New Articles
What’s Behind New Iran and North Korea Pact
September 7, 2012 | 4:58pm
John S. Park
What does this agreement mean?
On September 1, Iran and North Korea signed a scientific and technological cooperation agreement. According to the Iranian Labour News Agency, the agreement calls for the two countries to
·set up joint laboratories and exchange programs for scientific teams;
·transfer technology in the fields of information technology, engineering, biotechnology,
renewable energy and the environment;
·promote sustainable development of agriculture and food
On paper the cooperation between the two countries appears innocuous. In practice these partnerships create an umbrella that could allow them to conduct proliferation-linked activities.
How is Iran important to North Korea today? How is North Korea important to Iran?
The two countries are becoming more important to each other because both face increasing isolation from U.S.-led sanctions related to weapons proliferation activities in Tehran and Pyongyang. The relationship—and mutual reliance—is unique in the international community, since they lack any common ideology, religion, geographic space or ethnicity.
On the surface, relations may appear to embody the old proverb that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." But the reality is that each has helped the other cope during national emergencies. For Iran, North Korea was a vital supplier of conventional arms during the Iran-Iraq War. For North Korea, Iran was a long-standing linchpin in its procurement activities in the Middle East and Eastern Europe — a role that China is increasingly playing now as a result of a growing national economy with more foreign companies setting up production facilities targeting the Chinese market.
At its core, the relationship is one where Iran provides much-needed cash to North Korea in return for missile parts and technology that are difficult to procure elsewhere.
What are the practical implications of the scientific and technological agreement?
With both countries facing tough sanctions, the new agreement appears to be an effort to create a formal mechanism through which they can procure materiel and equipment. Many items are not specifically on sanctions lists, but the expansive financial sanctions have led most foreign institutions and intermediaries to be unwilling to run the risk of doing business with Iran or North Korea. So the agreement can be seen as an attempt by Iran and North Korea to legitimize their activities under the innocuous heading of "civilian scientific and technological cooperation."
What does it mean for the international community?
Private Chinese companies are a critical enabler of key components in this agreement. Procuring, developing and transporting components and equipment will necessitate both Tehran and Pyongyang to make greater use of unique Chinese intermediaries.
Sanctions do have an impact in terms of raising transaction costs. While this initial effect is a negative one for Tehran and Pyongyang, the secondary effect is turning out to be a beneficial one for them. Cognizant of the reduced areas of movement, private Chinese companies command higher commission fees for conducting activities on behalf of Iranian and North Korean state trading companies.
The number of actual Iranian-North Korean deals may be declining, but the sophistication of their transactions appears to be growing, thereby making them less prone to detection. That does not bode well for U.S. and Western efforts to curtail Iran’s suspected nuclear program or to counter North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons development activities.
John S. Park is a Junior Faculty Fellow with the Stanton Nuclear Security Fellowship program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website (www.iranprimer.com) in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org
Canada Closes Iran Embassy, Expels Iranian Diplomats
September 7, 2012 | 2:29pm
On September 7, Foreign Minister John Baird announced that Canada has closed its embassy in Tehran and expelled Iranian diplomats in Ottawa. He cited Iran as “the most significant threat to global peace and security” as the reason. Baird also warned all Canadian citizens against travel to Iran. The following is his announcement.
“Canada has closed its embassy in Iran, effective immediately, and declared personae non gratae all remaining Iranian diplomats in Canada.
“Canada’s position on the regime in Iran is well known. Canada views the Government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.
“The Iranian regime is providing increasing military assistance to the Assad regime; it refuses to comply with UN resolutions pertaining to its nuclear program; it routinely threatens the existence of Israel and engages in racist anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide; it is among the world’s worst violators of human rights; and it shelters and materially supports terrorist groups, requiring the Government of Canada to formally list Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
“Moreover, the Iranian regime has shown blatant disregard for the Vienna Convention and its guarantee of protection for diplomatic personnel. Under the circumstances, Canada can no longer maintain a diplomatic presence in Iran. Our diplomats serve Canada as civilians, and their safety is our number one priority.
“Diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran have been suspended. All Canadian diplomatic staff have left Iran, and Iranian diplomats in Ottawa have been instructed to leave within five days.
“Canadians in Iran seeking routine consular and passport services should contact the Embassy of Canada in Ankara, Turkey, or any other Canadian mission. Those who require urgent assistance should contact the Emergency Watch and Response Centre in Ottawa, by calling collect at 613-996-8885 or by sending an email to sos@international.gc.ca.
