CFR Video of Baradei Speech on Iran's Nuclear Program

Given Wednesday's numerous news pieces dealing with Iran - Israel's interception of materials potentially bound for Iran, protests occuring in Iran - I felt it would be appropriate to provide a link to this lecture by Mohamed El Baradei.

Speaking at the New York office of the Council of Foreign Relations, El Baradei again asserted the need for ongoing dialogue and his skepticism of sanctions.

CFR's Dan Markey and the Prioritization of Pakistan

While numerous pundits debate the pros and cons of escalation in Afghanistan, some political leaders, including Vice President Biden, have emphasized the need for a greater allocation of resources in Pakistan. Some policymakers and scholars have called for this change well before the current debate over Afghanistan troop levels; one of which is Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)'s Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia, Daniel Markey.

In April of 2009, Markey published a policy paper advocating greater involvement with Pakistan. As a number of escalation proponents now argue, Markey's paper also calls for a shift from the narrow focus on counterterrorism in Afghanistan. Also, while a lot has transpired between the Spring and Fall of 2009, some of the broader policy goals vis-a-vis Pakistan remain valuable. (See page 13.)

Throughout the week, I'll examine a few of the policy prescriptions in this policy paper, and what they would mean for US security interests in South Asia.

John Bellinger in Washington Post - "The Iran Talks We Should End"

In a Thursday Washington Post Op-Ed piece (also displayed here at CFR.org), former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger weights the pros and cons of continued U.S. involvement in the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal, established under the Algiers Accords in 1981, is composed of 9 arbitrators: 3 American, 3 Iranian, and 3 that are either appointed by the other 6, or selected by a neutral party. In his Op-Ed piece, Bellinger cites various points of Iranian friction with the tribunal as a rationale for questioning, or even walking away from, participation in the Tribunal.

One comment by Bellinger, however, implicitly points out the need for caution: "Iran's strategy appears to be seeking to force out the third-country judges so they can be replaced by judges more to Tehran's liking, or to provoke the U.S. administration into a dramatic overreaction."

While Bellinger's Op-Ed is by no means a call for precipitous withdrawal, the ramifications of hasty American reaction (such as taking the "opportunity to close down a diplomatic vestige") could be detrimental for U.S. image and national interest. Instead, what might not hurt is Bellinger's recommendation for making the tribunal's future a matter to be discussed in U.S. - Iran talks.