER: lacked DO other attributesNOT CITE of power. OR Nuclear acquisition should certainly notCIRCULATE trigger thoughts of WITHOUT preventive militar PERMISSIONy action, a phenomena typically associated with dramatic shifts in the balance of power. The historical record, however, tells a different story. Throughout the nuclear age and despite dramatic changes in the international system, the United States has time and again considered aggressive policies, including the use of force, to prevent the emergence of nuclear capabilities by friend and foe alike. What is even more surprising is how often this temptation has been oriented against what might be called “feeble” states, unable to project other forms of power. The evidence also reveals that the reasons driving this preventive thinking often had more to do with concerns over the systemic consequences of nuclear proliferation, and not, as we might expect, the dyadic relationship between the United States and the proliferator. Factors 1 typically associated with preventive motivations, such as a shift in the balance of power or the ideological nature of the regime in question, were largely absent in high-level deliberations.
  • Vali Nasr Webcast and Discussion Guide

    Vali Nasr Webcast and Discussion Guide

    Webcast: Exploring 9/11 – The World Before and After Supplementary Materials Vali Nasr discusses the history, identity, and changing political role of Shi’ites in the Middle East. This and all of our webcasts can be found at www.national911memorial.org/new_history_exploring. The Speaker Vali Nasr is a professor of International Relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and a Senior Adjunct Fellow in Middle East Affairs at the Council of Foreign Relations. Review Questions Key Figures and Vocabulary CHAPTER 1: Nasr discusses the effects of the 2003 war in Iraq on the distribution of power between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims in Abu Bakr that country. The Prophet Mohammad’s father- 1. Describe the distribution of power in Iraq before the war. in-law and close adviser; became 2. How is the Shi’a population distributed throughout the the first caliph in 632 C.E. after the Middle East? prophet’s death. CHAPTER 2: Nasr describes the differences between the Sunni Ali and Shi’a Muslims, both historically and today. Mohammad’s cousin and son-in- 1. Explain the crux of the Sunni/Shi’a schism. law; became the fourth caliph in 656 C.E. Shi’ites consider him to 2. How did this division eventually result in two different be the first Imam, and his cultures with distinct values and practices? descendants to be the rightful successors to the caliphate. CHAPTER 3: Nasr discusses the Shi’a beliefs and traditions that set them apart from other adherents of Islam. Ayatollah 1. Describe the Shi’a identity and worldview as Nasr Title signifying a high ranking describes it.
  • Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program

    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program

    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Robert E. Ebel E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org March 2010 ISBN 978-0-89206-600-1 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy066001zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program author Robert E. Ebel March 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decision- makers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.
  • The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy

    The Bush Revolution: the Remaking of America's Foreign Policy

    The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America’s Foreign Policy Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay The Brookings Institution April 2003 George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency on the promise of a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid his predecessor’s mistake in “overcommitting our military around the world.”1 During his first seven months as president he focused his attention primarily on domestic affairs. That all changed over the succeeding twenty months. The United States waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups operating on their soil. Rather than cheering American humility, people and governments around the world denounced American arrogance. Critics complained that the motto of the United States had become oderint dum metuant—Let them hate as long as they fear. September 11 explains why foreign policy became the consuming passion of Bush’s presidency. Once commercial jetliners plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is unimaginable that foreign policy wouldn’t have become the overriding priority of any American president. Still, the terrorist attacks by themselves don’t explain why Bush chose to respond as he did. Few Americans and even fewer foreigners thought in the fall of 2001 that attacks organized by Islamic extremists seeking to restore the caliphate would culminate in a war to overthrow the secular tyrant Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Yet the path from the smoking ruins in New York City and Northern Virginia to the battle of Baghdad was not the case of a White House cynically manipulating a historic catastrophe to carry out a pre-planned agenda.
  • 2005 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS 6 Economic 10 Studies Global Economy and Development 27 Katrina’S Lessons in Recovery

    2005 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS 6 Economic 10 Studies Global Economy and Development 27 Katrina’S Lessons in Recovery

