Iran’s Nuclear Saga; And Iraq Averts an Inter-Sectarian War

2019 ◽  
pp. 201-240
Author(s):  
Dilip Hiro
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The Other ◽  
Enrichment Facility ◽  
Uranium Enrichment ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Low Intensity ◽  
The Us

Alarmed by the news in August 2002 that Iran was hiding a uranium enrichment facility from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Riyadh strengthened its ties with Pakistan, a declared nuclear power. With the election of radical conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s president in 2005, the issue of Tehran’s nuclear program turned into a crisis which was referred to the United Nations Security Council. This reassured Riyadh. On the other hand, it refused to face the reality that once the US, as the occupying power in Iraq, had introduced free and fair elections in post-Saddam Hussein era, the long-suppressed Shia majority would gain power through elections. This happened in late 2005. The alienated Sunni militants, forming Al Qaida in Mesopotamia, bombed a sacred Shia shrine in Samarra in February 2006, and triggered low-intensity warfare between Shias and Sunnis. Washington and Baghdad worked jointly to dampen sectarian violence, and succeeded by buying Sunni tribal leaders’ loyalties with cash. In his secret cable to the State Department in September 2009, the US ambassador in Baghdad conceded that Iran’s influence in Iraq was pervasive. In other words, the balance of power in the Saudi-Iranian Cold War had shifted in Tehran’s favor.

scholarly journals Good for the Shah, Banned for the Mullahs: The West and Iran's Quest for Nuclear Power

2006 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Kibaroglu
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Production Plant ◽  
Water Production ◽  
Enrichment Facility ◽  
Uranium Enrichment ◽  
The West ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
The Status ◽  
Do So

Iran's nuclear program has become a highly controversial issue in international politics since the August 2002 unveiling of the secretly built uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy-water production plant in Arak. American officials and experts assert that Iran has secret plans to use its nuclear capabilities to develop nuclear weapons. Iranian officials, however, deny such allegations and claim that they will use their capabilities exclusively for peaceful purposes. Notwithstanding the official rhetoric, some Iranian scholars, intellectuals, and even bureaucrats argue that Iran should seriously consider developing nuclear weapons given that they have the necessary skills and capabilities as well as the reasons to do so. The clerical leaders have supposedly not yet decided about weaponizing Iran's nuclear capability. However, the ever-increasing size of Iran's existing nuclear infrastructure, and the achievements of Iranian scientists, who claim to have developed indigenous capabilities, may very well elevate Iran to the status of a nuclear power, even a de facto nuclear-weapons state.

Empire—A World History

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-88
Author(s):  
Peter Fibiger Bang
Keyword(s):  
Bronze Age ◽  
World History ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The Other ◽  
Local Elites ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Us ◽  
Third Millennium Bce ◽  
Four Discourses

This chapter attempts a synthesis of the imperial experience in world history. Setting out from an in-depth comparison of two incidents, one from the US occupation of Iraq, the other from the Jewish uprising against Nero (66–70 CE), cooperation with local elites is identified as the key to imperial government. The chapter proceeds to discuss current definitions of empire, followed by a wide-ranging survey of modern theories of empire. Most of these can be grouped within four discourses that originate in societal debates from the early 1900s: about monopoly, capitalism and empire; about empire as predatory networks of aristocratic elites; about empire and national identity; and about geopolitics and the balance of power. These four theoretical discourses provide the four dimensions of an analytical matrix that, finally, structure an attempt at synthesizing the imperial experience in world history, from the third millennium BCE Levantine Bronze Age until the present.

Analysis and Evaluation of the Liquefaction on Layered Soil

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang Hoon Lee ◽  
Kwang Hoon Yoo
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Time History ◽  
The Other ◽  
Liquefaction Potential ◽  
Analysis And Evaluation ◽  
Seismic Input ◽  
The Us ◽  
Input Motion ◽  
Maximum Shear Strength ◽  
Typical Soil

Liquefaction potential on the specific site of nuclear power plant is analyzed and reviewed. The layered site for this study consists of silt and sand. Based on the limited available soil data, maximum shear strength at critical locations using Seed & Idriss method and computer program SHAKE is calculated, and liquefaction potential is reviewed. As seismic input motion used for the assessment of liquefaction, the artificial time history compatible with the US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.60 is used. Assessment results of the liquefaction are validated by analyzing to the other typical soil foundations which can show the effects on the foundation depth and soil data.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 & Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-195
Author(s):  
Michael D. Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Proper Solution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
The United Nations

