K. Iran i la proliferació nuclear

Conté: ¿Irán, potencia nuclear?; El reto nuclear de Irán; Dos respuestas al reto nuclear; Con la vista puesta en Irán; La provocación nuclear norcoreana; Irán y la oferta de Obama

Implicaciones Del Programa Nuclear Iraní (2005 - 2012) Para La Seguridad De Israel

A la luz del realismo defensivo se pretende analizar las implicaciones del programa nuclear iraní para la seguridad de Israel. A diferencia de Israel, Irán sí ha firmado y ratificado el Tratado de No Proliferación Nuclear. Afirma que, su programa es con fines pacíficos y civiles, pero Israel piensa que el propósito del programa es con fines bélicos. De esta manera, la posible adquisición de un arma nuclear por un Estado en la región es considerada una amenaza directa contra la seguridad y supervivencia de Israel. Es por esta razón, que el dilema de seguridad se exacerba con la continuidad del programa nuclear.

La reacción de las Potencias frente al programa nuclear iraní en la redefinición de la identidad de la República Islámica (2005-2013)

La presente monografía tiene como objetivo explicar el papel de las sanciones y discursos de Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea e Israel frente al Programa Nuclear Iraní en la redefinición de la identidad de la República Islámica. En este sentido, se defenderá que las acciones punitivas emprendidas por las potencias mencionadas, han incidido en la auto-comprensión de la identidad nacional de Irán al reafirmar su carácter revisionista con la identificación por parte de las potencias, de los valores de la República Islámica con una amenaza para la seguridad regional e internacional. Para comprobarlo, se utilizará el concepto de identidad y de proceso de interacción simbólica, propios del enfoque constructivista. Así mismo, será necesario realizar un diseño documental e histórico, realizando de esta manera un análisis explicativo y analítico de los discursos de los líderes tanto de las potencias que se oponen al Programa Nuclear como de la controversial República Islámica.

Does the key to a WMD-free Middle East lie in a nuclear Iran? CEPS Commentary, 10 June 2013

After the presidential elections on June 14th, the Iranian regime will continue its catch-me-if-you-can game with the international community until it has reached the nuclear threshold. Paradoxically, the key to a solution on the nuclear issue might just lie in discussions on a WMD-free Middle East, but only after Iran has obtained nuclear military capability. At that point, and in the context of a new arms race, both regional and international players may be persuaded that the Middle East has more to gain from negotiations on non-proliferation than from prolonged isolation and the prospect of intractable war.

Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013 : report (to accompany H.R. 850) (Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office).

Mode of access: Internet.

Nuclear Weapons as Symbols. The Role of Norms in Nuclear Policy Making

Throughout history, nuclear weapons have been considered to be the ultimate weapons. This understanding largely detached them from the portfolio of conventional military means and assigned them a symbolic meaning that influenced the identity and norms creation of nations. In most countries today, the development of nuclear weapons is considered morally prohibitive, incompatible with a country’s identity and international outlook. In some states, however, these negative norms are overridden by a positive set of norms, causing nuclear weapons to become either symbols of invulnerability to perceived threats or the regalia of major power status. Main purpose of this paper is to explore on the conditions that cause most states to develop a moral aversion to nuclear weapons, yet effectively lead to their glorification in others. Many studies on the normative understanding of nuclear weapons consider the existence of a negative normative predisposition, often referred to as ‘nuclear taboo’, as a major factor in preventing their acquisition and use. Other studies acknowledge the existence of a nuclear taboo inhibiting the use of nuclear weapons, but point to the existence of the opposing effect of norms, frequently referred to as the ‘nuclear myth’, when it comes to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. This myth emerges when certain symbolic meanings are attached to nuclear weapons, such as a state’s identity, self-image, and its desired position in the international system. With 180 odd countries in the world abstaining from the acquisition of nuclear weapons and 8 countries in possession of them (with two further countries assumed to have pursued their acquisition), one might consider the dominance of the nuclear taboo over the nuclear myth to be the rule. The core question is thus why and how this relationship reversed in the case of defectors.

"Análisis de la aplicación del tratado de no proliferación nuclear, en el pilar de la “no proliferación” para el mantenimiento del equilibro del poder en materia de seguridad en oriente medio desde 2000

Los niveles de armamento nuclear existentes en el mundo, aun siguen siendo una grave amenaza para la paz y la seguridad mundial. Después de más de dos décadas de terminada la Guerra Fría los procesos de desarme nucleares no han sido satisfactorios, lo cual representa una peligro latente. Es así como la proliferación nuclear es una de las más grandes preocupaciones de los Estados en tanto que compromete la seguridad y la estabilidad internacional. Actualmente, las dinámicas nucleares han puesto en tela de juicio el mantenimiento de la paz y la seguridad. En particular, la compleja situación de Oriente Medio con el fortalecimiento del programa nuclear iraní que aparentemente busca el desarrollo de un programa de energía nuclear bélico, ha encendido las alarmas de todos los Estados. Analizar la situación de Oriente Medio enfocándose en la “no proliferación”, permite visibilizar la importancia de concentrar esfuerzos para evitar el renacimiento de los programas nucleares con fines militares en el mundo.

