Colin H. Kahl will serve as co-director of the social sciences for Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC).

Kahl, a top international security expert and veteran White House advisor, is the Steven C. Házy Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI) for International Studies. He begins his new position on September 1, following Amy Zegart, the previous co-director for the social sciences. Rodney Ewing is the CISAC co-director for science and engineering.

Prior to Stanford, Kahl was an associate professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. From 2014 to 2017, he was deputy assistant to the U.S. president and national security advisor to the vice president. In that position, he served as a senior advisor to President Obama and Vice President Biden on all matters related to U.S. foreign policy and national security affairs, and represented the Office of the Vice President as a standing member of the National Security Council Deputies’ Committee.

Kahl’s research is focused on American grand strategy and a range of contemporary international security challenges, particularly digital and nuclear security, which are core CISAC research areas.  He also leads the Middle East Initiative at FSI. The Initiative seeks to improve understanding of how developments in the Middle East impact people in the region and security around the globe.

In the Winter Quarter, Kahl will teach a course, “Decision Making and U.S. Foreign Policy,” in the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program; he will also co-teach CISAC’s introductory class, “International Security in a Changing World.”

“For more than three decades, CISAC has been one of the nation’s premier centers for interdisciplinary research on international affairs,” Kahl said. “The Center has a long tradition of bringing together social scientists and hard scientists to conduct cutting edge, policy-relevant research on some of the most pressing security challenges we face,” Kahl said. “I look forward to working with Rod Ewing and my other CISAC colleagues to continue and expand upon this tradition of excellence.”

“Colin Kahl, who has both academic and extensive policy experience through his work in government and think tanks, will be a terrific co-director and asset to CISAC,” said Ewing.

“We are thrilled that Colin will be leading CISAC with Rod Ewing. Colin’s extensive experience in both theory and policy will enhance CISAC’s work in all areas,” said FSI Director and Senior Fellow Michael McFaul.

Kahl received his B.A. in political science from the University of Michigan (1993) and his Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University (2000).

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Colin H. Kahl, Center for International Security and Cooperation: ckahl@stanford.edu
Katy Gabel, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 725-6488, kgabel@stanford.edu

The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies would like to extend the warmest best wishes to Senior Fellow and Raymond A. Spruance Professor of International History, David Holloway. After over 30 years as an expert in political science and history at Stanford University, Holloway will retire on September 1, 2018.

David Holloway was co-director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) from 1991 to 1997, and director of FSI from 1998 to 2003. His research focuses on the international history of nuclear weapons, science and technology in the Soviet Union, and the relationship between international history and international relations theory. He is best known for his book Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956 (Yale University Press, 1994) which was chosen by the New York Times Book Review as one of the best books of 1994. Holloway has also actively contributed to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Foreign Affairs, and other scholarly journals over the course of his career.

As a member of our institute, Holloway’s quiet warmth and kindness have always been infectious, both inside and outside of the classroom. The depth and insight of his work over the years, not to mention his dedication to FSI and the Stanford Community at large, has been an inspiration. He will be sorely missed. We all wish him the very best with this new chapter in his life and with the completion of his latest book, a complete global history of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and international politics, due to be published in 2019.

We caught him to hear his views on recent developments in U.S.-Russia relations one last time and to talk about his time at Stanford.

At the NATO summit, Trump claimed that Germany “is a captive of Russia.” Is there any foundation to this claim?

I don't think so. Trump made the statement in connection with the Nord Stream Oil Pipeline. A lot of people have criticized Germany for building this because it will increase German reliance on Russia. Critics believe that by sending oil through Germany, Russia will potentially have more freedom to interfere in Ukrainian territories. However, the German government has reassured the international community that they would help Ukraine if Russia does use the pipeline to push for recognition of the annexation of Crimea. In Germany’s defense, I think they feel that they have to have economic relations with Russia unless they are in a state of war or close to one – it is the only logical arrangement.

How do you think we can reconcile the disjunction between the U.S. president’s pro-Putin statements and position at the Helsinki press conference with the fact that his administration is implementing sanctions against Russia? 

The policies certainly look contradictory. Trump has not said anything critical about Putin (which is remarkable when he is quite willing to say critical things about everybody else), yet, as you say, his administration has imposed tough sanctions. Why is Trump so reluctant to support his own administration? And why is it that he wanted to meet Putin in the first place? We just don’t know.

On a related note, the Chinese claim that Trump is a very good tactician/strategist and that his behavior at the Helsinki summit was “Kissinger-in-reverse.” That is, it was intended to weaken Russia's ties to China by offering better ties with the U.S. and potentially with Western Europe. Thus, the Chinese see Trump’s performance not as a sign of incompetence and incoherence (as many do in the West), but as further evidence of his coherent strategy.