For many years, the United Nations Security Council expressed its concerns about the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear program, doing so in the context of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. With the intent to resolve its concerns, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2231 on July 20, 2015. The Resolution endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that had been concluded on July 14, 2015, by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, and Iran (the E3/EU + 3). Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA are closely intertwined. Their implementation will result in strict limits on Iran’s ability to produce weapongrade nuclear material. On-site verification and monitoring of these limits by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will provide assurance that Iran is observing them. Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA also provide for a step-by-step removal of sanctions imposed on Iran for its past failure to resolve concerns about its nuclear program. Past concerns about “possible military dimensions” to Iran’s nuclear program, while neither misplaced nor necessarily fully assuaged, were put aside, being outweighed by the prospect that the JCPOA offers, “a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.”

Engaging the Estranged: Reciprocity and Cooperation on the Korean Peninsula

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-198
Author(s):  
Taehyun Kim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fuel Oil ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Uranium Enrichment ◽  
Heavy Fuel Oil ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Bilateral Agreement

North Korea has become the focus of international attention once again. In October 2002 it admitted to a visiting U.S. envoy of having a clandestine nuclear program through uranium enrichment, which is a violation of, among other things, the bilateral agreement it signed with the United States eight years ago. In retaliation, the United States canceled shipment of heavy fuel oil to North Korea, that shipment being part of the agreement to compensate for North Korea's abandonment of its nuclear program. Since then, North Korea has astonished the world with a series of highly provocative moves: it restarted the nuclear facilities that it had frozen since 1994; expelled the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); declared immediate withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); and threatened to resume test-firing long-range missiles that it voluntarily stopped in 1998.

scholarly journals Iran's Nuclear Program – Past, Present and Uncertain Future

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (12) ◽  
pp. 15-24
Author(s):  
A. Dyakov
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Uranium Enrichment ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Heavy Water Reactor ◽  
Close Cooperation ◽  
Uncertain Future ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy ◽  
Phase Out

Over the past two decades, Iran’s nuclear program, its character and direction have been under the scrutiny of the international community. Announcing its plans for the development of nuclear energy, Iran initiated both work to create enterprises for the uranium enrichment and the construction of a heavy water reactor in Arak. However, already in the early 2000s, it was reported about Tehran’s failure to fulfil its obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement. This raised suspicions that the country was conducting covert nuclear activities aimed at creating nuclear weapons. The state of Iran’s nuclear program has become a matter of concern to the world community and, based on a number of resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council, the IAEA has made efforts to clarify the nature of the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement. It was found that until 2003, Iran had implemented a nuclear weapons program. The decision by Tehran to disclose all its nuclear activities as well as the efforts of the IAEA and multilateral diplomacy made it possible in 2015 to agree on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to resolve all questions related with the Iranian nuclear program and take measures to guarantee its exclusively peaceful nature. Since the beginning of the JCPOA implementation, Iran has strictly followed its obligations. However, the U.S.’ withdrawal from the Plan in May 2018, restoration and strengthening of their economic sanctions against Iran created a situation where Tehran, starting in July 2019, began to phase out its obligations under the JCPOA. At the same time, to date, Iran has been carrying out all its activities in close cooperation and under the constant supervision of the IAEA. The future of the Iranian nuclear program is difficult to predict, this will largely be determined by the ability of the remaining JCPOA participants to find and implement solutions which would suit all of them.

Interpersonal rhetoric of attitude in news

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-286
Author(s):  
Mona Bahmani ◽  
Ahlam Alharbi
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Systemic Functional Linguistics ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Al Jazeera ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
The Us

Abstract Drawing on principles of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) the proposed study examined and compared the attitudinal positioning of both CNN and Al-Jazeera English (AJE) concerning Iran’s Nuclear Program (INP). The paper has employed the appraisal framework (Martin & White 2005) to reveal the different subtypes of attitude, i.e., affect, judgment, and appreciation, which have been encoded in the selected news items. It has been found that AJE discourse is highly evaluated. AJE has appraised INP positively; yet, it has evaluated Iran (apart from INP) and the US negatively. Unlike CNN, it is very obvious that AJE has various agendas. To achieve its goals, AJE has employed judgment more than the other subsystems of attitude. This is not surprising, given that the function of judgment is to judge people and their actions rather than things. This may explain why AJE news coverage is biased. On the other hand, although CNN relies heavily on appreciation, its coverage is biased as well. Indirectly through appreciating INP as being a nuclear weapons program, CNN has tried to invoke readers’ judgment of Iran. In addition, CNN has highlighted aspects of their opposition towards Iran such as unity, unification, consensus, etc, through the use of (+sec). Unlike AJE, CNN has one agenda and they achieved it through appraising the “self” positively and the “other”, i.e., Iran negatively.

