Iran's Nuclear Program Research Articles

Gathering around a satellite image: Visual media cycles of the nuclear nonproliferation complex.

How have Western nongovernmental experts used remote sensing to make public knowledge about Iran's nuclear program? This article recounts several episodes in which experts and journalists congregated around satellite images to uncover hidden nuclear objects in Iran. Drawing from the theoretical tradition of co-production, I describe this recurrent collective experience as an imaginative exercise that can both coordinate and transform diverse communities of knowledge. I outline common temporal and thematic structures that define these episodes, and illuminate the role of commercial satellite imagery as material anchor that threads distributed imaginings together such that broadly-shared experience and sensibility can emerge. I argue that these collective imaginative practices have fomented civic-epistemic closure, not around affirmative nuclear facts or beliefs about Iran, but around a set of persistent questions about the 'possible military dimensions' of its nuclear past. I close by exploring the broader political effects of this form of recursive inquiry within the global nuclear order.

The impact of Iran's nuclear program on relations between Western countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran after 2015

This paper aims to research the turning point of Iranian nuclear program. Subsequently, it also deals with the relations of the deal with political changes in Iran. The significance of the subject is that it is one of the most controversial topics of contemporary international relations. A political analysis method has been conducted and the research’s data have been dealt with by the method of variables. The main argument of the essay is as follows: while the Islamic Republic of Iran claims, she is entitled to atomic activities for peaceful purposes, the international community distrusts their rhetoric. The international community is proving, with evidence, that the Islamic Republic aims to acquire atomic weapons, hidden behind the program. Iran cannot convince the international community that she does not have militaristic goals behind the program, given several revelations on her unlawful activities by IAEA. Meanwhile, the international community has been unable to find a diplomatic solution, even with the varieties of sanctions, to deter Iranians from following the atomic ambitions. As a result, the JCPoA seems to be dissolved, raising the probabilities of political and even military tensions.

Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don't: The Assurance Dilemma in International Coercion

Abstract Why do some coercive demands succeed but others fail? A dominant paradigm explains coercive outcomes by pointing to the credibility and severity of threats. The concept of coercive assurance is an understudied type of commitment problem in the coercion literature. It suggests that a coercer must assure its target that its threats are conditional on the target's behavior. Many scholars overlook coercive assurance, in part because they assume it is automatic. But assurance is a crucial component of any coercive process. Even highly credible and severe threats can fail when the coercer's assurance is not credible. A novel theory, the assurance dilemma, helps to answer the following questions: Why do targets of coercion fear unconditional pain? Why do coercers punish after receiving compliance? What is the relationship between threats and assurances in coercion? The actions that a coercer can take to bolster the credibility of a threat undermine the credibility of its assurance that it will not punish the target. Targets fear that punishment may be unavoidable and thus look for assuring signals before ceding to the coercer's demands. The case of coercive bargaining over the Iranian nuclear program demonstrates the logic and effectiveness of the use of assurance.

The EU and the Abraham Accords: From Scepticism to Engagement

The Abraham accords signed in Washington in September 2020, a series of joint normalization statements between Israel the UAE and Bahrain followed by Morocco in December 2020, were a game changer in the Middle East. Those Accords provide the pathway to the end of the Arab Israeli conflict and a future of peace, tolerance and opportunity in the Middle East and around the world. Those accords proved that there is a new way for negotiations in the Middle East. One could have been surprised that the EU was not engaged in the Accords when signed. The fact that Europeans believe in the two-state solution as the only solution and the fact that the American President Donald Trump was behind the Accords made Europe skeptical to the Accords. But reality made the difference: The war in Ukraine brought its challenges and Iran’s interference in the conflict (supplying drones to Russian’s army) provoked a real concern in Europe. The Iranian nuclear program seemed again a threat to the west and not only to Israel and Gulf countries. conflict management played a role. This paper depicts how Europe went from skepticism to engagement concerning the Abraham Accords. Geo-political interests were clear: geopolitical realignment, a great potential for Africa and energy and food supply potential in connection to those Accords. Furthermore, cooperation as well as development in foreign affairs played a role in Europeans’ choice. Keywords: Abraham Accords, Israeli-Arab conflict, cooperation, international relations

“Making Democracy Safe for the World”: Kenneth Waltz on Realism, Democracy, and War

