战略与国际研究中心-Dealing-with-a-Nuclear-Iran_4页_1mb

Conference Summary: Dealing with a Nuclear Iran – Redlines and Deadlines (February 6, 2013)

Core Content

This conference report, hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), brings together insights from leading scholars and experts on the U.S. and international approaches to Iran's nuclear program. The discussion centers on the challenges of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the implications of a military strike, and the potential for a diplomatic resolution.

Main Participants

• Dr. Jon B. Alterman – CSIS Middle East Program
• General James Cartwright (USMC, Ret.) – CSIS Defense Policy Studies
• Ms. Heather Conley – CSIS Europe Program
• Dr. Olli Heinonen – Belfer Center, Harvard University
• Dr. Andrew Kuchins – CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program
• Mr. Haim Malka – CSIS Middle East Program
• Mr. David Pumphrey – CSIS Energy & National Security Program
• Mr. David E. Sanger – Chief Washington Correspondent, New York Times
• Ms. Sharon Squassoni – CSIS Proliferation Prevention Program

Key Conclusions

• The next few months are critical due to the installation of next-generation centrifuges (IR-2m), which could reduce Iran's breakout time to a month or less by summer.
• A military strike would not eliminate Iran's nuclear program but could reset the diplomatic stage.
• The U.S. and Europe have worked closely on sanctions and diplomacy, but trust in Israel, Gulf States, and Russia regarding U.S. actions is low.
• Sanctions have significantly reduced Iranian revenue and oil exports but have not changed the regime's behavior.
• The Obama administration may be more flexible in its second term, offering a broader vision of U.S.-Iran relations.
• A negotiated solution could allow Iran to retain some nuclear capabilities in exchange for transparency and a moratorium on enrichment.

Technical State-of-Play Panel

• Dr. Olli Heinonen discussed the current state of Iran's nuclear program, noting that it has expanded significantly over the past decade.
• Iran is enriching uranium close to 20%, which is nearly sufficient for a weapons program.
• The installation of IR-2m centrifuges will further enhance Iran's capabilities.
• A breakout scenario may involve Iran leaving the NPT, which is more likely than a covert weapons acquisition under IAEA surveillance.
• Cyber-attacks and sanctions have slowed the program, but the Iranian leadership remains committed.
• A comprehensive record of the program and its military dimensions, along with a two-year moratorium on enrichment, could be part of a negotiated settlement.

Security Considerations Panel

• General James Cartwright emphasized the need for a strong but measured deterrent against Iran.
• He argued that it is nearly impossible to eliminate Iran's nuclear knowledge, so a military strike would only delay the timeline and reset diplomacy.
• The U.S. should focus on maintaining special forces and improving capabilities to detect nuclear threats in non-traditional formats.
• Assuring regional allies through conventional military strength is crucial to reducing the perceived value of nuclear weapons.
• A Middle East united against Iran could serve as a powerful deterrent.
• Understanding Iran's perspective is essential for effective negotiations, as Iran views Western proposals as attempts to weaken it.

Middle East Equities Panel

• Dr. Jon Alterman outlined regional perspectives on Iran's nuclear program.
• Israel's official stance is that Iran must halt enrichment and comply with IAEA regulations to avoid a military strike, though internal views are divided.
• The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, especially the UAE and Saudi Arabia, are highly concerned about Iranian influence and nuclear capabilities.
• They view the U.S. as an unreliable security guarantor due to its "Asia Pivot" and mixed foreign policy outcomes.
• Turkey sees Iran as a rival rather than a threat and views the nuclear issue as an opportunity for diplomatic influence.
• The Middle East is more hawkish than the region North Korea faces, with several states willing to use force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Allies and Others Panel

• Mr. David Pumphrey noted that recent sanctions have been more effective in restricting Iranian oil exports than previously expected.
• The EU imposed a complete oil embargo on Iran, despite economic challenges, due to strong leadership from the UK, France, and Germany.
• Europe lacks a contingency plan "B" if negotiations fail.
• Russia is less concerned about economic impacts and more about security and geopolitical stability.
• It sees Iran as a partner rather than an adversary and is more worried about Pakistan's nuclear program.

Final Thoughts

• Mr. David Sanger emphasized the credibility challenges the U.S. faces in its nuclear policy.
• The U.S. must balance its stance on nuclear proliferation with the need for diplomatic engagement.
• A broader approach to negotiations, including a vision for future U.S.-Iran relations, could help pressure the regime from within.
• The conference highlights the complexity of the Iran nuclear issue and the need for a comprehensive, flexible strategy to prevent escalation and promote de-escalation.