1. Preview
The
Islamic Republic of Iran celebrated a momentous event on the 14th of
July with the signature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that will
lift the economic sanctions imposed on the country and reintegrate it back into
the international community. The deal has been described as historic and
unprecedented, ending a 12 year standoff between the West and Iran and opening
a new page in relations. The agreement came after twenty months of intensive
negotiations between the six world powers, the EU and Iran, and was heralded as
an achievement for all parties. Nonetheless, the deal has alarmed and confused key players in the region,
considering the political, economic and geopolitical repercussions of the
concluded agreement.
Iran’s
controversial nuclear programme has long drawn international condemnation,
fueled by Israel’s warning of Iran’s nuclear capacities that would place a
nuclear bomb in the hands of a radical state. These fears were
further amplified by Tehran’s references to the annihilation of Israel and its
ties with radical and destabilising forces in the region, such as Hamas and
Hezbollah. These preoccupations regarding a nuclear Iran were also shared by
Gulf countries whose historic confrontation with Iran and whose fears regarding
the latter’s ideological dominance over Shiite groups led to a regional
recognition on the need to de-nuclearise and contain Iran. The USA, the prime ally
of Israel and Saudi Arabia, has cushioned the fears of these nations and
promised to protect them against the Iranian regime. Despite constant calls
from the Israeli government and lobby to strike Iranian nuclear sites,
Washington opted for a strategy based on negotiations and sanctions to entice
Iran to limit its nuclear programme. The UNSC, for its part, had adopted a
total of six resolutions and imposed gradual sanctions on
Iran between 2006 and 2010
in an effort to curb its nuclear programme, after the
International Atomic Energy Association found in September 2005 that Tehran was not compliant with its international obligations in respect
to the nuclear programme. Measures
included financial curbs, freezing assets of
individuals and companies related to the enrichment programme, banning the
supply of nuclear-related technology to the country, an expanded arms
embargo and scrutiny of the dealings of Iranian banks. Meanwhile,
and on the diplomatic track, the UNSC engaged with Iran in an effort to curb
its nuclear programme and mandated a six nation group, known as the P5 + 1
(China, Russia, France, UK, USA and Germany) to negotiate a solution with
Tehran.
Since
the commencement of negotiations, Iran has been adamant about its prime
condition for agreeing on any deal to halt its nuclear programme, which was
lifting the sanctions imposed on the country. In 2013, a
series of negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran took place over a six-month period
which aimed at reaching a permanent resolution to the global impasse over
Iran's nuclear programme. In November 2013, an interim agreement,
known as the Joint Plan of Action, was
reached in Geneva after a diplomatic marathon of three intensive rounds. This plan of
action partially lifted the sanctions on Iran and paved the way
for a comprehensive agreement. Deadlines for reaching a final agreement were
not met and pushed back several times due to disagreements on the nature of the
nuclear programme and the timeline for lifting sanctions. In March 2015, world leaders met in
Lausanne, Switzerland, for further negotiations, and in April 2nd Iran and world powers announced a framework
deal to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. In June 2015, talks resumed
between the P5+1 and Iran in Vienna ahead of a June 30th deadline to
sign a final agreement. The deadline was not met and the Vienna talks were
extended amidst disagreements over the lifting of an arms embargo. Finally, on July 14th 2015, and after 17
days of marathon talks between world powers and Iran, a historic nuclear deal
was reached with the signature of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [1].
The UNSC unanimously adopted a resolution on July 20th that endorsed
the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers which will take effect within 90
days.
The
deal sparked controversy across the globe in general and in the region in
particular. Whilst the international community praised the breakthrough and
found in it an excellent alternative to another war in the region, regional
actors, primarily Israel and Saudi Arabia, voiced their concerns regarding the
deal. They referred to the dangers posed by the Persian state whose nuclear
ambitions, they claim, will not necessarily be deterred by the above-mentioned
deal. Moreover, with the reincorporation of Iran politically and economically
into the international community, Iran’s influence in the region will be
bolstered, threating the current balance of power and the alliances forged
between regional actors. In light of these developments, Jordan must reexamine
its policies and strategies in dealing with Iran and the Gulf states. The
probable change status quo and the shift in relations between traditional
allies must be analyzed by policy makers to ensure that Jordanian interests are
protected in this transitional phase. This paper intends to shed light on the
changes in the geopolitical map of the region and the reactions of regimes to
these developments, offering as well recommendations to the Jordanian polity on
dealing with these changes strategically and pragmatically. Prior to that, a
brief summary on the nuclear deal will be provided.