Abstract This paper reevaluates the history of how some anti-war realists have assessed the relationship between democracy and armed conflict. To do so, I turn to a central realist figure: Kenneth Waltz. Drawing on newly available archival sources and his published work, I explore Waltz’s shifting relationship with American democracy, foreign policymaking, and war. I focus on his career-long anti-war commitments, tracing his foreign policy engagements over the half century of his academic career. Early on, Waltz argued in favor of American democracy as a source of adaptive, effective foreign policy. Gradually, however, his views shifted. After the Cold War and especially after 9/11, his anti-war beliefs and belief in democratic foreign policymaking came increasingly into tension. He moved from defending American democratic foreign policymaking to calling for structural constraints from without. We see this in Waltz’s late-life endorsement of the Iranian nuclear program, which was motivated not just by his well-known optimism about proliferation, but also by the hope that an Iranian nuclear arsenal would deter American intervention in the Middle East. Waltz’s experience has implications both for how we read his body of work and for how we understand realist attempts to shape foreign policy.

Arab Gulf States’ naval procurement strategies: A three-level approach

Except Saudi Arabia who obtained ballistic missiles from China in the 80’s during the Iran-Iraq war,11Clayton Thomas, « Arms Sales in the Middle East: Trends and Analytical Perspectives for U.S. Policy », Congressional Research Service, 10/11/17 Arab Gulf States’ weapons procurement strategies seemed not oriented to get the means to guarantee their own security. In fact, despite the fact that these countries spent 24.7 billion dollars buying weapons between 1979 and 1989,22Source: SIPRI Database they were unable to protect themselves against Iraq when the latter launched an invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. After that new Gulf War,33The first Gulf war opposed Iraq to the Islamic Republic of Iran (1980–1988) the main Arab Gulf States pursued their ‘life insurance policy’ by still buying weapons from Western countries, hosting at the same time foreign military bases in their territories44Mainly the US, based in Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Kuwait and Oman and signing Defense agreements with the greatest powers.However, things began to evolve at the beginning of the 21st century, with a change of strategy by certain Arab Gulf States, notably the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. These evolutions are largely due to different changes observed in the Gulf region from 2000 on: the Iranian nuclear program and Teheran’s potential hegemony across the Middle East and the waters of the Gulf, the war in Yemen and the operational need for naval capabilities (mainly for the UAE), and the doubts about the American political and military involvement in the Middle East. Moreover, with the aim to reduce their countries’ dependence on oil, many Arab Gulf States have promoted new national strategies to reduce the volume of importations from abroad, including military equipments, along with the targeted goal to promote local production of different products. The aim of this article is to analyze some Arab Gulf States’ naval procurement strategy, according to the political and strategical evolutions that have occurred in the Middle East since the beginning of the 21st century. It will demonstrate that the two main powers of the Arab Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have developed a three-level procurement strategy in order to get autonomy while increasing operational capabilities and promote national industries. The first level of this strategy consists in pursuing the procurement of naval equipment from Western suppliers. The second level aims to gain skills and experience through transfer of technologies in the context of co-developed military projects. The third one consists to a full how-know production process of middle class vessels. This article will also analyze which challenges the Arab Gulf States are facing in their naval procurement ambitions, and the probability that these challenges could lead them to revise them downwards.

Marco zero: as origens da guerra cibernética orquestrada pelos Estados Unidos para atingir a República Islâmica do Irã (2007-2010)

In this article, we conduct a single-case study of the conflict between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran (2007–10), from the perspective of the strategic returns obtained through the use of information technology to achieve criticism of infrastructure sectors. Our analysis highlights the conditions that allowed the North Americans to expand their power projection capabilities over their adversary, significant factors in explaining the origin and impact of cyber warfare today. By collecting evidence that reveals the functioning of the operational mechanism orchestrated by state and non-state actors to contain the Iranian nuclear program, we verify how cyberspace has become a key domain for achieving national strategic objectives. From this perspective, based on primary and secondary sources, we use qualitative analysis techniques to answer the following question: how did the United States use cyberspace to target the Iranian nuclear program?

The failed negotiations to restore the Iran nuclear deal

AbstractWhen the Biden administration came to power, the hope was that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (2015), the so‐called Iran nuclear deal, would be restored. Due to domestic constraints and in the case of Iran also a valid alternative, both the US and the Rohani administration played hardball during the negotiations. As the Iranian nuclear program further advanced and the ties with Russia and China became stronger, the conservative Raisi administration was even less interested in reviving the nuclear deal. What remains are mini‐deals that are more advantageous for Iran than for the US. Billions of dollars of Iran are (or will be) unfrozen by the US, while Iran's break‐out time of its nuclear program has shrunk to zero days. Given that the overall goal of the international community (and especially the US) was to prevent Iran from building the bomb, one can only conclude that that policy has basically failed. Although Teheran has not built the bomb yet, it is now closer to the bomb than ever. Liberal theory and more in particular Putnam's two‐level game help explain this outcome.

