&amp;lt;iframe src=”//www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-N2H8JF” height=”0″ width=”0″ style=”display:none;visibility:hidden”&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/iframe&amp;gt;
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 countries—has been the focus of formal congressional hearings, countless private briefings, exhaustive media coverage, strenuous lobbying efforts, and intense public scrutiny. Robert Einhorn examines the battleground issues that will drive the debate when Congress returns from its summer recess and prepares to vote on the agreement.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a much misunderstood document, and the concept of sanctions “snapback” is no exception. Richard Nephew offers a detailed analysis of common misconceptions about the sanctions relief provisions in the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that criticisms of the agreement do not factor in the consequences for Iran in a withdrawal from the deal.
Kenneth M. Pollack’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the potential regional implications of the Iranian nuclear deal. Pollack argues that U.S. policy toward the Middle East in the wake of the deal is the critical factor that will determine whether the deal will ultimately prove beneficial or detrimental to the region and to U.S. interests.
The Iran nuclear deal will not turn the Islamic Republic into a partner of the West anytime soon. The United States and its allies should therefore be prepared to contrast Iranian activities that foment sectarianism in Syria, Iraq or elsewhere. Riccardo Alcaro writes that however implausible it might look today, a regional governance architecture is also a pre-condition to restore long-term stability in the Middle East and the Gulf.
The Iranian nuclear negotiations have been hailed as a victory for the use of economic sanctions. Ultimately, however, the final deal concluded last month suggests a more ambivalent bottom line. Suzanne Maloney argues that the disparity between the agreement’s sweeping sanctions relief and the more parsimonious scope of its constraints on Tehran’s nuclear activities underscores the limitations to the use of sanctions as leverage in the negotiations themselves.
How secure is Israel? In a recent piece in Al-Monitor, Bruce Riedel suggests that Israel remains very secure even after the Iran deal. Indeed, in the context of security competition in the Middle East, Israel, despite its size, is actually more of a lion than a mouse.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s recent visit to Najaf in Iraq and his press conference with his Iraqi counterpart, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, in Baghdad sends several important signals—all centering on increasing regional security in the Middle East. Luay al-Khatteeb examines the implications of the visit and how the Iran nuclear deal may create a paradigm shift in the perception and substance of Iranian and Arab relations to resolve regional conflicts that threaten not only the Arabian Peninsula but global security as a whole.
Iran should be constrained by a global regime from getting the bomb, but the notion that Israel is a weak, powerless state completely ignores the actual balance of power in the Middle East, writes Bruce Riedel. The debate about the Iran deal should reflect Israel’s real, strong strategic situation and not fall prey to hysteria when the stakes are high, Riedel argues.
Sanctions are increasingly America’s foreign policy instrument of first resort, promising success without the bloodshed that comes with military force. Iran’s willingness to cut a deal over its nuclear program is likely to make sanctions proponents even more confident. But Peter Feaver and Eric Lorber argue that it is more difficult than policymakers think to narrowly tailor these tools to achieve particular strategic objectives.
Richard Nephew explains the sanctions relief that Iran will receive under the terms of the nuclear agreement finalized in Vienna earlier this month. He argues that the sanctions on Iran were used by negotiators as they were always intended — as a means of achieving a resolution to international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
Kenneth M. Pollack’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the potential regional implications of an Iranian nuclear agreement.
The debate over a nuclear deal with Iran has raged since the beginning of breakthrough diplomacy with Iran two years ago. With the process now in a final, crucial phase, Suzanne Maloney outlines five core issues at the center of the arguments over a nuclear agreement with Iran.
Learn more from our experts
On July 16, in a Brookings Live online event via Spreecast, three Brookings experts will discuss the terms of the Iran nuclear agreement, its ramifications for the region and beyond, and how it plays out in the U.S. political arena.
&amp;lt;img height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=”” style=”display:none” src=”https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=392802544219059&amp;amp;amp;ev=PixelInitialized”&amp;gt;
DD_belatedPNG.fix("img, .png_bg, .ir, blockquote, .pcp .top h1"); // Fix any <img /> or .png_bg bg-images. Also, please read goo.gl/mZiyb
&amp;lt;img src=”http://brookingsinstitution.112.2o7.net/b/ss/brookingsdev/1/H.24.4–NS/0″ height=”1″ width=”1″ border=”0″ alt=”” /&amp;gt;