“Canada has updated its Travel Reports and Warnings to advise Canadians to avoid all travel to Iran. Canadians who have Iranian nationality are warned in particular that the Iranian regime does not recognize the principle of dual nationality. By doing so, Iran makes it virtually impossible for Government of Canada officials to provide consular assistance to Iranian-Canadians in difficulty.”
NAM Countries Hypocritical on Iran
September 7, 2012 | 12:57pm
David Albright and Andrea Stricker
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit ended on August 31 in Tehran with the adoption of a communiqué that is troubling and even hypocritical in its support for Iran’s nuclear program. The final NAM document—in addition to the “Tehran Declaration,” a separate paper written by Iran—also criticized unilateral sanctions against Iran, including penalties by the United States and European Union.
The core issue is that the NAM statement misinterprets the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Contrary to widespread perception, the international treaty signed by 190 nations does not guarantee a signatory country access to the nuclear fuel cycle if that state is under investigation for not complying. The 120 NAM states appear unwilling to join the world’s six major powers in pressing Iran to abide by successive U.N. resolutions. They basically do not want to acknowledge Iran’s intransigence—even though many members are U.S. or European allies and claim to oppose Tehran’s nuclear policies.
The final statement could embolden Iran’s efforts and, in turn, undermine nonproliferation and international security—which the NAM states claim to uphold.
The NAM communiqué supports Iran’s “nuclear energy rights,” specifically the right to develop all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment. This position misconstrues the NPT. Under Article IV, Iran cannot claim the right to nuclear energy production—or a right to enrich at all—while under investigation for possible non-peaceful uses of these capabilities.
Iran’s right to nuclear energy is qualified—as long as there are no major lapses in its Article II obligations. The NPT specifically requires a pledge
·“not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”
·and “not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices.”
These commitments are now being challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
U.N. resolutions also require Iran to suspend uranium enrichment until it has cleared up questions about its activities with the IAEA. Most of the NAM members are signatories to the NPT. They are also U.N. members, and therefore aware of U.N. resolutions on Iran and of their legal obligations to enforce and fully comply with them.
So the NAM communiqué failed to acknowledge the need for Iran to fully comply with the international treaty on nuclear weapons. Iran tried to portray that the final communiqué represented a diplomatic victory for Tehran and its controversial nuclear program. But the summit’s resolution instead undermined the Non-Aligned Movement’s credibility, since it demonstrated that developing nations cannot be counted on to deal seriously with nuclear nonproliferation issues.
*ISIS Interning Research Associate Andrew Ortendahl contributed to this report.
Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website (www.iranprimer.com) in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org
The Limits on U.S. Military Options
September 6, 2012 | 1:31pm
On Sept.6, Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies released a report assessing U.S. military options in Iran. It noted that U.S. air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites would likely be effective due to Iranian vulnerabilities. But Iran could respond by firing ballistic missiles at Gulf states and disrupting shipping near the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran’s proxies like Hezbollah could also retaliate.
The report stresses that “the fact that US preventive strikes can be effective is not a reason for choosing military options over negotiations.” The following key points are from the Center for Strategic and International Studies website.
- First, the US has military options for preventive strikes that Israel cannot come close to matching if it has the support of its Arab Gulf allies. This does not, however, make such military options desirable if there is any hope of successful negotiations with Iran, or more desirable than some form of containment. Any such conflict would have a major impact on world oil prices for an unknown period of time at a point the global economy is in crisis. It could trigger serious clashes in the Gulf and spill over into other parts of the region, including Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and the Levant, and lock the US and its Southern Gulf allies into a period of overwatch and restrikes for years to come. The warnings about the "law of unintended consequences" from two US Chiefs of Staff - Admiral Mullen and General Dempsey - are fully justified.
- Second, full and lasting success requires the support of the Arab Gulf states and other Arab states as partners and allies. A single round of US preventive strikes could be far more effective than strikes by Israel, but effectively dealing with the Iranian nuclear and missile effort militarily then requires time for damage assessment, restrikes when necessary, and an indefinite period in which any suspicious Iranian activity requires restrikes - unless Iran then negotiates full compliance with US resolutions and IAEA inspection. This requires the support of the Southern Gulf states for basing, and the defense of the Gulf and oil exports.
- Third, dealing with the nuclear issue alone does not secure the Gulf or the region. Any US military action must take into account its responsibilities to all of its allies in the Middle East, and especially the states on Iran's borders or in the Gulf. The US must be prepared to be a partner in dealing with any Iranian threat or attack that affects their security. This can range from missile and air defense to active participation in asymmetric warfare.
