The Coming Iran Nuclear Talks Openings and Obstacles
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Guía COL MUN 2021
CNCMUN IV Background Guide Council of Leaders COL Presidents: Gabriel Hernández and Isabella Ospina Gabriela Conde and Tomás Ortiz Executive editors Gabriel Hernández Isabella Ospina Sub-editor Sub-editor Table of contents I. Letter from the chair II. Introduction to the committee III. First agenda: Middle East and Israel Conflict A. Introduction B. History C. Current Situation i. Right of return ii. Security and Terrorism D. Different Perspectives IV Second agenda: Iran and USA crisis A. Introduction B. History i. Precedents of the Iran-U.S.A. relation ii. Incidents iii. Nuclear weapons development C. Current Situation D. Different Perspectives V. Information of Mandatory Revision VI. QARMA’S (Questions a Resolution Must Answer) VII. Bibliography I. Letter from the chair Estimated delegates, We are Gabriel Hernández and Isabella Ospina, and as presidents of the committee of Council of Leaders, we’d like to extend to you a warm welcome to the 4th edition of CNCMUN. This time, the topics to be discussed are related to the Middle East conflict with other countries such as Israel and the United States - Iran crisis. We are appreciative to receive delegates that are open to an active participation and take this as learning and enriching experience. We are looking forward to achieve this committee's goals and make this a joyful experience for everyone. We are expecting to see you soon. II. Introduction to the committee Council of leaders is an experimental committee in the Model of United Nations that consists in setting out a scene in which world leaders with greater significance discuss and debate about current controversial and important issues. -
Iran's Gray Zone Strategy
Iran’s Gray Zone Strategy Cornerstone of its Asymmetric Way of War By Michael Eisenstadt* ince the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has distinguished itself (along with Russia and China) as one of the world’s foremost “gray zone” actors.1 For nearly four decades, however, the United States has struggled to respond effectively to this asymmetric “way of war.” Washington has often Streated Tehran with caution and granted it significant leeway in the conduct of its gray zone activities due to fears that U.S. pushback would lead to “all-out” war—fears that the Islamic Republic actively encourages. Yet, the very purpose of this modus operandi is to enable Iran to pursue its interests and advance its anti-status quo agenda while avoiding escalation that could lead to a wider conflict. Because of the potentially high costs of war—especially in a proliferated world—gray zone conflicts are likely to become increasingly common in the years to come. For this reason, it is more important than ever for the United States to understand the logic underpinning these types of activities, in all their manifestations. Gray Zone, Asymmetric, and Hybrid “Ways of War” in Iran’s Strategy Gray zone warfare, asymmetric warfare, and hybrid warfare are terms that are often used interchangeably, but they refer neither to discrete forms of warfare, nor should they be used interchangeably—as they often (incor- rectly) are. Rather, these terms refer to that aspect of strategy that concerns how states employ ways and means to achieve national security policy ends.2 Means refer to the diplomatic, informational, military, economic, and cyber instruments of national power; ways describe how these means are employed to achieve the ends of strategy. -
Iran and Israel's National Security in the Aftermath of 2003 Regime Change in Iraq
Durham E-Theses IRAN AND ISRAEL'S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ ALOTHAIMIN, IBRAHIM,ABDULRAHMAN,I How to cite: ALOTHAIMIN, IBRAHIM,ABDULRAHMAN,I (2012) IRAN AND ISRAEL'S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4445/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 . IRAN AND ISRAEL’S NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE AFTERMATH OF 2003 REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ BY: IBRAHIM A. ALOTHAIMIN A thesis submitted to Durham University in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DURHAM UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS March 2012 1 2 Abstract Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran has continued to pose a serious security threat to Israel. -
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. -
Issue No. 486 AUGUST 2021
Issue Brief ISSUE NO. 486 AUGUST 2021 © 2021 Observer Research Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, archived, retained or transmitted through print, speech or electronic media without prior written approval from ORF. The Limits of Military Coercion in Halting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme Kunal Singh Abstract Israel believes that the use of force is essential to stopping Iran from making the nuclear bomb. A vocal section of the strategic affairs community in the United States agrees with the proposition. This brief argues that military means are unlikely to sabotage the nuclear weapons programme of an advanced-stage bomb-seeker like Iran. Moreover, use of force could be counterproductive as it can incentivise Iran’s pursuit of the bomb, and it may erode the confidence required for diplomatic negotiations that can possibly help cease the weapons programme. Attribution: Kunal Singh, “The Limits of Military Coercion in Halting Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme,” ORF Issue Brief No. 486, August 2021, Observer Research Foundation. 01 n early April in Vienna, the Biden administration initiated efforts with Iran to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, from which the United States (US) had exited during the tenure of former US President Donald Trump. A week later, an explosion at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment Ifacility caused a power blackout. Israel, the state most vocally opposed to the JCPOA, is widely believed to have -