2.
Summary of JCPOA
Technical Details as per a statement issued by the European External Action
Service[2]:
·
Under JCPOA, Iran reaffirms that under no
circumstances it will ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons, and
will move forward with an exclusively peaceful, indigenous nuclear programme under
the relevant articles Non-Proliferation Treaty.
·
Adoption day of the JCPOA is 90 days after its endorsement
of the UNSC; an earlier date may be determined by mutual consent of the JCPOA
participants.
·
A Joint Commission consisting of P5+1, the High
Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (thereof EU
+3) and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of this JCPOA. The
IAEA will be requested to monitor and verify the voluntary nuclear-related measures
and provide regular updates to the UNSC. The EU+3 and Iran will meet at the ministerial
level every 2 years in order to review and assess progress and to adopt
appropriate decisions by consensus.
·
Iran's long term plan includes certain agreed
limitations on all uranium enrichment and uranium enrichment-related activities
including certain limitations on specific research and development activities
for the first 8 years, to be followed by gradual evolution, to the next stage
of its enrichment activities for exclusively peaceful purposes. Iran will begin
phasing out its IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years. During this period, Iran will
keep its enrichment capacity at Natanz at up to a total installed uranium
enrichment capacity of 5060 IR-1 centrifuges. Excess centrifuges and enrichment
related infrastructure at Natanz will be stored under IAEA continuous
monitoring. Iran will continue to conduct enrichment research and development in
a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran will continue testing
IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8
centrifuges after eight and a half years.
·
Iran will not manufacture or assemble other
centrifuges and will replace failed centrifuges with centrifuges of the same
type. Iran will manufacture advanced centrifuge machines only for the purposes
specified in this JCPOA. From the end of the eighth year Iran will start to
manufacture agreed numbers of IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuge machines without rotors
and will store all of the manufactured machines at Natanz, under IAEA
continuous monitoring until they are needed under Iran's long-term enrichment
and enrichment research and development plan.
·
For 15 years, Iran will carry out its uranium enrichment-related
activities exclusively in the Natanz Enrichment facility, keep its level of
uranium enrichment at up to 3.67%. It will refrain from any uranium enrichment
at Fordow and will convert it into a nuclear, physics and technology centre.
·
During the 15 year period, Iran will keep its
uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride.
The excess quantities are to be sold and delivered to the international buyer
in return for natural uranium delivered to Iran.
·
Iran will redesign and rebuild a modernised heavy water
research reactor in Arak, using fuel enriched up to 3.67 %, in a form of an
international partnership. The reactor will support peaceful nuclear research
and radioisotope production for medical and industrial purposes. The redesigned
and rebuilt Arak reactor will not produce 8 weapons grade plutonium.. All spent
fuel from Arak will be shipped out of Iran for the lifetime of the reactor.
Iran plans to keep pace with the trend of international technological
advancement in relying on light water for its future power and research
reactors with enhanced international cooperation, including assurance of supply
of necessary fuel. There will be no additional heavy water reactors or
accumulation of heavy water in Iran for 15 years. All excess heavy water will
be made available for export to the international market. For 15 years Iran
will not engage in any spent fuel reprocessing or construction of a facility
capable of spent fuel reprocessing,
·
Iran will allow the IAEA to monitor the
implementation of the voluntary measures for their respective durations, as
well as to implement transparency measures, which include: a long-term IAEA
presence in Iran; IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate produced by Iran
from all uranium ore concentrate plants for 25 years; containment and
surveillance of centrifuge rotors and bellows for 20 years; use of IAEA approved
and certified modern technologies including on-line enrichment measurement and
electronic seals; and a mechanism to ensure speedy resolution of IAEA access
concerns for 15 years.
·
Regarding sanctions, the UNSC resolution endorsing
this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UNSC resolutions on the
Iranian nuclear issue. The EU will terminate all provisions of the EU
Regulation implementing all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions, as
well as all provisions of the EU Regulation implementing all EU proliferation-related
sanctions, 8 years after the Adoption Day of the JCPOA or when the IAEA has
reached the broader conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in
peaceful activities. The US will cease the application of the sanctions to take
effect simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of the agreed
nuclear related measures by Iran. Eight years after the adoption day or when
the IAEA has reached the broader conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains
in peaceful activities, the US will seek such legislative action to terminate the
sanctions on the acquisition of nuclear-related commodities and services for
nuclear activities contemplated in this JCPOA.