We often ascribe a malicious masterplan or intentional nefariousness to adversaries. For my part, while possible that the president has a master-plan, I think it is most likely that he does not. Trump has created a backlash against Russia in the U.S. which will make it even more difficult for U.S.-Russian relations to improve in years to come.

There have been a number of articles written about Trump’s push for increased allied investment in NATO; he started by pushing for all members to meet the 2 percent GDP investment quota, but then demanded that they invest 4 percent. Is demanding 4 percent feasible?

The truth is that every American president has pushed the European members of NATO to spend more on defense. Even Obama did it. However, Trump has done it much more openly and offensively. I think the push for 4 percent was more a case of showmanship; the stance he was taking was, “You're not even at 2 percent but you should really be at 4 percent!”

What is the impact of all of this?  I have certainly seen many Europeans turn around say that the E.U. cannot rely on the U.S. anymore. If we have a Trump administration for another six years and/or a U.S. administration in 2020 that takes a similar line, I think we could well see the end of NATO. 

The President’s remarks referred to the fact that only 9 of NATO’s 29 members have reached the 2 percent quota. Yet many NATO advocates are counter-arguing that many of the remaining 21 nations have significantly increased their defense spending. How would you weigh in?

I would agree with NATO advocates and add that the reason why expenditure got so low in the first place is that, after the end of the Cold War, Europe seemed peaceful. I think the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia somewhat changed this perception, and the parts of the continent most under threat are the Baltic States and Georgia. As a side note, we should also remember that NATO troops have fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside the U.S. It is not that they have been doing nothing.

The President claims he vastly improved U.S.-Russian relations at the Helsinki summit. Others, like FSI Director Michael McFaul, claim that the summit was further evidence that we are in an era of “Hot Peace” with Russia. What do you think?

Before I answer your question, I want to say that I think it is good to have Russian and American leaders talking to each other. These are the two largest nuclear powers; I think that there should be open communication on military issues and nuclear issues most particularly.

The world isn't at stake in the same way it was during the Cold War. Yet, there are still fears of military conflict, and we have a new phenomenon: election hacking. The question of Russian meddling in the last U.S. election is complicated by Trump's relationship with Russia. The press conference at Helsinki was so extraordinary, not least because, if Trump really wanted to open a dialogue with Russia, he greatly damaged his chances by virtue of his own behavior. If, instead, he had insisted that Putin did interfere—openly declared his trust in his own intelligence services—I do not believe that the Russians would have walked away. I believe they have an interest in having a dialogue with the United States.

Some political scientists argue that we are now in a new Cold War in Asia, namely with North Korea and/or a possible North Korean-Chinese alliance. Do you agree?

I think of the Cold War as having three elements. First, after World War II there was a geopolitical element: the USSR wanted to control Eastern Europe both for security reasons and for ideological reasons. Second: the U.S. and its West European allies were motivated to help spread principles of liberal democracy and market capitalism, the Soviet Union’s Communist Party wanted to rule via centralized government control and a centrally-planned economy. Third, we had a military element: the arms race and the build-up of huge military confrontations.

Based on these three elements, I'm inclined to see what's going on now more as a breakdown of the international system created after World War II and that the U.S. had dominated. America is not as powerful as it once was. First, Russia turned out not to be a great fit for the established international system, for a variety of reasons. Second, China has risen to become an economic powerhouse that seeks to extend its influence – not (primarily) by military means but through the “belt and road” initiative investment, by building infrastructure in surrounding states. There was always a difficult relationship between the U.S. and China, but nothing like what the U.S.-Soviet relation was at the height of the Cold War.

With everything that has happened in the last few years, which event is going to prove a truly pivotal point for contemporary history when we look back in 20 or 30 years' time?

I think that the ten-day trip that Trump took to Europe was pivotal. The attacks on NATO, not to mention the way he treated Britain (Theresa May in particular), and what we know about his conduct during his meeting with Putin… I think we may look back on that week as a pivotal moment in the breakup of the transatlantic relationship. I don't know what it portends for U.S.-Russian relations, but I think it has made those relations much worse.

Let’s talk about your career here at Stanford. What brought you to FSI originally?

I had an invitation to come for a visit of three years. I was teaching in Edinburgh at the time, and I got a letter from Condi Rice, who was the assistant director of CISAC back then. After the three years, I decided I wasn’t going back. What was so attractive about FSI was the people. I know it may sound rather cliché, but there was such a great sense of possibility about the place. If you had an idea, instead of hearing people say, “Oh, we've never done it that way,” people would say, “Oh, yeah, let's see if we can help you do that!”