    QUALITY IMPACT AND INDEPENDENCE ANNUAL REPORT THE 2005 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.brookings.edu BROOKINGSINSTITUTION 2005 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS 6 Economic 10 Studies Global Economy and Development 27 Katrina’s Lessons in Recovery 39 Brookings Institution Press 14 40 Governance Center for Executive Education Studies 2 About Brookings 4 Chairman’s Message 5 President’s Message 31 Brookings Council 18 36 Honor Roll of Contributors Foreign 42 Financial Summary Policy Studies 44 Trustees 24 Metropolitan Policy Editor: Melissa Skolfield, Vice President for Communications Copyright ©2005 The Brookings Institution Writers: Katie Busch, Shawn Dhar, Anjetta McQueen, Ron Nessen 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 28 Design and Print Production: The Magazine Group, Inc. Washington, DC 20036 Jeffrey Kibler, Virginia Reardon, Brenda Waugh Telephone: 202-797-6000 Support for Production Coordinator: Adrianna Pita Fax: 202-797-6004 Printing: Jarboe Printing www.brookings.edu Cover Photographs: (front cover) William Bradstreet/Folio, Inc., Library of Congress Card Number: 84-641502 Brookings (inside covers) Catherine Karnow/Folio, Inc. Broadcast reporters zoom in for a forum on a new compact for Iraq THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION featuring U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware. he Brookings Institution is a pri- vate nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions. Celebrating its 90th anniversary in 2006, Brookings analyzes current and emerging issues and produces new ideas that matter—for the nation and the world. ■ For policymakers and the media, Brookings scholars provide the highest-quality research, policy recommendations, and analysis on the full range of public policy issues. ■ Research at the Brookings Institution is conducted to inform the public debate, not advance a political agenda.
  • Shia and Iranian Ascendance

    Shia and Iranian Ascendance

    AUGUST 2007 IPCS Research Papers SShhiiaa aanndd IIr raanniiaann AAsscceennddaannccee:: SSuunnnnii aanndd AAmm eerriiccaann PPeerrcceeppttiioonnss SSrriinnjjooyy BBoossee IInnssttiittuuttee ooff PPeeaaccee aanndd CCoonnfflliicctt SSttuuddiieess NNeeww DDee-l li hh- ii,, IINNDDIIAA © 2007, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies is not responsible for the facts, views or opinion expressed by the author. The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), established in August 1996, is an independent think tank devoted to research on peace and security from a South Asian perspective. Its aim is to develop a comprehensive and alternative framework for peace and security in the region catering to the changing demands of national, regional and global security. Address: B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi 110029 INDIA Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 4165 2560 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ipcs.org CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Sunni Fears....................................................................................................................... 2 American Suspicions and Manoeuvres ........................................................................ 5 Is there a Shia Crescent? The Iranian Perspective...................................................... 8 Prospects for Accommodation ....................................................................................
  • PREFACE 1 . Said Amir Arjomand, the Shadow of God and the Hidden

    PREFACE 1 . Said Amir Arjomand, the Shadow of God and the Hidden

    N o t e s P REFACE 1 . S a i d A m i r A r jomand, The Shadow of God and the Hidden Imam; Religion, Political Order, and Social Change in Shi’ite Iran from the Beginning to 1890 (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1984), 270. 1 THE STORY OF THE SHI’A 1 . H a m i d Enayat, “Shi’ism and Sunnism,” in Shi’ism: Doctrines, Thoughts, and Spiritualityy, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (New York: State University of New York Press, 1988), 79–80; Rudi Matthee, “The Egyptian Opposition to the Iranian Revolution,” in Shi’ism and Social Protestt , eds. Juan R. I. Cole and Nikki R. Keddie (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), 248; Michael Axworthy, I ran, Empire of the Mind—A History from Zoroaster to the Present Day (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 201–203. 2 . A x w o r t hy, Iran, Empire of the Mindd, 178. 3 . Karen Barkey, “Islam and Toleration: Studying the Ottoman Imperial Model,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Societyy, vol. 19, no. 1/2 (December 2005), 10; Bruce Masters, “The Treaties of Erzurum ( 1823 and 1848) and the Changing Status of Iranians in the Ottoman,” Iranian Studiess , vol. 24, no. 1/4 (1991), 7–8; R. I. Cole and Moojan Momen, “Mafia, Mob and Shiism in Iraq: The Rebellion of Ottoman Karbala 1824–1843,” Past & Present , no. 112 (August 1986), 116; Juan R. I. Cole, “‘Indian Money’ and the Shi’i Shrine Cities of Iraq, 1786–1850,” Middle Eastern Studiess, vol. 22, no. 4 (October 1986), 470.
  • The Georgetown Leadership Seminar, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