The Post-Revolutionary Israeli-Iranian Rivalry and Iran's Nuclear Program

There were big changes in the Middle East after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The rebels were against Israel. Tel Aviv had a good relationship with Tehran until 1979, but it was hostile towards its Arab neighbours because of a longstanding desire to rule the area. In times of change, Israel has grown afraid as Iran's power has grown. Israel is against Islam and Muslims. A lack of balance of power in the area and Iran's desire for nuclear weapons have made Iran and Israel compete with each other. A lot of Israelis think that Iran's nuclear project is a threat to their very survival and that it needs to be stopped. This piece talks about the bad feelings between Iran and Israel, the risks that could come from Iran having nuclear weapons, and different ways to get Iran to give up its nuclear programme. The piece is divided into four parts. The first part talks about the history of relations between Iran and Israel and why they are at odds with each other. The second part briefly explains how the division of power in the region led to a direct war between Tehran and Tel Aviv. The third part talks about Iran's nuclear project and the threats it makes against Israel. The last part talks about current plans for sanctions against Iran to get it to give up its nuclear weapons.

Turkish-Israeli Relations: Partnership, Problems, Perspectives

Since the second half of the 20th century the Turkish-Israeli relations have developed in an uneven and unstable manner. Depending on the current situation in the conflict-torn Middle East, these relations tended to normalize, or descended into mutual hostility. During the 21st century, we could observe several rounds of confrontation and cooperation between the two states. Thus, the events of 2010 (the Freedom Flotilla incident) and 2017 (the transfer of the capital of Israel to Jerusalem) finally led to a rupture in relations between the two countries. A new round of stabilization has been marked since March 2022 and is associated with the visit of the President of Israel to Ankara at the invitation of the Turkish President R.T. Erdogan. The authors of the article see this step as the beginning of the process of finding agreements on achieving stability in relations between the countries of the Middle East region. The article attempts to analyze the evolution of the modern Turkish-Israeli cooperation, taking into account the patterns of their development since Türkiye has recognized the state of Israel. Using a comparative historical approach, the authors analyze the political problems of the modern bilateral relations, and consider the impact of such factors as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iranian nuclear program, the consequences of the “Arab Spring,” the foreign policy activities of the US Democratic and Republican administrations in the Middle East region, as well as the crisis over the status of Jerusalem. The authors underline that despite the pragmatic character of Türkiye’s foreign policy, any tension caused by the Palestinian issue will have an impact on Turkish-Israeli relations, which in turn might start a new round of conflict between the two sides. The authors have concluded that Turkish-Israeli relations are characterized by instability, which depends largely on the current balance of power in the Middle East region. It is obvious that the normalization of Turkish-Israeli interaction is a positive factor for the intensification of integration processes in the Middle East region as a whole.

Woman, Life, Freedom, One Year Later: Will the Iran Protests Succeed?

AbstractThis essay argues that the recent protests in Iran, ostensibly driven by the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, are a symbol of a far greater dissatisfaction with arbitrary rule, corruption, and incompetence. While compulsory veiling was the immediate cause, the main drivers are the ailing economy and the decline in public services. Given the depth and breadth of street protests and the ongoing civil disobedience, the Islamic Republic simply cannot return to business as usual. At the same time, the regime is incapable of reinventing itself. It faces political and socioeconomic constraints and a mix of demographic and environmental challenges, among others. As for whether outside pressure can help protesters, the West must balance its championing of the movement with its pursuit of diplomatic engagement on Iran's nuclear program. And Iran is now getting more international assistance by looking eastward to China and Russia. With the government and security forces willing to use violence against protesters, civil disobedience may be the only method to systematically challenge the ruling order.

Nuclear Proliferation of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Challenging the Balance of Power in the Middle East

Few topics in international relations consistently attract as muchacademic and policy interest as nuclear proliferation. Literatureon the subject tends to focus on the following questions: Why dostates seek nuclear weapons? How do they acquire the componentsnecessary to build them? What are the consequences of nuclearproliferation? Does nuclear proliferation change the balance ofpower? These issues will remain salient in the years to come asthe Iranian nuclear weapon programme continues, heightening thecrisis between regional leading states.