What is your fondest memory from your time at Stanford?

That's very difficult. I think one of my best memories is when Gorbachev came to speak at Stanford back in 1990. He gave a speech in the Stanford Memorial Auditorium, and the place was packed; it was at the height of Gorbo-mania. In the course of the speech he thanked some of us at FSI for helping to bring about the improvement in US-Soviet relations…Bill Perry, Pief Panofsky, Sid Drell, and myself. And that was – that's a pleasant moment to remember.

What advice would you give an undergrad starting at Stanford?  And what advice would you give a graduate student hoping to have a career in political science, history, or policy?

To the undergrad, my advice is rather obvious: at Stanford, you have this chance to look around and to try different things, new subjects and programs. Take full advantage of that!

To graduate students: I think most assume that when you choose to be a graduate student, you're choosing to be a specialist in a discipline. That’s true! Yet, at the same time, it is also very important to look around and see what there is outside your discipline, to learn how to communicate with people, particularly ones with other interests and in other fields.

We talk a lot about interdisciplinary work. But truly interdisciplinary work is very difficult. When I came to Stanford, I thought it fantastic that FSI had specialists in such diverse fields all in one place. At the time we had John Lewis who was a China specialist. Sid Drell was a physicist with a lot of experience working on national security issues. Phil Farley spent a long time in the State Department working on arms control issues. I learned a lot from Sid Drell; I wasn't doing physics, but we wrote something together. That kind of possibility and opportunity was incredible. I continued to love this about Stanford over the past 30 years, and I've been very grateful for all of these opportunities. 

As a last thought, I remember a conversation I had with John Hennessy when he was Dean of Engineering, and I was director of FSI. I remember telling him that, much to my surprise, a lot of our best supporters were (and continue to be) engineers. He said, “That’s obvious! No engineer thinks that his discipline alone can solve a problem. You have to work with other people when you're doing something!”

Then he said, “Engineers are also not averse to trying to raise money!” [laughter]

Stamos joins the Hoover Institution and the Center for International Security and Cooperation at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Former Facebook chief security officer, Alex Stamos, to bring rich real-world perspective on cybersecurity and technology policy.

Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution announced today the appointment of Alex Stamos as a William J. Perry Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Cyber Initiative fellow, and Hoover visiting scholar.

Stamos, a computer security expert and the outgoing chief security officer at Facebook, will engage in teaching, research and policy engagement through CISAC and the Hoover Institution's Cyber Policy Program as well as the Stanford Cyber Initiative. Drawing on his considerable experience in the private sector, he will teach a graduate level course about the basics of cyber offense and defense to students without technical backgrounds as part of the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program at the Freeman Spogli Institute, which houses CISAC.

"With our country facing unprecedented challenges in digital interference with the democratic process and numerous other cybersecurity issues, Alex’s experience and perspective are a welcome addition to our group of fellows,” said Freeman Spogli Institute Director Michael McFaul.

In his role, Stamos will also engage in research projects aimed at public policy initiatives as a member of the Faculty Working Group on Information Warfare. The working group will develop, discuss and test concepts and theories about information warfare, as well as conduct applied research on countermeasures to identify and combat information warfare. The working group will also develop policy outreach in briefings to government officials, public seminars and workshops, Congressional testimony, online and traditional media appearances, op-eds and other forms of educating the public on combatting information warfare.

“We are thrilled that Alex is devoting even more energy to our cyber efforts,” said CISAC Co-Director Amy Zegart. “He's been a vital partner to the Stanford cyber policy program for several years and his Stanford "hack lab"--which he piloted in Spring 2018--is a cutting-edge class to train students in our new master’s cyber policy track. He brings extraordinary skills and a unique perspective that will enrich our classes, research, and policy programs."

Over the past three years, the Hoover Institution and CISAC have jointly developed the Stanford Cyber Policy Program.  Its mission is to solve the most important international cyber policy challenges by conducting policy-driven research across disciplines, serving as a trusted convener across sectors, and teaching the next generation. The program is led by Dr. Amy Zegart and Dr. Herbert Lin. Stamos has participated on the advisory board of the program since its inception.

“We look forward to working with Alex on some of the key cyber issues facing our world today," said Tom Gilligan, director of the Hoover Institution. "He brings tremendous experience and perspective that will contribute to Hoover’s important research addressing our nation’s cyber security issues.”

“I am excited to join Stanford and for the opportunity to share my knowledge and expertise with a new generation of students--and for the opportunity to learn from colleagues and students across many disciplines at the university,” said Stamos.

