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
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: Emerging Threat of Lone Wolf Terrorism Requires Cold Rationality
- Tensions Rise Between Rouhani and Iran’s Powerful Revolutionary Guard
- World Citizen: Modi Reboots India’s Foreign Policy With ‘Zero Problems’ Approach
- For NATO, Benefits of Adding Finland and Sweden Outweigh Costs
- The Realist Prism: Falling Energy Prices Offer New Strategic Opportunities for the U.S.