- Fourth, recent US analysis shows how critical it is to secure the flow of energy exports through the Gulf, and how dangerous any form of military action can be to the US and global economy. The volume of Gulf oil exports amounts to some 20% of all the world's oil production of 87 million barrels a day. Any major disruption affects the entire economy of Asia and all world oil prices - regardless of where oil is produced. It can lead to panic and hoarding on a global basis and the US economy will be no more exempt from the resulting rise in energy prices and limited exports to the US and other industrial and trading states than any other major economic power. Energy independence may happen someday, but today it is a foolish, dangerous myth.
Click here for the full report.
Read Anthony H. Cordesman's chapter on Iran's conventional military in “The Iran Primer”
Democratic Platform on Iran
September 5, 2012 | 12:34pm
On Sept. 4, the Democratic Party adopted its party platform. The platform credits President Barack Obama for his cooperation with the international community and implementing “the toughest UN sanctions ever on Iran.” It states that “a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution” to the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The following are excerpts from the 2012 Democratic platform on Iran and other key Middle East issues.
Iran
President Obama, working closely with our international partners and Congress, has put in place unprecedented sanctions against Iran. Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon, but has continually failed to meet its obligations under the NPT and several United Nations Security Council resolutions, and it cannot demonstrate with any credibility that its program is peaceful.
The President is committed to using all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. When President Obama took office, Iran was ascendant in the region, and the international community was divided over how to address Iran’s nuclear violations. The President’s early offer of engagement with Iran – quickly rebuffed by the regime – allowed the United States to expose Iranian intransigence and rally the international community as never before. Working with our European allies and with Russia and China, the administration gained unprecedented agreement for the toughest ever UN sanctions against Iran, laying the foundation for additional national financial and energy sanctions imposed by the United States and other nations. As a result, Iran is now increasingly isolated and the regime faces crippling economic pressure – pressure that will only build over time.
President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution. At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options – including military force – remain on the table. But we have an obligation to use the time and space that exists now to put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime to live up to its obligations and rejoin the community of nations, or face the consequences.
Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions
Meanwhile, even as the presence of U.S. forces in Europe necessarily evolves, the United States will maintain its Article 5 collective security commitments to NATO and will continue to leverage America’s comparative advantage in high-end military capabilities to ensure the defense of our allies. For example, the President is moving forward with a “phased adaptive approach” to European ballistic-missile defense that will protect both Europe and the United States from missile threats emanating from Iran and elsewhere. We believe that the United States and Russia can cooperate on missile defense, but we have also made clear that we will move forward with our system, beginning with the steps we have taken to deploy it in Poland, Turkey, and Romania.
The Middle East
The administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation – including funding the Iron Dome system – to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President’s consistent support for Israel’s right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel’s security…
Elsewhere in the region, President Obama is committed to maintaining robust security cooperation with Gulf Cooperation Council states and our other partners aimed at deterring aggression, checking Iran’s destabilizing activities, ensuring the free flow of commerce essential to the global economy, and building a regional security architecture to counter terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, piracy, and other common threats.
The United Nations
We have restored America’s leadership at the UN by cooperating with our partners there when we can and respectfully disagreeing with them when we must, reversing the previous administration’s disdain for the UN. The President’s leadership at the UN has enabled us to make real progress on a number of top national security priorities, including getting Russia and China on board to implement the toughest UN sanctions ever on Iran and North Korea.
Standing With Those Demanding Greater Freedom
In Iran, President Obama spoke out in support of the prodemocracy protestors and imposed human rights sanctions on the Iranian government.
Online news media are welcome to republish original blog postings from this website (www.iranprimer.com) in full, with a citation and link back to The Iran Primer website (www.iranprimer.com) as the original source. Any edits must be authorized by the author. Permission to reprint excerpts from The Iran Primer book should be directed to permissions@usip.org
The Islamists Are Coming
The Islamists Are Coming, edited by Robin Wright, surveys the rise of Islamist groups in the wake of the Arab Spring. Often lumped together, the more than 50 Islamist parties with millions of followers now constitute a whole new spectrum—separate from either militants or secular parties. They will shape the new order in the world’s most volatile region more than any other political bloc. Yet they have diverse goals and different constituencies. Sometimes they are even rivals.
New Articles Archive
Articles By Author
Recent New Articles Posts
-
05/20/2013 - 06:48
-
05/20/2013 - 06:47
-
05/20/2013 - 06:35
-
05/15/2013 - 11:12
-
05/15/2013 - 10:59
-
05/15/2013 - 10:31
-
05/13/2013 - 14:10
-
05/13/2013 - 12:58
-
05/13/2013 - 12:00
-
05/13/2013 - 11:19
-
05/13/2013 - 11:18
-
05/12/2013 - 19:30
-
05/08/2013 - 11:28
-
05/07/2013 - 19:03
-
05/07/2013 - 09:17