Análisis de las sanciones internacionales en el marco del tratado de no proliferación nuclear. Estudio de caso: energía atómica en Irán (2006-2015)

El presente trabajo de Grado tiene como propósito examinar la incidencia de las sancionesinternacionales en el marco del régimen de no proliferación nuclear en el caso de Irán durante el periodo 2006-2015, teniendo en cuenta factores históricos de años anteriores. Se analiza y explica cómo las sanciones internacionales pueden ser una medida persuasiva por violar ciertos artículos del Tratado de no Proliferación Nuclear. Finalmente identifica y analiza los tipos de sanciones económicas, financieras y comerciales que los Estados y el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas le han impuesto a Irán, así como la manera en que estas han incidido en la esfera política iraní y mundial.

Análisis de la política exterior de Irán y su influencia sobre la política de Seguridad y defensa de Israel. Período 2005-2011

En la presente monografía se analizarán los factores de la política exterior iraní que han incidido en la política de seguridad y defensa de Israel. Se examina y explica bajo la teoría del Realismo Ofensivo, cuyo máximo representante es John Mearsheimer, el cual expone acerca las dinámicas de los países desarrollados con respecto al ámbito de seguridad, en donde los Estados están interesados principalmente en aumentar su seguridad con el objetivo de sobrevivir, lo cual resulta incompatible con otros Estados. Por último, se identifica de forma documentada cuales son los aspectos afectados en la seguridad de Israel a partir de la política exterior del gobierno de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad y cómo el Estado judío ha utilizado otras estrategias que anteriormente no había recurrido.

The nuclear deal with Iran: Le moment suprême? CEPS Commentary, 16 July 2015

More than two years in the making, the agreement concluded by China, the EU, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the US with Iran to prevent the ‘weaponisation’ of the latter’s nuclear programme is a big deal. But, cautions Steven Blockmans in this CEPS Commentary, it is not the silver bullet to the normalisation of relations. Implementation will be a tortuous process, fraught with suspicion and friction. Although Europe has been called upon to seize the moment and to shift to a relationship with Iran based on engagement, not containment, the EU and its member states would be better advised not to move beyond their nuclear focus too quickly, but rather to show a sense of duty and loyal cooperation with their international partners by supporting the effective execution of the accord.

The consequences for Russia of the nuclear deal with Iran. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 177/03.08.2015

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the USA, the United Kingdom, China, France and Russia) plus Germany and the European Union signed a deal with Iran on 14 July in Vienna (a Plan of Action with five appendices, henceforth referred to as the Vienna Agreement). Under this agreement, Iran undertook to restrict its nuclear programme and to bring it under international scrutiny for 15 years in exchange for a gradual lifting of international sanctions (both those imposed between 2006 and 2010 by the UN Security Council and the unilateral US and EU sanctions). Even though Russia has officially reacted positively to this deal, the consequences it will have are rather ambiguous from Moscow’s point of view. Iran looks set to become stronger and will possibly normalise its relations with the West, and especially the United States. This, in political terms, is a disadvantage for Russia. The Kremlin’s ability to use its policy towards Iran as a bargaining chip in contacts with Washington will be reduced significantly. In turn, the benefits will include improving the perception of Russia in the West and the opening up of new opportunities for the geopolitical game in the region, both with Iran and its opponents in the Arab world. Similarly, in economic terms, the possible lifting of sanctions will offer Russia new opportunities to achieve immediate benefits owing to co-operation in the nuclear and military-technical areas. In the short term, the lifting of sanctions will not pose any threat to Russia’s position on the global energy markets. However, in the long term, the end of Iran’s international isolation may bring negative consequences for Russia, such as the dominant position of Western and/or Chinese companies in the Iranian upstream sector, rising exports of Iranian oil and gas to EU and Asian markets (which are essential for Russia) and the downward pressure on oil and gas prices.

EU-Iran Relations after the Nuclear Deal.

The signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and global powers in July 2015 was a major turning point in the emerging strategic landscape of the Middle East. The ‘nuclear deal’ led to the lifting by the EU and the US of nuclear-related sanctions, and is now operational. Other sanctions remain in place, however. Nevertheless, unhindered by US competition, European trade delegations have entered into a latter-day gold rush, led by the promise of the biggest untapped market in the world. As such, the EU has both an opportunity and a responsibility to help Iran reintegrate properly into the international system. But, in the face of an opaque clerical regime that relies on internal repression and military business conglomerates, Europe stands to lose if it continues to pursue its uncalculated and uncoordinated approach towards the Islamic Republic. This report offers recommendations to guide the EU towards a comprehensive EU strategy for relations with Iran. It maintains that there is no other option but to keep universal values and the rule of law at the core of the emerging bilateral relationship. In fact, the protection of the economic rights of European traders and investors allows the EU to push for wider reforms and the normalisation of relations.

EU spotlight 10.07.2015: After the nuclear agreement with Teheran: Work for peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Middle East is currently being devastated by multiple civil wars and ISIS-led terror. Tens of thousands have had to flee – to Europe, among other places. The nuclear deal between the West and Iran from July 14 could mark the beginning of more peaceful times for the region.

Circumstances surrounding the government's approval of nuclear-related exports to Iran : report to Senator Alan Cranston /

"B-198027."

Brazil and the nuclear issues in the years of the Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva government (2003-2010)

The present article is an analysis of Brazilian nuclear diplomacy and of the international relevance of the national nuclear program adopted during the two Presidential terms of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Particular attention will be given to the Brazilian position in the agreement on nuclear non-proliferation, to the role of mediation between Iran and the nuclear powers, and finally to the national ambitions concerning the industrial and military uses of the nuclear technologies.