General Assembly Distr.: General 14 August 2017
United Nations A/72/322 General Assembly Distr.: General 14 August 2017 Original: English Seventy-second session Item 73 (c) of the provisional agenda* Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran Note by the Secretary-General** The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the General Assembly the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 34/23. * A/72/150. ** The present report was submitted after the deadline as a result of consultations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. 17-13925 (E) 230817 *1713925* A/72/322 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran Summary During its thirty-third session, the Human Rights Council appointed Asma Jahangir as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The present report outlines the activities carried out by the Special Rapporteur since the issuance of her first report to the Council (A/HRC/34/65), examines ongoing issues and presents some of the most recent and pressing developments in the area of human rights in the country. Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 3 II. Charter on Citizens’ Rights ....................................................... 4 III. Civil and political rights ......................................................... 4 A. Right to take part in the conduct of public affairs ................................ 4 B. Rights to freedom of expression, opinion, information and the press ................. 6 C. -
The Perfect Storm
The Perfect Storm By Mary Fanning and Alan Jones 14 November 2017 1 INTRODUCTION The next time you watch a freight train pass by a railroad crossing, or hear the evocative sounds of the mournful horns of trains passing in the night or railroad crossing warning bells as flatbed rail cars double- stacked with cargo containers roll by, or see a flatbed semi-truck hauling a cargo container down the highway, keep in mind that President Barack Hussein Obama and his administration awarded Saddam Hussein’s rogue nuclear mastermind access to Florida’s Port Canaveral cargo container terminal, a U.S. port of entry that gives Russia and states of its choice unfettered access to the entire United States. This paper will explore how several seemingly disparate factors have joined together in a confluence of acute danger, creating a perfect storm that directly threatens United States (U.S.) national security. These factors include: (i) the placement of Dr. Jafar and Gulftainer inside the wire at Port Canaveral with a 35-year container terminal lease through a secret operation known as ‘Project Pelican’; (ii) the development, production, and expansion of sales of Russia’s Club-K container missile launch system; (iii) the Jafars’ and Gulftainer’s joint venture with Russia’s state-owned Rostec, which owns 100% of the shares of Rosoboronexport, the exporter of the Club-K system; (iv) Dr. Jafar’s miniaturized nuclear weapon, known as the ‘Arab bomb’ or ‘Beach Ball’; (v) the Jafar family’s long-term relationship with Russia and the KGB/SVR and GRU intelligence services revolving around nuclear, chemical, and biological WMD; (vi) Dr. -
The Dangers of Ransom Payments to Iran Hearing
FUELING TERROR: THE DANGERS OF RANSOM PAYMENTS TO IRAN HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 114–100 ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 25–944 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:22 Mar 08, 2018 Jkt 025944 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 K:\DOCS\25944.TXT TERI HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELA´ ZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri AL GREEN, Texas BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROBERT HURT, Virginia KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota STEVE STIVERS, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana JOHN C. -
Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 163 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2017 No. 125 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was caster with my colleague, Representa- cation and hands-on skills that they called to order by the Speaker pro tem- tive SMUCKER. can use right out of high school in pore (Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana). Thaddeus Stevens College of Tech- skills-based education programs or in f nology provides a bridge out of poverty colleges like Thaddeus Stevens College for some of the poorest citizens of of Technology. By modernizing the DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Pennsylvania through a high-skill, Federal investment in CTE programs, TEMPORE high-wage technical education. Grad- we will be able to connect more edu- The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- uates are filling the skills gap in Amer- cators with industry stakeholders and fore the House the following commu- ica, as there is a 99 percent placement close the skills gap that is in this coun- nication from the Speaker: for graduates of its high-demand pro- try. There are good jobs out there, but WASHINGTON, DC, grams. people need to be qualified to get them. July 25, 2017. Founded in 1905, Thaddeus Stevens I have proudly championed the I hereby appoint the Honorable MIKE JOHN- College of Technology educates Penn- Strengthening Career and Technical SON to act as Speaker pro tempore on this sylvania’s economically and socially Education for the 21st Century Act be- day. -
The Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Past, Present, and Future by Dennis Ross
MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 312 The Arab-Israeli Peace Process: Past, Present, and Future by Dennis Ross Mar 20, 2001 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dennis Ross Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama, is the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute. Brief Analysis ver the past twelve years a revolution has taken place in the landscape of peacemaking in the Middle East. O Twelve years ago, direct negotiations were non-existent and there was no peace process. While negotiations themselves do not ensure an agreement, their total absence ensures that there can be no resolution. The United States has borne the burden of trying to create dialogue. Before the 1990s, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected and denied one another. Although it conducted covert conversations with Jordan, Israel could only communicate in the open with one Arab country Egypt. Israel also lacked diplomatic relations with a large part of the world, including the Soviet Union, China, and India. The Madrid peace conference in 1991 broke the taboos of holding any meeting at all, and enabled discussion to occur. While there has been a change in the landscape of peacemaking, there has not been a comparable revolution in attitudes. A First Lesson: No Alternative But PeaceAmong the series of lessons to be learned from the past twelve years, the first lesson is that, notwithstanding today's dilemmas, for the Israelis and the Palestinians there is no alternative to the pursuit of peace. This is not only because the two sides crossed the threshold of mutual recognition in 1993, making it very unlikely they could revert to mutual rejection and denial. -
The Flaw in Trump's Maximum Pressure Campaign Toward Iran
MENU Policy Analysis / Articles & Op-Eds The Flaw in Trump’s Maximum Pressure Campaign Toward Iran by Dennis Ross, Dana Stroul Aug 29, 2019 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dennis Ross Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama, is the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute. Dana Stroul Dana Stroul was the Shelly and Michael Kassen Fellow in The Washington Institute's Beth and David Geduld Program on Arab Politics. Articles & Testimony Tehran won’t change its behavior without the prospect of real economic relief, coupled with the threat of meaningful consequences for bringing the region to the brink of war. he Trump administration says its maximum-pressure campaign on Iran is working. If only that were true. The T administration has consistently made the argument that economic sanctions would deprive the Iranian regime of money and that less money would mean less bad behavior and more concessions at the negotiating table. Bargaining with Iran is not the same as a closing a real estate deal, however. The inescapable conclusion, after surveying the region’s conflicts, is that a U.S. strategy based exclusively on starving Tehran of money cannot by itself compel changes in Iran’s regional behavior... Read the full article on the Washington Post website. Washington Post View/Print Page as PDF SHARE EMAIL ALERTS Sign Up TO TOP RECOMMENDED BRIEF ANALYSIS Cairo Acts on its Fears of Radicalization after Afghanistan Sep 24, 2021 ◆ Haisam Hassanein ARTICLES & TESTIMONY Transatlantic Cooperation on Countering Global Violent Extremism Sep 22, 2021 ◆ Matthew Levitt BRIEF ANALYSIS Fearing the Aftermath of the Elections: Will the Power Keg in Iraq Ignite? Sep 22, 2021 ◆ Munqith Dagher TOPICS Energy and Economics Terrorism U.S. -
Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 115 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 163 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2017 No. 203 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was until March. People are already losing He submitted his DACA renewal well called to order by the Speaker pro tem- their DACA coverage on a daily basis. before the application deadline that pore (Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky). So when reporters and politicians say was arbitrarily set for last October. that Congress can stall until March to f But he made a mistake. His check was enact the Dream Act, they are flat for $465, not $495, so he will be deport- DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO wrong. We cannot wait until March. able as of December 22. He has lived his TEMPORE The Dream Act and the protections of entire life in the United States, yet, if The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- the DACA program are not light Republicans and the President have fore the House the following commu- switches we can turn on and off. Every their way, he will be sent back to Hon- nication from the Speaker: day we delay the passage of the Dream duras. His three businesses and those Act, another 122 DACA recipients lose who work there? Who knows what will WASHINGTON, DC, their status. They go from being docu- December 13, 2017. happen to them. I hereby appoint the Honorable HAROLD mented to being undocumented, and Another DACA recipient named Saul ROGERS to act as Speaker pro tempore on their worlds are turned upside down.