# Problem context
Iran has built a number of civilian nuclear facilities that are legal under the NPT (nuclear non proliferation treaty) which Iran is a member of. But major European powers as well as the United States are suspicious that these facilities, although designed to produce electricity and other civilian uses, can be used for military purposes, and are used to construct nuclear weapons.
# Behavior over time
On and off cooperation with the IAEA. Iran’s level of cooperation has been irregular and at times lacking. After some reports of hidden activities, and the fact that they unveiled a previously undisclosed nuclear facility underground made some countries very nervous. Some incentives suggested by the west such as keeping the spent fuel in a third party country has backfired as the Iranians questioned why other countries , that are not even part of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, get better treatment.
# Policies now in place or under consideration
Multiple rounds of sanctions have been imposed by the United Nations Security Council, as well as additional sanctions imposed unilaterally by the US on the Iranian military and financial institutions. The intended policy of sanctions is to push Iran back to the negotiating table and to be more flexible in their demand for controlling their own enrichment process. Despite that being the intention, it seems it has so far only aggravated the problem and reduced the amount of trust between all parties, Increased sanctions have been met with defiance and saber rattling, and this could have the potential to be damaging for both sides, as Iran might not help with the already complex situations in Afghanistan and Iraq which they border and have a certain level of influence in. The risk of war or proxy wars is also possible.
Iran seems to be motivated by a number of factors. Nuclear power would help them divert their oil supplies for further exports and bring in money. From a cultural angle, the nuclear program is the pride of Iran at this time, and is viewed by many as a great scientific achievement. Any attempts, especially by foreign powers, to step in and reverse this technological achievement, will be considered deeply offensive.
# Issues and concerns with the current situation or policies
There is a fear that sanctions can potentially hurt ordinary Iranian citizens. There is also the concern that Iranian scientists can still, despite the current policies of sanctions and frozen assets,
continue testing and maybe further mastering uranium enrichment, to either create a nuclear device secretly or master the technology to do so at a later date.
# Study purpose and questions to be addressed
The purpose of this study is to use a systems approach to study the cause and effect of sanctions
and defiance, incentives and cooperation, and the potential risks of a large scale air strike on Iran.
B1) Iran, under the threat of sanctions and even military action, cooperates with the IAEA. This is the mental model.
B2) As Iranian enrichment continues, international pressure increases, increasing Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, and therefore restricting enrichment efforts.
R1) The threats to ‘’punish’’ Iran hurts their national pride, triggering a reaction in the form of increased funding to the Revolutionary Guards, who retaliate by funding anti-coalition groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, hence further raising the risk of military confrontation or sanctions.
R2) Security Council threats trigger an escalation which results in an increase in Iranian missile testing, which itself increases international pressure.
R3) The threats to punish Iran hurts their national pride, triggering a reaction this time in the form of increased funding for the Revolutionary Guards, which, after a delay, (the time it takes funding to translate into action) increase the testing of long range missile systems, which aggravates the problem and further raises the risk of confrontation.

Hey Mo!
ReplyDeleteI think overall you've done a good job. Here are some of my pickier thoughts:
“Problem Context”
I realize that Dr. Deaton did not agree with me regarding some of my previous comments for the “Problem Context” paragraph, but I still would like to see one small addition to this section. You state that the US and European countries are concerned with the prospect of a nuclear Iran, but it's not mentioned why for the naive reader (obviously I know why!). We don't concern ourselves over whether or not, say, France has nuclear weapons, so what is different in this case? I make this point because the reason immediately focuses the report on a target audience. Is the US at risk of a nuclear attack? If so, a US citizen will realize immediately that this issue is hugely important to him/her. If Iran is simply planning to use its nuclear arsenal to jockey for influence among its immediate neighbors, then the average US citizen probably won't care as much. This is definitely a minor point, and its omission certainly doesn't impact your content at all.
“Behavior Over Time”
I would simply remove the first sentence (“On and off cooperation with the IAEA”). This sentence does not indicate who is doing the cooperating, and if the answer is Iran, then that point is simply repeated in the next sentence. Regarding Iran's irregular cooperation, I still think this point needs one or two short examples (one or two sentences per example, no more). I suppose you could make the case that the hidden nuclear facility is an example, but based on the Problem Context, it's not clear why. Because your first paragraph indicated that these facilities are legal civilian facilities, it's not obvious why their construction (covert or overt) represents defiance (as their physical existence wasn't claimed to be a problem in the Problem Context, just the possibility that these facilities could be used for military purposes, in general). I realize that you ultimately want to focus on the topic of sanctions, but these sections are the time to elaborate a bit on the other issues that ultimately “set up” your study's purpose.
“ Policies now in place or under consideration”
This is definitely your strongest Problem Articulation section. Adding Iran's point of view to this section really made it better. Good job!
“Issues and concerns with the current situation or policies”
This section begins to succinctly narrow the report's focus to economic sanctions and their potential impacts.
“Study Purpose”
Just for clarification, do you intend to review sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council or unilateral sanctions imposed by the US? Since both types are specifically mentioned earlier in the problem articulation, it would be good to clarify this point.
“Dynamic Hypothesis”
I like your dynamic hypothesis overall. Your descriptions are straight to the point, and the CLD is pretty clearly represented. My only question with your CLD is whether you think loops R2 and R3 truly represent independent phenomenon? At first glance, I feel like they both actually represent the same phenomenon, and I wonder if R2 can be omitted?
