Experience of the Nuclear Negotiations with Iran in 2013-2015: Lessons for Joe Biden’s Administration

The article stresses on the importance to solve the problem of Iran’s nuclear program during Joe Biden’s presidency and suggests using the experience of the past nuclear talks with Iran to find a solution of this issue. The article notes that its purpose is to analyze the experience of past negotiations on resolving the problem of Iran’s nuclear program and the prospects of practical application of this experience to solve this problem in the future. The method of system analysis, method of comparative analysis and method of content analysis were used in the article. The article considers the experience of the negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program that took place in 2013 – 2015 and successfully ended by signing the nuclear deal with Iran – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It is analyzed in the article what the lessons could be drawn from those past negotiations and how these lessons could be used by President Joe Biden and other western leaders to achieve a good nuclear deal with Iran. It is concluded that the preconditions for the nuclear talks with Iran in the mid-2010s significantly differed from the situation around Iran’s nuclear program in the early 2020s and at the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidency. The article mentions that unlike in the mid-2010s, in the early 2020s the international community and even the NATO allies did not have a united position toward Iran’s nuclear program. Furthermore, Joe Biden’s administration faced much more developed and modernized Iran’s missile and space program than Barak Obama’s administration did. The article proves that those two main obstacles (absence of the united international position regarding Iran’s nuclear program and much more developed missile program) hindered Joe Biden’s administration to bring the United States back to the JCPOA immediately after presidential inauguration in January 2021. The article also mentions another obstacle for recovering JCPOA – Iran’s regional policy that harms US interests as well as the interests of US partners in the Middle East. It is reminded in the article that that obstacle was already present during Barak Obama’s presidency and did not hinder to achieve the JCPOA. The article supposes that in a similar way Joe Biden’s administration could postpone solving the regional contradictions with Iran in order to close at least nuclear issue at the beginning. It is reminded in the article that some provisions of the JCPOA will expire soon, and this opens an opportunity to start already now negotiating the new nuclear deal with Iran that would take into account concerns regarding Iran’s missile program and its regional policy.

Lead Groups in EU Foreign Policy: The Cases of Iran and Ukraine

Since the creation of the EU, there have been instances in which a restricted number of member states has handled an issue of international security on behalf of the Union. This article argues that, while controversial, these ‘lead groups’ have been a valuable practice. They have been effective in generating intra-EU consensus on specific issues and spurring the EU into action, thereby enabling a European response in the context of conflict management and complex international negotiations. Lead groups are sub-optimal arrangements compensating for the in-built institutional shortcomings of unanimity-based decision-making in EU foreign policy. As such, they do not bring integration further. They have nonetheless shown significant potential in giving initiative and content to EU foreign policy. This is shown through the analysis of two case studies, the Anglo-Franco-German trio involved in Iran’s nuclear issue and the Franco-German duo brokering a truce between Russia and Ukraine.

China’s Foreign Policy towards Eurasia Economic Integration

During the period from 2005 to 2015 under the rule of Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping, China has achieved enormous success not only in the field of economy but also in the political and diplomatic areas. With the Silk Road Economic Belt’s initiative launched by the government of Xi in 2013, China was seeking to find alternatives for different affairs such as the South China Sea, the nuclear issue of North Korea, and Taiwan issues. The emergency of the “Strategic Breakthrough” whose aim is to stabilize the surrounding atmosphere makes it a pressing task for the Chinese diplomacy focused on Eurasia to overhaul the international order.

Security of the Middle East in Light of the Iranian Nuclear Deal

Iran’s nuclear issue is considered one of the factors that has shaped the regional dynamic in the Arab Gulf sub-region because it is a major factor that might affect the perception of the other side players in the region, international, and regional actors. This matter represents a challenge to the security of the Gulf States. This started to change after the signing of the nuclear deal known as the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA), but then, upon the withdrawal of the Trump administration from this agreement in May 2018, regional alignments began to be reformed. It is within this context that this article tries to answer the following question: How does the American withdrawal from the JCPOA affect the stability in the region and change the stand of the Gulf countries and other regional states? This study is based on the following hypotheses. The withdrawal of the American administration from the nuclear deal, and its imposition of a “maximum pressure” policy, represented a turning point in the vision of the region and has again cast the shadow of the Cold War over the Gulf area. The American withdrawal from the nuclear deal is an independent variable, while the regional security system and the policy of the Gulf States toward this deal is the dependent variable.