CONSEQUENCES OF IRAN’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NUCLEAR DEAL FOR EURO-ATLANTIC SECURITY

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Atomic Bomb ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Uranium Enrichment ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
The Us ◽  
Near Future

The circumstances of Iran’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was signed between Iran and the six great powers in 2015, were considered. It is indicated that the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and US economic sanctions against Iran were the main reasons for Tehran’s phased withdrawal from the nuclear deal. It was noted that the assassinations of two well-known Iranian figures at the beginning and at the end of 2020 – General Qasem Soleimani and nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh provoked Iran to completely abandon the provisions of the JCPOA and to radicalize its nuclear policy. The implications of Iran’s gradual withdrawal from the nuclear deal for the security of Euro-Atlantic structures are analyzed. It has been proven that the risks associated with the development of the Iranian nuclear program were relatively insignificant during 2019. However, these risks began to increase in 2020 and especially at the beginning of 2021. The circumstances of Iran’s decision on possible increasing the uranium enrichment level to 20% and on the probable limiting the access to Iranian nuclear facilities for international inspectors were considered. It is analyzed whether such a decision of Iran can bring this country closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. It is concluded that, most likely, despite the technical capabilities, Iran will not make a political decision to produce an atomic bomb in the near future to avoid its complete isolation. Therefore, the potential nuclear conflict with Iran does not yet threaten to Euro-Atlantic security. Differences in attitudes towards the Iranian nuclear program between the United States and its European NATO allies during Donald Trump’s presidency are traced. The prospects for a change in the American position toward Iran during Joseph Biden’s presidency are assessed. The article analyzes the difficulties that the United States and its allies may face in the course of negotiations with Iran during the presidency of J. Biden. It is indicated that the influential conservative elements in Iran may delay Iran’s return to the nuclear deal in order to bargain for better conditions. It is concluded that the United States and its allies should respond to possible Iranian provocations by economic sanctions rather than by forceful actions, which could lead to an escalation that is dangerous for the Euro-Atlantic security.

Strategic Balance between India and Pakistan with respect to “Balance of Power Theory”

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 236-249
Author(s):  
Jaweriya Nasim ◽  
Khushboo Fatima ◽  
Sajida Noureen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Asia ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Single Event ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Power Theory ◽  
Strategic Balance

India and Pakistan have strained relations since their independence because of serious conflicts like the Kashmir issue and major wars of 1965 and 1971. There is a continuous struggle for dominance among both the states through nuclear weapons and alliances with other nuclear weapons states, which have been addressed in this paper. India had made South Asia nuclear; to which Pakistan develop its nuclear program. Moreover, India and the United States growing relationship have further created an imbalance in the region. In return, Pakistan started strengthening its ties with China to counterbalance the Indian threat. This has been discussed in the paper that both states have actually created balance against one another in the context of the balance of power theory. But it is not going to be long lasting as there is a negative peace among them, and a single event can trigger a major conflict and depict dominance of one over the other.

scholarly journals Great Power Competition: Lessons from the Past, Implications for the Future

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Vuving
Keyword(s):  
International System ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Great Power ◽  
The Past ◽  
Game Of Chicken ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
Asymmetric Game

Throughout the 52-century long history of great power competition, human dynamics, technology, and geography are the most consequential and most permanent factors that have shaped the interaction among the great powers. This essay mines the past for lessons about great power competition by examining the structural impact of these factors on the rise and fall of great powers, the balance of power among them, and the character of their relations. In order to aid its analysis, the essay introduces three concepts that have not been discussed in the literature: 1) The system-changers: actors that are not system-makers like the great powers but have the power to change the international system and disrupt the balance of power among the system-makers.2) The strategic structure of great power competition: a structure that emerges from the interaction of the players’ preferences and determines the best strategies for the players as well as the stable outcomes of their game. The essay argues that the Thucydides Trap does not exist in the US-China rivalry because the strategic structure of this rivalry is that of either a Game of Chicken or a Peace-lover’s Dilemma. Using game theory and geopolitics, the essay is able to make long-term predictions and strategy implications for the US-China rivalry.3) The peace-lover’s dilemma: an asymmetric game whose stable outcome is the dominance of the more aggressive player (who prefers its own supremacy to sharing power with the other) over the less aggressive player (who prefers sharing power with the other to its own supremacy), hence this is a dilemma for the game’s peace-loving player.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document