A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Stamos studied electrical engineering and computer science. He later co-founded a successful security consultancy, iSEC Partners, and in 2014 he joined Yahoo as its chief information security officer. Stamos joined Facebook as chief security officer in June 2015, where he led Facebook’s internal investigation into targeted election-related influence campaigns via the social media platform.

###

About CISAC: Founded in 1983, CISAC has built on its research strengths to better understand an increasingly complex international environment. It is part of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). CISAC’s mission is to generate knowledge to build a safer world through teaching and inspiring the next generation of security specialists, conducting innovative research on security issues across the social and natural sciences, and communicating our findings and recommendations to policymakers and the broader public. 

About the Hoover Institution: The Hoover Institution, Stanford University, is a public policy research center devoted to the advanced study of economics, politics, history, and political economy—both domestic and foreign—as well as international affairs. With its eminent scholars and world-renowned Library & Archives, the Hoover Institution seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity and secure and safeguard peace for America and all mankind.

About the Stanford Cyber Initiative:  Working across disciplines, the Stanford Cyber Initiative aims to understand how technology affects security, governance, and the future of work.

Media contact: Katy Gabel, Center for International Security and Cooperation: 650-725-6488, kgabel@stanford.edu

Following the announcement that the United States had canceled a planned summit with North Korea, Stanford scholars discuss the future of diplomacy and denuclearization on the Korean peninsula.

What led to the U.S. canceling the planned summit with North Korea? Could a meeting realistically be rescheduled? Stanford scholars discuss the issues. (Image credit: Getty Images)

This post was originally published by the Stanford News Service. The following is an extended version, including comments by APARC Visiting Scholar, Daniel Sneider.

President Donald Trump was scheduled to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 to discuss efforts for denuclearization and a peace plan for the region. What led to the U.S. canceling the planned talks? Could a meeting realistically be rescheduled? Can the U.S. diplomatically negotiate denuclearization when there are clearly different approaches to what disarmament looks like?

To address these questions, Stanford News Service talked to five Stanford scholars about the issues:

• Michael Auslin is the inaugural Williams-Griffis Fellow in Contemporary Asia at the Hoover Institution. He specializes in global risk analysis, U.S. security and foreign policy strategy, and security and political relations in Asia. He recently authored The End of the Asian Century: War, Stagnation and the Risks to the World’s Most Dynamic Region.
• Siegfried Hecker is a top nuclear security scholar, former Los Alamos National Laboratory director and senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation. Hecker’s research interests include plutonium science, nuclear weapons policy and international security, nuclear security (including nonproliferation and counterterrorism) and cooperative nuclear threat reduction.
• Gi-Wook Shin is a sociology professor, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and the founding director of the Korea Program. His research has concentrated on social movements, nationalism, development and international relations. He recently authored Superficial Korea, a book about social maladies currently affecting Korean society.
• Kathleen Stephens is the William J. Perry Fellow in the Korea Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. From 2008 to 2011, she served as the U.S. ambassador to South Korea. She has four decades of experience in Korean affairs, first as a Peace Corps volunteer in rural Korea in the 1970s, and in ensuing decades as a diplomat and as U.S. ambassador in Seoul.
• Daniel Sneider is a visiting scholar with Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. His research is focused on current U.S. foreign and national security policy in Asia and on the foreign policy of Japan and Korea. His publications include History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: Divided Memories, and First Drafts of Korea: The U.S. Media and Perceptions of the Last Cold War Frontier.

What led to the summit’s cancellation?

Auslin: The real problem was the rushed nature of the summit. The lure of an unprecedented first-time meeting between the U.S. president and the North Korean dictator meant that there was a short window in which the two sides could resolve key issues before the leaders sat down together. And after nearly 70 years of hostility and failed negotiations, negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang would have been extraordinarily difficult in any case. At the core, however, the two sides needed to agree on the fundamental question of the definition of denuclearization, let alone its timetable and the sequence of U.S. aid, before the two principals met. As the time drew near, North Korea tried to force the U.S. into recognizing its own definition of denuclearization and timetable.

Hecker: Two weeks ago, matters looked very good, especially after Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo’s second visit to Pyongyang. After he returned, he said the U.S. and North Korea had similar visions of the future. Then, during the past week, high-level Trump administration officials painted a very different vision for North Korea’s future by pushing for a Libya model of denuclearization. Not surprisingly, visions of Muammar Gaddafi’s mutilated body did not go over well in Pyongyang. North Korean officials wrote scathing rebuttals that appeared to lead to a race as to who would cancel the summit first. President Trump won that race.