THE POLICY OF CONTAINING IRAN BY THE ADMINISTRATION OF DONALD TRUMP (2017-2021)

Since President Donald Trump assumed his constitutional duties in January 2017 and ended his term in January 2021, he adopted strategic goals that were generally characterized by hardening towards Iran, which did not differ from the majority of previous administrations, even of president’s Barack Obama, who agreed with his predecessors on the goals, but differed in his ways to reach them. In the same context, the national security document, which was approved by the us administration, in December 2017, did not depart from the previous framework. Iran was present within its content, which reflected a hard-line image of Iran by focusing on what the latter poses as an increasing threat to American interests, as well as to its allies and the security and stability of the Middle East region in general. The document outlined the Iranian danger, describing it as “a dictatorial regime that seeks to undermine the region and destabilize its security, threaten the allies of the united states, and commit brutal acts against its people.” This strategy was, in terms of form, closer in many of its elements to what is generally accepted than the outcomes of successive administrations towards Iran. These were the same goals that the majority of US administrations had long been striving for, especially since the beginning of the new millennium and the exposure of the Iranian nuclear program, but the difference, as well as in the details and implementation mechanisms, are the paths and steps taken to achieve the goals.

Iranian National Security: Repercussions of Negotiations with the Great Powers

Negotiations constitute the first step on which countries rely to settle their differences peacefully, especially as they realize that the alternative to negotiations will have exorbitant and disastrous consequences.
 There is no doubt that the negotiation process is a series of activities that need a comprehensive program to define the goals and means of achieving the required results, anticipating what the negotiation process mechanism will interpret, which is known as the negotiation strategy.
 The Iranian negotiations with the great powers do not deviate from this framework, as each party seeks to implement several strategies to achieve the greatest possible gains. These negotiations received wide attention because of their significant impact on security stability in the region in general and the Arabian Gulf region in particular.
 The Western and Iranian negotiating parties regarding the Iranian nuclear project used both strategies of common interest and conflict at the same time. While the Iranians seek to achieve the goal of producing nuclear energy with minimal losses, the Western powers seek to stop the Iranian nuclear program and subject Iranian policy to their will.

The Impact of Iran's Nuclear Program on Iranian-American Relations (2010-2021)

Objectives: This paper explores the relationship between Iran and the U.S., focusing on Iran's nuclear program. It examines how successive U.S. administrations have addressed the issue and analyzes the responses of newly elected Presidents of the U.S. and Iran, as well as the Prime Minister of Israel, to the ongoing Iran Nuclear Deal negotiations using an analytical approach.
 Methods: The study employs an analytical methodology derived from the fields of political and social sciences, moving beyond traditional approaches in international relations.
 Results: The paper argues that Iran's development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, as a regional power, pose a direct threat to regional stability and may trigger a nuclear arms race. The interests of the U.S. and its allies in the region would also be endangered.
 Conclusions: The paper concludes that both Washington and Tehran should reach a mutually beneficial agreement to maintain regional power balance and prevent the potential for an arms race, especially with the seventh round of negotiations approaching. As Iran pursues destabilizing regional ambitions in the Middle East, posing a strategic threat to U.S. interests and allies, the U.S. should reassess its Middle East policy to ensure that Iran does not exploit sanctions relief and its remaining nuclear energy capacity to expand its revolutionary agenda throughout the region.

Unpacking the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA): Internationalisation of capital, imperial rivalry and cooperation, and regional power agency

The existing accounts of the Iranian nuclear programme and the JCPOA suffer from ontological exteriority, in conjunction with the problematic conception of the state and unpersuasive assessments of future outcomes. Grounded on the philosophy of internal relations, which challenges the artificial detachment between political economy and military-security concerns, this article contends that grasping the Iranian nuclear programme and the JCPOA requires unpacking their internal links with neoliberal global capitalism. The article thus presents a three-part argument. First, it asserts that the Iranian nuclear programme and economic sanctions should be viewed as part of the great powers’ efforts, particularly those of the United States and the European Union, to shape neoliberalism in the Middle East and North Africa. Second, it delves into the post-2008 global economy’s imperial rivalry and cooperation, suggesting that the nuclear deal was a result of the US pivot to the East, China’s Belt and Road Initiative in West Asia, and the need for multinational companies to find new avenues for capital accumulation following the financial crisis. Finally, it connects the JCPOA to Iranian neoliberalisation, which gives rise to two competing capital fractions (the internationally oriented capital fraction and the military–bonyad complex) to emphasise the crucial role played by the former in reaching the nuclear deal.