2013 Political Discussions in Foreign Affairs Committee of British Parliament on Iranian Nuclear Issue

The debate on Iran’s nuclear program in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament, held in February 2013, in anticipation of the resumption of negotiations between Iran and the “six” of international mediators, is considered. Particular attention is paid to the position of experts invited to the meeting: representatives of academia, public organizations, military analysts. The high expert and analytical level of the meeting, which made it possible to develop effective political initiatives is noted. The most pressing issues raised during the parliamentary debates are considered. It was proved that both the deputies and the invited experts considered the further development of Tehran’s nuclear program dangerous. The authors dwell in detail on theways to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, recommended by experts at a committee meeting: from increasing sanctions pressure to finding ways of a diplomatic settlement. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the Iranian nuclear problem continues to be a toxic factor in the Middle East region. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that the attempt is made to reveal the position of the British Parliament members and leading experts on Iranian foreign policy. It is concluded that the political position expressed by the deputies and experts in the parliament testified to the readiness of the parties to negotiate and develop a consensus on the Iranian nuclear program.

Diversifying relationships: Russian policy toward GCC

The interaction between Russia and Gulf countries represents the story of ups and downs, severe conflicts and sharp warmings that can largely be explained by the permanently changing role and place of each of these players at the global and Middle Eastern political arenas. After Russia's “return” to the Middle East in 2012–2015, Moscow's foreign policy towards the Gulf can be explained in terms of a bargaining strategy. On the one hand, Russia is trying to underline its importance and relevance to the GCC by putting forward diplomatic and political initiatives. The Kremlin uses its direct or indirect presence in the key regional conflicts such as the Syrian, Libyan and Yemeni civil wars as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran’s nuclear issue. On the other hand, Russia is interested in building up stronger economic cooperation with the GCC, drawing bigger volumes of investments from the Gulf to Russia’s broken economy, as well as coordinating efforts with Saudi Arabia in the global oil market. While, in the near future, the qualitative evolution of Russia’s relations with the GCC is hardly possible, there are still options for their deepening within the current level of interaction between Moscow and the Gulf.

Inter-Korean Relations: Factors and Prospects

The relations between South Korea and North Korea were improved in 2018 on the basis of the Sunshine policy ideational platform and the inter-Korean agreements reached between the two countries under the progressive administrations of Kim Dae-jung in 2000 and Roh Moohyun in 2007. However, inter-Korean relations had been at a lull since the US-North Korea summit in Hanoi in February 2019 despite the intentions of the parties to develop diverse forms of cooperation. After that, the month of June saw a severe deterioration in the Inter-Korean relations. The aim of this article is to analyze the inter-Korean relations and the North Korean policies of the South Korean governments from 1998 to 2020 as well as explain the reasons behind Seoul’s inability to make progress in dialogue with Pyongyang. South Korea’s prioritizing of its ties with the United States as well as its increased dependence on the United States were the main reason behind the stagnation of inter-Korean relations. Under the international regime of sanctions against the DPRK, Moon Jae-In has failed to put the Sunshine policy into practice, for instance, re-open Kaesong Industrial Complex and Mount Kumgang tourism zone. The fact that inter-Korean economic cooperation was actually still linked to the denuclearization of the DPRK also had a negative impact on the prospects for maintaining the positive dynamics of inter-Korean relations. The exacerbation of inter-Korean relations in June 2020 showed that in the absence of practical inter-Korean cooperation and with the continuing deadlock in the US-North Korean negotiations on the nuclear issue, Pyongyang is not interested in normalizing relations with Seoul and it can concentrate on relations with the United States. At the same time, the intensifying confrontation between China and the United States in the Asia-Pacific region is not conducive to a political settlement of the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and it can potentially lead to an aggravation of inter-Korean relations.

"The Iranian nuclear issue" — origins and history of development

The article examines the emergence and escalation of the "Iranian nuclear issue" at the international level, the role, content and character of the measures taken by the UN Security Council and IAEA, global and regional interests of the USA and the corresponding actions of Washington concerning Iran, including the use of multi-level and multi-layered manipulation. The materials of the article can be used in the preparation of students in the field of "International relations".

On the Security of the Asia-Pacific Region in the Light of the Security Problem of the Korean Peninsula

The security issues of the Asia-Pacific region have been analyzed against the background of the ongoing situation with the nuclear program being conducted in the DPRK. The situation is complicated by the confrontation of other stakeholders pursuing their own interests, primarily the United States and China. Russia's position on the nuclear issue in the Korean peninsula and regional security in general also has a significant impact on the process.

DPRK’s Foreign Trade: The Impact of Sanctions

The author analyzes the dynamics and structure of DPRK’s foreign trade, as well as the impact of international sanctions. Currently, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions, sanctions include a complete ban on the country’s main export goods, restrictions on the import of petroleum products and the use of North Korean labor abroad. International sanctions and the aggravation of the North and South relations had a significant negative effect on the DPRK’s foreign trade. Until 2013, there was a positive trend, but the tightening of sanctions and nullification of trade with the Republic of Korea led to the collapse of export-import operations. The possibility of restoring the DPRK’s foreign economic relations and developing cooperation with Russia is closely linked to resolving the nuclear issue and lifting international sanctions.