Shin: The summit fell through because two sides failed to narrow the gap on how to get to denuclearization of North Korea. Trump was obsessed with a complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement, known also as CVID, and the principle of “denuclearization first, then economic rewards,” but Kim wanted a gradual, step-by-step approach. Trump was probably under pressure from Republican conservatives that he could not settle for a “bad” deal – which would mean anything less than CVID. At the working level, the U.S. was probably not ready for talks to happen in two weeks. Trump might have used North Korea’s recent verbal attacks as an excuse to cancel the June summit.

Sneider: The summit fell apart because the gap between the positions of the United States and North Korea became so evident that it could no longer be credibly claimed that this meeting was going to lead to the North Koreans giving up their nuclear weapons capability. 

Stephens: President Trump surprised everyone, including his own staff, some weeks ago by suddenly and seemingly impulsively agreeing to a summit with the North Korean leader. His letter to Kim Jung Un this morning withdrawing from the June 12 summit had the same feeling of hasty improvisation. He took umbrage, understandably, at the tone and substance of recent North Korean statements, though they were not exceptional by Pyongyang’s historical standards. He also seemed to realize, belatedly, the huge gap between U.S. expectations of “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” of North Korea and Pyongyang’s vague pledge to negotiate, as a nuclear weapons state itself, the eventual denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

Is a delayed summit likely?

Auslin:  Trump left open the possibility of a future meeting, but only if Kim ratchets down the rhetoric and insults. It is just as likely that Pyongyang will increase its threatening words, and possibly even undertake aggressive acts, to try and blackmail the U.S. back to the negotiating table. If the two sides can quietly continue high-level talks aimed at agreeing on a definition of denuclearization and a timetable, along with U.S. aid – admittedly, difficult objectives – then a delayed summit is possible. 

Sneider:  I don’t see much chance for a summit to be rescheduled, although I don’t entirely rule it out provided the United States is willing to accept something less than what it has previously demanded.

Shin: Trump has now handed the ball over to Kim, and whether the two can get back on the path to diplomacy will depend on how Kim reacts to Trump’s statement. If he reacts with merely provocative words and no actions, chances are that the talks can still happen in the near future. But if Kim cancels all the behind-the-scenes, working-level talks and negotiations altogether, we are expecting another long period of no communication between the two countries or even a rise of tension and conflict.

How can the U.S. diplomatically negotiate denuclearization when there are different objectives at stake?

Auslin: That has always been the great problem in negotiating with Pyongyang. It has little incentive to give up its nuclear weapons, even with security guarantees from the United States. Three U.S. presidents have failed in negotiations, and the Kim regime has steadily progressed in developing both a nuclear weapons capability and a ballistic missile capability. The Trump administration gambled that threat of a U.S. attack, combined with “maximum pressure,” would create a breakthrough that eluded previous administrations, but Pyongyang reverted to form by making increasing demands in the past week. Right now, the U.S. has failed to figure out the right mix of pressure and accommodation that gets the North to the table, absent pre-emptive U.S. concessions. However, it does not need to continually remind Kim of the fate of Muammar Gaddafi, overthrown in Libya in 2011, to try to strong-arm it into talks.

Hecker: There actually appeared to be a partial reconciliation of views during the past week with some in the Trump administration, including the president, acknowledging that denuclearization will take time and most likely will have to occur in a phased manner. I have promoted for some time what I call a “halt, roll back and eventually eliminate” approach. It will take years, but there was some hope that North Korea would front-load some of its steps in rolling back its nuclear program, as it did in destroying a nuclear test site yesterday.

Shin: Trump was mistaken if he thought he could handle and directly deal with North Korea by himself. He needs help from all involved stakeholders such as China, South Korea, etc. Diplomacy is different from doing business.

Stephens: By working closely with allies, through both pressure and engagement, and by doing the heavy diplomatic preparation and lifting that was missing this time around.

What does this mean for relations between North Korea and South Korea?

Shin: It will certainly create a big dilemma for South Korea. It has declared that a new era has begun with North Korea and promised to improve inter-Korean relations by all means. So, it will be difficult for South Korea to rejoin the U.S.’s maximum pressure campaign. At the same time, inter-Korean relations, especially in the economic sector, cannot be improved without the support from the U.S. and ease of sanctions.

Hecker: South Korean President Moon just released a statement saying it was regretful and disconcerting that the summit was canceled. He made it clear that North-South reconciliation must proceed, commenting that “[We] hope that the leaders resolve problems through direct and close dialogue.”

Stephens: South Korea is in a very difficult position. They were blindsided by Trump’s letter to Kim. They will be eager to get Pyongyang and Washington back into dialogue. Again, much will depend on Pyongyang.

Who do you think lost the most with the summit’s cancellation: Trump? Kim? Moon?