·
The EU will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing
the sanctions that it has terminated implementing under this JCPOA, without
prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA.
There will be no new nuclear related UNSC and no new EU nuclear-related
sanctions or restrictive measures. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent
with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from
re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions that it has ceased applying under
this JCPOA and from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions, without prejudice
to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA.
·
Iran has stated that it will treat a re-introduction
or re-imposition of sanctions or the imposition of new nuclear-related
sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments in whole or in part.
·
The EU and the US will refrain from any policy
intended to affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.
The EU+3 and Iran will agree on steps to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade,
technology, finance and energy. The EU will further explore possible areas for
cooperation with Iran, and will consider using export credits to facilitate
trade, project financing and investment in Iran.
·
On re-imposing the sanctions, JCPOA stipulates that
if an issue was raised regarding Iran not meeting its commitments, the issue
could be referred to the Joint Commission, Ministers of Foreign Affais, the
Joint Commission and Advisory Board in order.
If the issue still has not been resolved the UNSC would be notified and
will vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution
has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of
the old UNSC would be re-imposed.
3.
Regional
Implications of the Nuclear Deal
The nuclear
deal’s articles and stipulations go beyond the technical issues related to
Iran’s nuclear programme. The recognition of Iran as player in the region was
one important achievement that resulted from the deal, one that has many implications
on the region and on the delicate balance of powers that has been protected by
the west, primarily the USA. Iran will not only benefit financially, but
politically and geopolitically as well where it can now use this opening to the
international community as a means to build new alliances and strengthen those
already established.
According to the analysis of Middle East expert
Kenneth Pollack in a testimony before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs
on the possible Regional implications of the nuclear agreement with Iran[3],
Pollack indicated that contrary to popular opinion, Iran is unlikely to pursue
a wider rapprochement with the US. According to him, Tehran will neither change
its policy toward the region as a result of a nuclear agreement especially since
Iran is content with current status quo, particularly in respect to Iraq and
Syria. He explained that Iran’s most likely course after a nuclear agreement
will be to continue to pursue the same regional strategy it has pursued over
the past three years, but may interpret American behavior after a nuclear agreement
as a sign of further disengagement from the Middle East. If that is the case,
he added, it is highly likely that Iranian goals will become more expansive and
its policy more aggressive. Other analysts however indicate that Iran indeed
intends to shifts its policies in the region and move towards broader geopolitical collaboration, particularly in the area of
cooperation in “the fight against extremism”, a hint at the prospects of Iran
formally joining forces the US in fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Moreover, powerful
voices Tehran are gradually abandoning the revolutionary-era resistance to
domineering imperialistic plans[4].
According to views shared by political experts, analysis indicated that Iran
will systematically move away from its hardline ideological discourse to a more
pragmatic one. By singing the deal, according to these analysts, revealed
Iran's true colors and its prioritisation of its own interests over any other
regional issue, despite any employed rhetoric Tehran employed in the past. The
Obama administration too has indicated that the nuclear deal could be the
beginning of wider collaboration with Iran in respect to pursuing pursuing its
geopolitical goals in the region. The fears shared by Israel and Sunni powers in
the region regarding a politically and economically strengthened Iran and, by
proxy, its allies in the region are not necessarily true according to some
observers. According to a study published in Global Research, by moderating and
neutralizing Iran, the USA would undermine the challenge to its policies posed
by Tehran via the stick approach of re-imposing sanctions. It should be noted
the Tehran gabled on this agreement and has put a lot of stake on the revival
of the Iranian economy and the improvement of the living standards to contain
the reactions of hardliners who were not necessarily thrilled to see Iran
succumb to international will.
Whether Iran indeed uses its
bolstered influence in the region to further strengthen its relations with its
traditional allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria or would use this
breakthrough to shift alliances and prioritise its own interests, Jordan needs
to draw possible scenarios and strategies to deal with the issue in a pragmatic
way.
4.
