Nuclear Issue

  • 2017-08-28

    Although candidate Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement, his administration has twice decided to remain in the deal. It so certified to Congress, most recently in July, as required by law. Before the second certification, Trump asked repeatedly for alternatives to acquiescing yet again in a policy he clearly abhorred. But no such options were forthcoming, despite “a sharp series of exchanges” between the president and his advisers, as the New York Times and similar press reports characterized it. Many outside the administration wondered how this was possible: Was Trump in control, or were his advisers? Defining a compelling rationale to exit Obama’s failed nuclear deal and elaborating a game plan to do so are quite easy. In fact, Steve Bannon asked me in late July to draw up just such a game plan for the president — the option he didn’t have — which I did.

  • 2017-07-14

    {...] In fact, the deal is doing exactly what is was supposed to do: prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, demonstrate to the Iranian public the benefits of cooperation with the international community, and buy time for potential changes in Iranian politics and foreign policy.

  • 2017-07-10

    [...] Iran had previously attempted to build a nuclear power plant at the Bushehr site, and in 1974 contracted the German company Siemens (then KraftWerk) to build two reactors. The first unit was approaching completion when Iran halted the project as a result of the 1979 Iranian revolution. [2] During the Iran-Iraq war, the reactors sustained severe damage in an Iraqi bombing raid. [3] After the war, Siemens refused to continue with construction in the face of extreme diplomatic pressure from the United States.

  • 2017-05-05

    What’s the status of Iran’s ballistic missile program? In this article, Paulina Izewicz tackles the question by focusing on 1) the program’s history and scope; 2) the part it continues to play in Iran’s statecraft, national discourse and military doctrine; 3) the attempts by others to curtail and defend against Iranian missile systems; 4) the exclusion of missile development restrictions from the Iran nuclear deal; and 5) what the EU and other international actors might do to engage with Tehran in the future on its missile program.

  • 2017-02-04

    ... Opponents of the JCPOA, and in particular Israel, have claimed that the missile tests represent a "gross" violation of the nuclear agreement. This is sheer fabrication. The text of the JCPOA itself mentions absolutely nothing about Iran’s missile program and, thus, the tests, regardless of how one interprets or views them, have nothing to do with the JCPOA. ...

  • 2015-12-15

    The Board of Governors […] [w]elcomes the commitments undertaken by Iran under the JCPOA, to provisionally apply the Additional Protocol to its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement in accordance with Article 17 (b) of the Additional Protocol, seek its ratification within the time frame as detailed in Annex V of the JCPOA and fully implement modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements to its Safeguards Agreement, communicated by Iran to the Director General of the IAEA on 18 October 2015;[…]

  • 2015-12-01

    … A nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East was first proposed in the UN General Assembly in 1974 by Iran and Egypt. In 1990, the proposal was broadened by Egypt to include a ban on chemical and biological weapons—that is, to create a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.

  • 2015-08-26

    Ever since the Vienna nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1 - the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany - was announced on 14 July, the opponents of the agreement have been waging a war against it. The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is spending up to $40 million to advocate rejection of the agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued his habitual interference in US domestic politics, calling on Congress and American Jews to reject the deal. Other anti-Iran groups are backed by a budget of $145mn to oppose the nuclear deal.

  • 2015-08-01

    In light of the fact that Israel is in possession of at least 200 (surreptitiously-built) nuclear warheads, and considering the reality that, according to both US and Israeli intelligence sources, Iran neither possesses nor pursues nuclear weapons, the relentless hysterical campaign by Israel and its lobby against the Iran nuclear deal can safely be characterized as the mother of all ironies—a clear case of chutzpah.

  • 2015-07-20

    Diplomatic efforts to reach a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)  concluded on 14 July 2015 by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the High Representative of the European Union (the E3/EU+3) and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Pages