The decision by the Obama administration to drop the missile defense plan in Eastern Europe was based on a revised perception of Iran's long-range missile threat. The move is bound to have multiple and contradictory effects on the thorny issue of Iran's nuclear program, which is slated to be a central subject of multilateral discussions at the opening of the U.N.'s General Assembly this week, as well as at the G-20 gathering in Pittsburgh days later.
Diminishing the threat perception of Iran's missile program from previous assessments under the Bush administration is certainly conducive to the IAEA -- that is, the diplomatic -- option for resolving the current impasse. Given the direct link between Iran's nuclear capability and its means of delivery in any threat assessment, a reduction in the latter gives more breathing room for a negotiated settlement, whereby in exchange for full nuclear transparency, Iran's adoption of the intrusive Additional Protocol, caps on its enrichment program, and other measures, the international community would consent to Iran's possession of a peaceful nuclear fuel cycle. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- The Realist Prism: For Iran Nuclear Deal, All Scenarios Amount to Leap of Faith
- Like It or Not, U.S. Needs Iran to Stabilize the Middle East
- Global Insights: Spoilers Emerge as Iran Nuclear Talks Reach Delicate Endgame
- Diplomatic Fallout: Can the U.N. Deliver for Obama on Iran, Israel-Palestine Deals?
- Strategic Horizons: Contrasting Strategic Cultures Drive U.S.-Israel Split on Iran