Auslin: Moon is the big loser, having declared a new era of peace and bet everything on a durable peace process. North Korea looks like its usual, disruptive, untrustworthy self, which in turn makes Moon appear naive. Now, the North may well try to pressure the South into unilateral concessions to get the “peace” process back on track; these could include aggressive acts against South Korean interests. For his part, Trump has made clear he won’t play Charlie Brown to Kim’s Lucy with the football.

Hecker: The world lost a chance for moving away from the brink of war on the Korean Peninsula. I believe it was the greatest shock to President Moon, who worked so hard to create the conditions for the summit.

Shin: It will be Moon>Trump>Kim in the order of who loses the most. Moon’s aggressive efforts in the recent months to mediate between Kim and Trump didn’t pay off after all.

Stephens: Kim has lost the least and has the most leverage at the moment.

Sneider: The South Korean government of Moon Jae-in is obviously stunned by this development, particularly after Moon’s meeting in the White House earlier this week where the President gave no such indication apparently. They will try desperately to restore diplomatic engagement between Washington and Pyongyang, and may meet again with the North soon. But this is a crisis for South Korea’s strategy.

What realistically will happen next?

Sneider:  I would predict a rise of tensions as both leaders will feel the need to look and act tough — as the President has already shown in his White House statement today.

Auslin: North Korean aggression against South Korea is not out of the question, as a way to try to force everyone back to the table. Increased rhetoric from the North against Trump and America is also very likely. Behind the scenes, however, if the administration can quietly continue talks with high-ranking North Koreans to try and reach agreement on what denuclearization means and a possible timetable, then the two sides could return to the idea of a summit, possibly by the end of the year.

Hecker: Hopefully the leaders will take the time afforded by this pause to work at the lower levels to move closer to creating the conditions for a successful summit.

Shin: We can expect some periods of crisis and conflicts again, however long it will last. There is still room for hope that the talks will be resumed, but it will now depend on how North Korea reacts.

Stephens: President Trump appears to want to leave the door open for a summit. The most optimistic scenario would be an interest in both Washington and Pyongyang to keep a channel open for talks. South Korea will want to get the parties to reengage.

Young Russian and U.S.-based scholars from a variety of science and social science disciplines met at Stanford to tackle emerging issues in nuclear security.

How can a new generation of scholars from around the world work together to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, from nuclear terrorism to developments in North Korea? A summit hosted at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation sought answers to that question—and more.

The third meeting of the Stanford-National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute) Young Professionals Nuclear Forum, held May 2-4 at CISAC, brought together young Russian and U.S.-based scholars from a variety of science and social science disciplines to explore how to use thoughtful, cooperative approaches to solve these pressing international nuclear security issues.

Dr. Siegfried Hecker, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, emeritus, and an internationally recognized expert in nuclear risk reduction, organized the summit. Opening the forum, Dr. Hecker stressed that while U.S.-Russian relations continue to be complicated and cooperation in the nuclear sphere has virtually come to a stop, “the younger generation of nuclear professionals should be prepared to collaborate again once the relations between the two governments turn for the better.”

The group of Stanford and Russian scholars took part in two day-long exercises. Day one included an exercise in risk analysis of the threat of radiological terrorism from the perspective of the attacker, tasking the participants with comparing the risks of carrying out an attack using a radiological dispersal device versus carrying out an attack on a spent nuclear fuel cask. On the second day, scholars engaged in a detailed simulation of U.S. and North Korean approaches to the denuclearization of North Korea to be discussed at the proposed June summit between the U.S. and North Korea. CISAC affiliates Larry Brandt, Chaim Braun, and former national lab experts Len Connell (SNL) and James Toevs (LANL) joined Dr. Hecker to advise the teams.

Working in mixed groups of Russian and Stanford scholars, one group represented the U.S. perspective; the other the North Korean. They explored the risks of maintaining or eliminating different nuclear facilities and activities in North Korea. In the exercise, it quickly became clear that the North Korean team was aiming to keep a hedge for the future and not give away all nuclear options. Meanwhile, the U.S. team sought to eliminate much of the immediate risk posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, claiming some peaceful nuclear facilities and activities might eventually be possible but they cannot allow North Korea the ability to reconstitute its weapons quickly.

So—who won the exercise?

For Dr. Hecker: “nobody won.” That wasn’t the point. But, he said,  “what was really interesting was that they came up with really reasonable compromises—on both the North Korean and American sides.”