Reactions
on the Nuclear Deal
International
Reactions
The
reaction from the international community in general on the nuclear deal has
been one of commendation and optimism, with countries expressing relief that
the stand-off has ended peacefully and fruitfully. The US administration in
particular voiced its satisfaction with the deal, where President
Obama heralded the Iranian nuclear deal and underlined that it would meet
American national security needs and that of US allies.[5] The
American Ambassador to the UN explained that the terms of the deal will
significantly delay Iran's nuclear development to the point of preventing Tehran
from developing a nuclear weapon. She praised the deal for achieving objectives
peacefully vis-a-vis the Middle East without resorting to war. Nonetheless, and
in an effort to assuage regional concerns, the Ambassador also said that the US
will continue to invest in the security of its regional allies.[6]
According to the analysis of
political observers, the
deal itself serves US interests in the region, as it reflects a growing
recognition by the Obama administration that hostility towards Iran undermines
other US priorities in the region, especially the fight against the ISIS. Containing
Sunni terrorism and radicalism to protect western interests in the region may
require an alliance with new and strong actors whose influence and power may
serve long-term American interests. Washington appears to have agreed to shift
its strategy in the region and openly deal with a “neutralised” Iran to solve
or contain the conflicts in the Middle East. Moreover, by opening a new chapter
in relations with Tehran, Washington would also win Iran away from getting too
close to Russia and China[7].
It should be note that the deal was sent to Congress on
July 19th where it will be reviewed in the next 60 days. The
Congress will then vote on whether to lift the sanctions imposed on Iran or not[8]
noting that Obama has promised to veto any attempt by Republican opponents to
undermine the deal[9].
Russia
on the other hand also praised the deal; the Russian ambassador to the UN spoke
of the inalienable Iranian rights to
develop a nuclear program. He underlined that the deal would prevent another
Middle East arms race and would create a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction[10].
The EU also welcomed the deal and expressed contentment that it would avoid
another war in the region. Analysts also indicate that the EU is particularly
interested in the economic aspect of the deal, where the lifting of trade
restrictions on Iran would enable the EU to expand trade as much as 400 per cent, according to
the president of the Eurasia Group risk consultancy[11]. Moreover, the deal could
help the EU to substitute imports of oil and gas from Iran for those from
Russia, thereby undermining Russia’s influence over Europe[12].
Regional
Reactions: Israel, Saudi Arabia and GCC
Israel's positions on the deal have
been voiced since the beginning of negotiations between P5+1 and Iran, where
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the imminent UNSC resolution
"hypocritical" and criticized the UN agency for giving legitimacy to
a country that “systematically violates the Council's resolutions and threatens
to destroy Israel”. The Israeli leader lobbied repeatedly against a
disadvantageous deal with Tehran and called for including of a clear and
unambiguous recognition of Israel’s right to exist in any final agreement with
Iran[13].
The nuclear agreement came as a blow
to Israeli leadership, where the Israeli premier described it as a “historic
mistake” that will only make it easier for Iran to build a nuclear bomb[14]
. Israel’s failure to obstruct the deal and win a US veto on the concluded
nuclear deal left Israel with the sole choice of pushing the US Congress to
oppose lifting sanctions on Iran. Netanyahu sent a message to US lawmakers
where he stressed that as long as the sanctions imposed by the US Congress are
in effect, Iran would have to make concessions[15].
The inking
of the deal was much criticized by Israel who reiterated its concerns that a
deal with a radical country such as Iran forms a direct existential threat to
Israel. The deal does not guarantee that Iran will forge it nuclear ambitions
and might even fuel the Iranian war machine via the lifting of sanctions,
bolstering and reviving with that the Iranian economy[16]. However,
analysts indicate that circles within the Israeli military and intelligence
establishment favor the nuclear deal as a way to contain Iran's nuclear
threat, freeing resources to deal with other threats[17] . Numerous
Israeli analysts and former military and intelligence-service officials agree
with this analysis, such as members of the IDF’s general staff; a
former head of Mossad; a former head of Shin Bet and a former head of the
IDF’s intelligence branch[18].
Nonetheless,
analysts indicate that the nuclear threat posed by Tehran is not the sole motor
behind Israel's expressed condemnation of the deal, and that of Saudi Arabia,
but rather the realisation that the Iranian rapprochement with the
international community and the USA in particular will create a paradigm shift
and alter the status quo that has long protected the Israeli interests,
especially in light of the rise of Iranian influence in several Arab capitals[19]. Analysts
argue that Israel considered the US support to the nuclear deal as an erosion
to its deterrence to Iran and as an actual legitimisation of a
nuclear-threshold Iran.
In a
testimony before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Middle East expert
Kenneth Pollack gave a briefing on July 9th on the possible Regional
implications of the nuclear agreement with Iran. He explained that although
Israel is opposed to the deal, a military response seems far-fetched, Tel Aviv
would manifest its discontent in three major area. First Israelis will ramp up
their covert campaign against Iran and its nuclear program, with more Iranian scientists
mysteriously assassinated and more sensitive Iranian facilities blow up.