Securitizing The Iran Nuclear Deal: A Comparative Analysis Of Us Foreign Policy Under Obama, Trump And Biden (2015-2022)

Based on the Copenhagen school of thought, the securitization theory is applied to examine the framing of the Iranian nuclear deal as a security threat to the United States (US). The paper examines the transition from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the Maximum Pressure Campaign under the Trump administration and the subsequent re-engagement efforts by the Biden administration. The research utilizes the theoretical framework of securitization to understand the securitizing actors, referent subjects, referent objects, audience, and context involved in the securitization process of the Iran nuclear deal. The paper also explores the implications of US foreign policy towards Iran's nuclear program for global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and its wider impact on US foreign policy in the Middle East. The findings contribute to a better understanding of the complexities and challenges of US foreign policy towards Iran's nuclear program, which is a key issue in international relations and nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Seeking the bomb: strategies of nuclear proliferation

In a recent report on Iran's nuclear programme, American physicist David Albright argued that the country ‘threatens the world with a program ready to produce nuclear weapons on-demand’. For Albright, understanding the pace of Tehran's nuclear build-up is critical if the United States is serious about stopping Iran from ‘going nuclear’. While there is a rich literature on what drives nuclear proliferation, there is less substantive work that focuses on how countries go about ‘seeking’ the bomb. Thus, the proliferation scholarship's emphasis on why states go nuclear does not tell the whole story. In fact, it leaves room for assumptions that fill in the gaps and subsequently dictate counter-proliferation policies. Nuclear scholar Vipin Narang is aware of this vacuum, and his new book brilliantly dissects and theorizes how states pursue nuclear weapons. Focusing on the pathways that aspirants take towards nuclearization, Narang targets the misconceptions and generalizations about nuclear proliferation that abound. For instance, he explains that not all states that develop a nuclear weapons programme end up building a fully functional arsenal. In the book, Narang introduces four strategies of proliferation: hedging, sprinting, sheltered pursuit and hiding. With his categories in place, the author develops a ‘proliferation strategy theory’ that sheds light on why different states opt for a particular strategy (and why they discard the others) (p. 27).

Israel's national security, the Arab position, and its complicated relations with the United States

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has prioritized its national security in the face of several threats, including terrorism, sizeable weapons arsenals and existential nuclear risks. Ehud Eilam's new book provides a meticulous analysis of Israel's national security challenges in the last decade. The author tackles issues ranging from Iran's nuclear programme, Hezbollah's rockets and missiles and Egypt's internal affairs. The book is divided into nine chapters, beginning with a study of Israel's troubled relationship with Iran. Then, the author turns to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), analysing their military strategies towards Hamas and Hezbollah. The remainder of the chapters explore, in turn: the civil war in Syria; the issue of the Golan Heights; Egypt's economic problems; Egyptian relations with the United States; and the question of a Palestinian state. Tracing the history of the Iranian–Israeli conflict from its start in 1979, Eilam argues that ‘Iran's nuclear project is the most important challenge Israel has been facing in recent decades’ (p. 11). As the author explains, Iran has three main goals that would be detrimental to Israeli interests and that would foster regional instability: to expel the US from the Middle East; to overthrow the governments of Arab states and replace them with pro-Iranian leaders; and to destroy Israel. Eilam emphasizes how Israel tries to handle the Iran question with US support. However, both the Obama and the Trump administrations, as well as that of the current US President Joe Biden, have been reluctant to attack Iran's nuclear sites or let Israel carry out those operations on its own. Additionally, stressing the IDF's success in high-intensity wars against Arab militaries in the past, Eilam illustrates ‘how the IDF plans to gain a fast victory over its elusive and well-armed foes’—pro-Iranian groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah (p. 39). According to Eilam, such a victory for the IDF will ‘reduce both the casualties and the damages Israel will absorb’ and ‘creates deterrence, which could postpone the next war’ (p. 40).

THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, THE RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN WAR AS A MODEL

The emergence of nuclear capabilities and technology at the end of World War II and its uses in the field of lethal weapons led to the emergence of new risks at the global level. The actions of the major countries that possess this technology and their dealings with the issue of trading and exchanging this technology with a number of countries wishing to obtain it, whether for peaceful or military purposes, have varied depending on on strategic, bilateral or economic positions. The paper deals with different stances on its topic, the spread of nuclear technology, and different opinions and positions on this subject. It also deals with, for example, the Iranian nuclear program and the international stance towards it, especially the position of the United States of America on it, and some future possibilities and options if Iran continues with this program. The paper also deals with how the nuclear countries provide assistance for nuclear expertise, which is considered a form of international contribution to achieving the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It will also address some countries that are based on the transfer of nuclear expertise and the extent of its impact on the development of international relations and the effects of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It also deals with hypotheses. On the conditions that provide for the provision of nuclear assistance and then addresses the potential strategy and characteristics of nuclear suppliers and the most important factors determining the provision of nuclear assistance and emphasize the importance of economic motives.