    The Georgetown Leadership Seminar, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

    Georgetown Leadership Seminar Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY October 21-26, 2018 GLS CLASS OF 2018 Zelma Acosta-Rubio Venezuela Turki Saud Al-Dayel Saudi Arabia Talal Abdulla Al-Emadi Qatar Ahmed Talib Al Shamsi United Arab Emirates Se Chhin Cambodia Veronica Cretu Moldova Nurdiana Darus Indonesia Matthew DesChamps United States Demberel Dorjchuluun Mongolia Francisco Bernardes Costa Filho Brazil Mateusz Gawalkiewicz Poland Mark Guy United States Anne Tind Harre Denmark Monika Korowajczyk-Sujkowska Poland Amy LaTrielle United States José Lemos Portugal Mwansa Chilufya Malupande Zambia Inés Manzano Ecuador Jenny Matikainen Finland Jürgen Mindel Germany Eugene Muriu Ngumi Kenya Sirpa Nyberg Finland Marcelo Perlman Brazil Min Qin China Yousuf Rebeeh Qatar José Antonio Rivero Jr. Mexico Francisco Rodriguez Caicedo Colombia Sebastian Rudolph Germany Lateef Tayo Shittu Nigeria Mohammed Shummary Iraq Wojciech Szkotnicki Poland Augusto Zampini Davies Argentina Olena Zerkal Ukraine 1. Healy Builing 3. Main Gate: 37th and O Streets, NW 16. Intercultural Center Sponsors 2018 GHR Foundation Frank Hogan, ISD Board of Advisers Jan Karski Educational Foundation (JKEF) Northstar Foundation, Indonesia Pamela Smith, ISD Board of Advisers US Embassy Baghdad US Embassy Kyiv Antti Vanska, Embassy of Finland Patrick Walujo Contents WELCOME AND ORIENTATION 1 Sunday, October 21 STATECRAFT AND FOREIGN POLICY 2 Monday, October 22 GLOBAL POLITICS AND SECURITY 4 Tuesday, October 23 INTERNATIONAL
  • Uncorrected Transcript

    Uncorrected Transcript

    1 KOREA-2014/11/17 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION HISTORY, POLITICS, AND POLICY IN THE U.S.-KOREA ALLIANCE Washington, D.C. Monday, November 17, 2014 Welcome and Introduction: KATHARINE H.S. MOON SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies and Senior Fellow The Brookings Institution Keynote Address: ROBERT GALLUCCI Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service Georgetown University Roundtable 1 - History and Policy: Issues, Process, Implementation: SUE MI TERRY, Moderator Senior Research Scholar, Weatherhead East Asia Institute Columbia University CHARLES ARMSTRONG Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies in The Social Sciences, Department of History, Columbia University VICTOR CHA Korea Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies D.S. Song-Korea Foundation Professor, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University JOHNA OHTAGAKI Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian & Pacific Affairs U.S. Department of Defense TAE-GYUN PARK Professor of Modern Korean History, Graduate School of International Studies Seoul National University Roundtable 2 - Alliance Management: Bases, Weapons, and Command: KATHARINE H.S. MOON, Moderator SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies and Senior Fellow The Brookings Institution ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 2 KOREA-2014/11/17 VAN JACKSON Visiting Fellow, Center for a New American Security MICHAEL SHULMAN ROK, Political-Military Affairs Officer, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs U.S. Department of State ANDREW YEO Associate Professor of Politics, Department of Politics, Catholic University Roundtable 3 - Division, Reconciliation, Peace-making: Lessons from Other Lands: KHALED ELGINDY, Moderator Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, The Brookings Institution HENRI BARKEY Bernard L.