Michael Singh is the Managing Director and Lane-Swig Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute.
Articles & Testimony
Iran is more likely to accept a stringent nuclear accord if it perceives that Washington is willing to hold out at the negotiating table and is not looking for a quick exit from the region.
The following is an excerpt from Mr. Singh's prepared remarks; download the PDF to read the full testimony, or watch video of the hearing.
The nuclear negotiations between the United States, our partners in the P5+1, and Iran involve a large number of technical issues, ranging from the number and sophistication of Iran's gas centrifuges to the configuration of its heavy-water research reactor. It would be a mistake, however, to view any agreement between Iran and the P5+1 as merely technical, even if the United States would prefer to do so. If such an agreement is concluded, it will have profound strategic implications for the United States and our allies in the Middle East and beyond.
In this testimony, I will outline how issues other than nuclear fuel fabrication -- an issue addressed in detail elsewhere -- should be addressed in any nuclear agreement, as well as the implications an agreement is likely to have on regional dynamics in the Middle East and the United States' standing there. As I will argue, an accord between the P5+1 and Iran should encompass Iran's nuclear program in its entirety -- that is, not only nuclear fuel fabrication activities but also "weaponization" and delivery vehicles -- but should not address regional issues such as Iraq and Syria. In addition, U.S. policymakers should consider steps outside the nuclear negotiations to reassure American allies and reassert the U.S. commitment to the region, in order to mitigate adverse reactions by those allies or destabilizing actions by an emboldened Iran...