Second, Israel will also seek greatly expanded U.S. aid in response to the
nuclear deal with Iran to improve its capability to strike Iranian targets and
to defeat retaliatory attacks by Iran or its allies, as well as ask for other
weapons and capabilities previously denied. Finally, a nuclear deal with Iran
could push Israel to become more aggressive in its own neighborhood using the
security pretext, and therefore will be less willing to take risks on other
security matters in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon[20].
Saudi Arabia on the other hand has
been silent on the nuclear deal and an official public statement has not yet been
issued, but the country’s reaction was revealed by statements made by
government-sanctioned journalists and analysts[21].
Similar to the Israeli position, Saudi Arabia fears that the deal will not
ensure a nuclear-free Iran. A Saudi researcher explained that a nuclear deal
with Tehran will not deter Iran's capability to create a nuclear weapon
considering that the deal will only take effect for a relatively short period
of 15 years and will not destroy Iran's technical capabilities to maintain a
nuclear programme[22].
After the signature of the agreement, Saudi diplomat told the Washington
Post that his country took the deal as a “green light” to pursue its own
nuclear program, arguing that this is a necessary step to protect the Kingdom
against a nuclear Iran[23].
Saudi concerns also have an economic dimension, according to some observers who
noted that Iran's oil will find its way back on the international market
and will cut directly into Saudi exports[24].
The GCC countries have also been silent on the
issue, with the exception of Oman, where the secretary-general of Oman's ministry of
foreign affairs welcomed the deal. The UAE also officially congratulated
Iran on the deal[25].
It should be noted that despite the possible consequences on the GCC economy as
a result of Iran’s oil export, the benefits of investments in Iran would spill
over to the GCC. The UAE in particular stands to
gain significant economic benefits from Iran’s reintegration into the global
economy considering that it has been a financial artery for Iran and has
long benefitted from formal-sector trade with
Iran until the tightening of sanctions in 2012[26].
Observers note that there are mixed reactions in
the Gulf towards the Iranian nuclear deal. Those who support it argue it would
prevent the region from sliding into a destructive and depleting
nuclear arms race that would deplete everybody. Opponents on the other hand
say the deal will have a number of negative consequences for the Gulf. Moreover,
Saudi worries economic worries are shared by the other oil exporting states,
who worry that the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil exports, estimated at
between one and 1.5 million barrels a day, would further flood the oil market
with cheap Iranian oil, bringing prices even further down, bringing adverse economic consequences on the Gulf
states[27].
In general,
Sunni powers in the region, according to analysts, are fearing the consequences
of the deal, not from a nuclear-bomb stand point but that of an international
recognition and reincorporation of Iran which will now be able to assert itself
more forcefully in the region once sanctions are lifted and its economy
revived, foreseeing the drastic repercussions that would be felt on the Syrian,
Iraqi and Yemeni files[28].
It is clear that a western
recognition of Iranian regional influence would come at the expense of the Gulf
States, given that they are the weakest link in the region’s chain of
influence. In the post-deal reality, there would be three recognized and regional
powers: Iran, Turkey and Israel, a reality that would affect the traditional
alliances built between Arab nations and the USA. In light of these developments, an
according to a report published by Al Jazeera in April[29],
analysts indicate that Saudi Arabia is undertaking a process of realigning the
geopolitical map of the Middle East and will seek new alliances, given the “decline
of US influence and the unreliability” of American assurances. A number of
analysts highlighted that Riyadh's sense of abandonment by Washington may
compel it to forge stronger alliances with fellow Sunni states to counter a
U.S.-backed Iranian hegemony, with a potential establishment of a Sunni Arab
military alliance that has been already
demonstrated by the Saudi-led military campaign against the Houthi rebels
in Yemen[30].
What remains to see now is how this
deal will impact the regional map and the alliances, where many regimes seem be
reexamining their friendships and shared goals. Perhaps it is also a wake up
call that despite rhetoric, voiced agendas and positions, it is very easy to
shift lanes to suit one’s own interests.
References
·
Al Jazeera
(2015) Why Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose
Iran nuclear deal, article published in April 14th 2015. HTML: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/saudi-arabia-israel-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-150401061906177.html
·
Al Shamahi, A.
(2015) Gulf States keep quiet on Iran
nuclear deal, article published on July 14th 2015 in Al Araby.
