Carnegie Moscow Center
The Iran nuclear deal is important not just because of what it achieves, but also as a model for potential future agreements. It tests an approach whereby the United States concludes an agreement with a rogue state, while the implementation of that agreement is secured by a multilateral format.
As was the case in 2006 and 2010, perceptions of Iranian intransigence in the face of constructive Western overtures—which may well be forthcoming under the Biden administration—could lead to a hardening of Russia’s stance, which is ultimately underpinned by concerns of nonproliferation and the integrity of the P5+1 process.
The U.S.-Iran crisis of January 2020 did not lead to a major war in the Middle East, but it did reveal a number of new trends reshaping the world order.
Russia and Iran should talk more about how they interpret each other’s interests, adjust these interpretations and avoid misinterpretations in the future.
The Iranian nuclear deal may have created a useful precedent for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty member states to strengthen the global nuclear nonproliferation system.
The 2016 elections to the Iranian parliament and Assembly of Expert definitely brought, at least, nominal changes in the political landscape of the country. Yet, the potential impact of these changes on the future development of the country will probably be limited.
At the moment, Russia and Iran remain partners in Syria, but their cooperation will be limited.
Once a nuclear deal is in place, the United States must focus on holding Tehran accountable.
Three organizing principles to guide the use of American power in a fragmented world.
Issues such as the Iran deal, the rise of the self-styled Islamic State, and the spread of Russian military and economic influence continue to highlight the importance of the Caucasus region on the world stage.
Stay connected to the Global Think Tank with Carnegie's smartphone app for Android and iOS devices