View photos from the summit

About CISAC

The Center for International Security and Cooperation tackles the most critical security issues in the world today. Founded in 1983, CISAC has built on its research strengths to better understand an increasingly complex international environment. It is part of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). Though scholarly research, fellowships, and teaching, CISAC is educating the next generation of leaders in international security and creating policy impact on a wide variety of issues to help build a safer world.

Stanford scholars debate whether the Iran nuclear deal can withstand U.S. withdrawal, if a revitalized nuclear program is possible and what a new deal would look like.

Following the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, three Stanford scholars consider what it means for American foreign policy and diplomacy.

Stanford scholars debate how the Trump administration’s decision on Iran will affect foreign relations. (Image credit: ruskpp / Getty Images)

In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – known as the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA – was agreed between Iran and the U.S., United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia. The international agreement limited Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for a reprieve from international sanctions.

What happens next remains unclear. What does withdrawal signal about American foreign policy? What would a new agreement look like – and is it even possible? To answer some of these questions, Stanford News Service talked to three scholars about the issues:

• Siegfried Hecker is a top nuclear security scholar, former Los Alamos National Laboratory director and senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation. Hecker’s research interests include plutonium science, nuclear weapons policy and international security, nuclear security (including nonproliferation and counter terrorism) and cooperative nuclear threat reduction.
• Abbas Milani is the Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studiesand affiliate at FSI’s Center on Democracy Development and the Rule of Law. He has been one of the founding co-directors of the Iran Democracy Project and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. In 2016, he launched the Iran2040 Project that produces research on the future of the Iranian economy, population, energy, water, agriculture and the financial system.
• Allen Weiner is a senior lecturer of law, director of the Stanford Program in International and Comparative Law and co-director of the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation. His scholarship focuses on international law and the response to the contemporary security threats of international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and situations of widespread humanitarian atrocities.

What does withdrawal from the Iran deal signal about American foreign policy?

Milani: It signifies that U.S. foreign policy is dependent on the views, even whims, of one person – the president – and the rhetoric he used during the campaign. Views of U.S. government experts or allies has I think never counted for less.

Weiner: The withdrawal from the JCPOA signals a departure from the notion that the U.S. places high value on the benefits of stability, predictability and consistency in its foreign relations. It also reflects the Trump administration’s belief that the U.S. has the ability to persuade other countries to accommodate American interests through coercive mechanisms.

How will withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal be viewed from inside Iran?

Milani: Iran is a country divided. The people, suffering from a profound – even existential – economic crisis, are worried about their future. Bickering political factions in the regime are playing the blame game: first blame the U.S., and then opposing factions.

Can the Iran nuclear deal withstand U.S. withdrawal? What options are available – both politically and legally?

Hecker: I don’t see Iran making a mad dash for nuclear weapons to respond to the U.S. withdrawal. The country has too much to lose. Tehran could decide to keep the essence of the deal with the other countries and isolate the U.S. It may find that it will get adequate sanctions relief from the other countries in spite of U.S. pressure. That may be sufficient for Iran to continue to honor its nuclear deal commitments for now.

Milani: I would be surprised if the deal does not survive. It was never a U.S. deal.  The U.S. was simply a key player. Europe, U.K., China, Russia, the UN, and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) want it to continue – Iran, too.

Weiner: In a sense, yes. Iran is free to continue to comply with the restraints on its nuclear activities negotiated in the JCPOA and to accept IAEA inspections. The other signatories to the JCPOA are free not to re-impose on Iran the sanctions that were lifted under the JCPOA. Because of the reach of U.S. sanctions, however, European companies in particular will face significant risks in doing business in Iran, which means Iran will be deprived of many of the commercial benefits it sought in negotiating the JCPOA. It is far from clear that the remaining, much more limited benefits available under the JCPOA will be appealing enough for Iran to continue to suspend those aspects of its nuclear program that are covered by the JCPOA.

What are reasons to oppose the Iran nuclear deal?

Hecker: The deal was able to get more Iranian nuclear concessions than I had ever thought possible. Apparently, the Trump administration objected primarily that the deal did not include Iran’s other activities, such as missile tests and Iran’s role in the region that it views as unacceptable. However, some of President Trump’s claims about the nuclear deal were simply incorrect.

Milani: The deal surely had flaws. It did not address such critical issues as Iran’s missile program, the regime’s role in places like Syria and Iraq, and human right abuses at home. It surely was not the worst deal in history. It was the least bad option at the time.

Weiner: The key objection voiced by many critics of the JCPOA concerns the “sunset provisions” in the deal, under which many key restrictions in the JCPOA on Iranian nuclear activities last only for 10 or 15 years (depending on the particular restriction). This potentially allows Iran to benefit from sanctions relief now and to merely postpone its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Other objections concern the failure of the JCPOA adequately to address Iran’s missile development programs or its destabilizing regional activities more generally.