HTML http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/Politics/2015/7/14/Gulf-states-keep-quiet-on-Iran-nuclear-deal#sthash.UDJ5BJMq.dpuf
·
Dvorin, T.
(2015) UN Security Council Endorses Iran
Deal, article published in Israel national news on July 20th
2015. HTML address: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198377#.VbnD5rWVHKQ
·
Elass, R. (2015) A Road Map for the Middle East After the
Nuclear Deal, article published on July 14th 2015 in the
Guardian. HTML: http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/jul/14/arab-states-react-iran-nuclear-deal
·
Fallows, J. (2015) The Real Test of
the Iran Deal, article published in the Atlantic on July 28th
2015. HTML: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate-moves-on/399713/
·
Hossein-Zadeh,
I. (2015) Making Sense of the Iran Nuclear Deal: Geopolitical Implications,
article published in Global Research on July 29th
2015. HTML: http://www.globalresearch.ca/making-sense-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal-geopolitical-implications/5465427
·
Khan, T. (2015)
Sheikh Khalifa congratulates Hassan Rouhani on Iran nuclear deal, article published on July 14th 2015
in The National. HTML: http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/sheikh-khalifa-congratulates-hassan-rouhani-on-iran-nuclear-deal#full
·
Kutsch, T. (2015) Iran, world
powers strike historic nuclear deal, article published on Al Jazeera on July 14th
2015. HTML address: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/14/iran-world-powers-strike-historic-nuclear-deal.html
·
Lewis, P.
(2015) Obama vows to veto any Republican
attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal, article published in the Guardian in
July 14th 2015. HTML address: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/obama-veto-republican-iran-nuclear-deal
·
Lyons, K.
(2015) Iran nuclear talks: timeline, article published in the Guardian
on July 14th 2015. HTML: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-talks-timeline
·
Pizzi, M.
(2015) After nuclear deal, Israel and
Saudi Arabia brace for resurgent Iran, article published in Al Jazeera on
July 15th 2015. HTML: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/7/15/israel-and-saudi-arabia-brace-for-resurgent-iran.html
·
Pollack, K. (2015) Regional
implications of a nuclear agreement with Iran: testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, published in Brookings Institute on July 9th
2015. HTML:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2015/07/09-pollack-iran-nuclear-agreement
·
Ravid, B. (2015) UN Security
Council endorses Iran nuke deal, partial lifting of sanctions, article
published on Haaretz on July 20th 2015. Website address: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.666925
·
Sasson-Gordis, A. (2015) Why the nuclear
deal is good for Israel, article
published in Molad on July 14th 2015. HTML: http://www.molad.org/en/articles/Iran-Deal-Good-for-Israel
[1] Iran
nuclear talks: timeline,
article published on July 14th 2015 in the Guardian.
[2]
http://eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/iran_agreement/iran_joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action_en.pdf
[3] Regional implications of a nuclear agreement with Iran, testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, published in Bookings Institute on July 9th
2015
[4] Making
Sense of the Iran Nuclear Deal: Geopolitical Implications, article
published in Global Research on July 29th 2015.
[5] Iran, world powers strike historic nuclear
deal, article published in Al Jazeera on July 14th 2015
[6] UN Security Council Endorses Iran Deal,
article published in Israel national news on July 20th 2015
[7] Cit. 4
[8] UN Security Council endorses Iran nuke
deal, partial lifting of sanctions,
article published in Haaretz on July 20th
2015
[9] Obama
vows to veto any Republican attempt to derail Iran nuclear deal, article published in the Guardian on July 14th 2015
[10] Cit. 4
[11] Sheikh
Khalifa congratulates Hassan Rouhani on Iran nuclear deal, article published on July 14th
2015 in The National.
[14] After nuclear deal, Israel and Saudi Arabia brace for resurgent Iran,
article published in Al Jazeera on July 15th 2015.
[15] UN Security Council endorses Iran nuke deal, partial lifting of
sanctions, article published in Haaretz on July 20th 2015
[17] Why the nuclear deal is good for Israel, article published in Molad
on July 14th 2015
[18] The Real Test of the Iran Deal, article published in the Atlantic
on July 28th 2015
[19] Cit. 9
[20]
Regional implications of a nuclear agreement with Iran, testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, published in Bookings Institute on July 9th
2015
[21] A
Road Map for the Middle East After the Nuclear Deal, article published on July 14th
2015 in the Guardian.
[23] Cit. 9
[24]
Cit.9
Comments
Post a Comment