Great job! I think this is a really interesting, complex problem, and I think you're off to a good start.
The B1 does a good representation of the mental model of using “sticks” rather than carrots. And the other feedback dynamics also express the unintended consequences. Specially, in this situation where Iran has been known for going against the west and other agreed upon treaties.
ReplyDeleteThe main suggestion I have is to better define the goal. Your intention is to study the effects of sanctions on the Iranian situation; but does this mean how these sanctions hurt the citizens? Or how do sanctions hinder Iran’s nuclear development? These dynamics remind of our current situation with Cuban. Using the Cuban embargo for example; there have been a lot of debates concerning the effectiveness of the embargo in changing Cuban politics. Has the embargo been successful? No, as we see today, Cuba is still very communist. On the other hand, many have argued that not only it has failed to bring change to Cuba, but it’s actually been hurting the citizens reinforcing their everyday struggles.
The other suggestion that would clarify the CLD and make even easier to understand is renaming or explaining better the threat to national pride variable. I believe that even those Iranians that do not support the Iranian system and/or share Ahmadinejad’s ideals; have pride in their culture and heritage; looking at the situation from this perspective an increase in there national pride will not necessarily lead to funding of the IRGC. An alternative could be to rename National Pride to Violations of Iranian Sovereignty by the West, as sovereignty is violated this will lead the Iranian government to increase efforts of resistance, which will then lead to the funding of the guard.
In general this a good follow up from last week’s post.
Thank you for the input.
ReplyDeleteThe intended goal was to represent the effects of sanctions. Originally it was a broader goal, but due to the complexity of the issues at hand and the fact that they are interrelated, it was advised that I focus on sanctions and its effects.
As for national pride, and violation of national sovereignty, you could argue to phrase it that way, but that would make it slightly subjective as the Western block would argue that it is not a sovereignty issue but a security and Iran failing to ''honor its commitments''. So this was my attempt to stay as objective as possible.
Nathan: I was expecting you to come up with a list of things I need to change. Let's take a look.
ReplyDeleteProblem context: I noted that the nuclear technology '' can be used for military purposes, and are used to construct nuclear weapons.''
And even the most naive minds, Iran would not be put in the same category as the Switzerland; the country has a negative connotation fairly universally, whether they are viewed by what you named naive people or scholars, it is viewed as sponsor of terrorism, exporter of terror, harbors terror, religious extremists, etc. On the most extreme lower end of the knowledge and intelligence spectrum, even for those who can't place Iran on a map, they know them as '' against freedom, hate our way of life,'' and other low end arguments, as I have seen on TV when they interviewed people at random about what should be done about Iran.
Behavior over time:
Nathan:
_Redundant first sentence--> I suppose I could do without that part.
_''it's not obvious why their construction (covert or overt) represents defiance''.
Refer back to what I stated in the problem context:'' although designed to produce electricity and other civilian uses, can be used for military purposes, and are used to construct nuclear weapons.''
You have a country that is accused by most of the leading nations + security council of leading a clandestine nuclear program. Add to that, the contruction and expansion of pre-existing potentially dual use (civilian+ military, as I already mentioned) facilities.
Does this sound like a country that is backing down, or in defiance? It's fairly straightforward I think, if you look at the whole picture.
Issues and concerns with the current situation or policies:
Nathan:''This section begins to succinctly narrow the report's focus to economic sanctions and their potential impacts''.
Yes after the general overview the idea was to focus on the purpose of the study and its intended goal so to speak.
Study Purpose:
On the sanction types, that is a good point. I sort of put them all under the same umbrella of sanctions, since the mechanisms and how they affect Iran and cause a reaction are quite the same. If you really want to get into this, unilateral sanctions by the US seem to be more aggressive, targeting banks and individuals that are suspected of being part of the missile program too etc.
This is outside the scope of this assignment, but the most significant accomplishment of all these sanctions was when after the latest (4th round of sanctions I believe) round, the Russians will now cancel the delivery of the S-300 air defense system, and refund Iran. This system, one of the most sophisticated air defense shields available today, is capable of intercepting aircraft, cruise missiles,(some versions even ballistic missiles) at long ranges. Needless to say it would severely complicate any air strikes on Iran.
So the risk of a strike on Iran is more probable, yet they have not altered their stance. The major powers and Iran have agreed to meet in November for further discussion.
For the dynamic hypothesis:
ReplyDelete''My only question with your CLD is whether you think loops R2 and R3 truly represent independent phenomenon? At first glance, I feel like they both actually represent the same phenomenon, and I wonder if R2 can be omitted?''
Not entirely sure, but you might have a good point. I will double check with Dr Deaton.
Thank you for the feedback!
Excellent, thoughtful, and constructive discussion, gentlemen! I'm impressed with both the energy behind the comments, as well as the careful analysis that they represent. The comments are all very sound and (should we do one more revision) would lead to an even stronger draft. That's what this collaborative process is all about!
ReplyDeleteMO: You are to be congratulated on a very solid effort here. At the level required for this "pilot" effort, you've done a very nice job.
I have very little to add to the comments. I might mention that the idea of "National Pride" vs "Violations of national sovereignty", I think both can work. The "Violations" variable could be stated in terms of perceptions of the Iranian people, in order to avoid the problems cited by Mo about differing perceptions from the West vs Iran's perceptions.
Very nice job, everyone!