What nuclear facilities remain in place in Iran, and how easily might they be repurposed to create weapons?

Hecker: Iran has dramatically reduced its inventories of enriched uranium in compliance with the deal. It has enrichment facilities that could be restarted rather easily to enrich uranium to weapons grade, but not without withdrawing from the deal. It could also begin construction of a new plutonium-producing reactor, but that would be rather costly since it made the one under construction inoperative in compliance with the deal. The bottom line is that it would take quite some time to get back to the material inventories and facilities Iran had before the deal went into effect.

Milani: Iran’s enrichment facilities remain but much of their capacity has been mothballed. Ninety-eight percent of the country’s low enrichment uranium has been shipped out of the country. The Arak heavy water reactor has been virtually dismantled. All known facilities are under constant surveillance by the IAEA. The regime’s missile program has, however, continued.

What effect could withdrawal have on anticipated talks with North Korea?

Hecker: That’s quite uncertain. North Korea may still want a deal, but it would likely ask for greater assurances from the U.S. about potential withdrawal, just as the U.S. is pressing North Korea about its past history of compliance.

Weiner: Commentators have observed that withdrawal from the JCPOA raises questions about U.S. credibility and its willingness to keep its word. Some suggest that this will make North Korea less likely to move actively in the direction of complete, verifiable, irreversible nuclear disarmament for fear that once it has given up its nuclear program, the U.S. might simply re-impose sanctions or pursue other hostile policies towards it. On the other hand, President Trump has emphasized that he would keep any commitments he makes in negotiations with North Korea; it was only the commitments of the prior U.S. administration that he did not feel obliged to honor. Whether this would provide enough confidence to the North Koreans to trust the United States is, of course, far from clear.

What would a new deal look like?

Hecker: I don’t see a new deal involving this administration as a possibility.

Milani: I think the U.S. could have had more impact on a possible revamped deal had it stayed in the agreement. It remains to be seen whether Europeans will continue to try to coordinate with the U.S. and will try to forge a different agreement with the regime.

Weiner: A new agreement, to be acceptable to the U.S., would have to eliminate (or at least significantly extend) the sunset clauses and address Iran’s missile program. From Iran’s side, a revised deal would have to involve more than just lifting sanctions against Iran. It would also have to more emphatically embrace the prospect of American companies doing business in Iran. With respect to commercial relations, Iran argues that even though the United States formally lifted sanctions against Iran after the JCPOA took effect, the ongoing threat that U.S. sanctions would be re-imposed has effectively dissuaded many businesses in both the U.S. and Europe from pursuing long-term business arrangements in Iran.

Sagan is a senior fellow in the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford.

Scott D. Sagan, the Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science, has been named a 2018 Andrew Carnegie Fellow. Sagan is also a senior fellow in the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford.

Sagan joins this year’s class of 31 Carnegie Fellows, each of whom receives up to $200,000 to pursue a significant research and writing project.

Image

Sagan’s Carnegie project will focus on assumptions about nuclear deterrence and strategic stability, which will include a multi­country study of ethics, nuclear weapons and public opinion. The project will also run experiments to discover how information about the potential damage of nuclear weapons might alter public support for using such weapons during war and peace.

Sagan has been examining citizens’ attitudes about the use of nuclear weapons. His recent article (co-authored with Dartmouth College Professor Benjamin Valentino), “Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran: What Americans Really Think about Using Nuclear Weapons and Noncombatant Immunity,” has revealed alarming findings about the American public’s willingness to support the use of nuclear weapons in a variety of strategic scenarios.  This work has generated novel conversations in both the scholarly and policy worlds about future nuclear risks.

“Professor Sagan’s innovative work has helped illuminate assumptions about how the world views nuclear war today.” said FSI Director Michael McFaul. “I am thrilled that the Carnegie Corporation has recognized the importance of Scott’s work for our current, dangerous era.”

The Carnegie Corporation was established in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding. In keeping with this mandate, the corporation’s work focuses on the issues that Andrew Carnegie considered of paramount importance: international peace, education and knowledge, and a strong democracy.

“We were reassured by the immense talent and breadth of experience reflected in the proposals from this year’s nominees for the Andrew Carnegie Fellows Program,” said Vartan Gregorian, president of Carnegie Corporation of New York and president emeritus of Brown University. “Since its founding in 1911, the Corporation has provided strong support to individual scholars, as well as a wide variety of institutions, causes, and organizations. The response to the fellows program gives me great hope for the future of the study of the humanities and the social sciences as a way for this country to learn from the past, understand the present, and devise paths to progress and peace.”