伊朗核问题的本质探析

内容提要伊朗核计划始于20世纪50年代,自始就得到美国等西方国家的帮助。70年代前、中期,伊朗核计划受到了美国等国家的“呵护”,因此,没有成“问题”。1979年伊朗伊斯兰革命胜利后,伊朗同美国及以色列等国的关系降至“冰点”,伊朗核计划逐渐向“问题”方向发展。80年代末90年代初,美国“一超”独大。90年代,美国国家安全战略的目标总体是防范、遏制非敌、非友的潜在战略竞争对手,等等。乔治·沃克·布什上台后,美国国家安全战略受到九一一事件的影响,变得更具进攻性,将追求“绝对安全”突出到战略高度。在措施上,布什公开把伊朗等国作为重要“关注国”。近年来,伊朗核计划快速推进,随之伊朗“核问题”亦逐步“危机”化。美国在核问题上的双重乃至多重标准表明,伊朗核问题的本质是美国国家安全战略。     

伊朗核问题走向与中国安全

伊朗研发核技术的决心(包括能力)与美欧阻遏伊朗拥核的立场严重对立。美国不能容忍伊朗拥核坐大,但能够采取的手段有限,而伊朗问题又涉及诸多大国利益。伊朗核问题将使中东局势乃至大国关系更加复杂,包括对中国的国家安全产生影响。     

伊朗核问题及其对美伊关系的影响

伊朗出于维护国家安全,谋求海湾乃至中东地区大国的实力与地位,以及开发本国丰富核能资源的需要,坚持发展核计划。鉴于种种原因,伊朗核问题不可能在短期内解决。即使伊朗核问题走向激化,伊朗可能会遭到美国等严厉的经济制裁,美国对伊朗动武的可能性不大。美国只有对伊朗采取系统的、务实的接触政策,与伊朗就核问题、地区稳定问题等开展直接深入的对话,尊重伊朗在海湾乃至中东地区的安全利益,积极同伊朗建立海湾地区安全机制,才是缓解和改善美伊关系的良策     

伊朗核问题摊牌在即

11月8日，备受世人关注的联合国国际原子能机构公布了关于伊朗核问题的报告，并首次指出伊朗可能正在进行秘密核武器实验。尽管报告内容似乎“印证”了以色列、美国和其他西方国家此前对伊朗的指责，但是，目前这些国家对于报告的反应大都比较谨慎，与此前咄咄逼人的态势相比，声调明显有所降低，那么，导致伊朗核问题的原因何在？伊朗核问题为何会走到今天这般地步？以色列、美国和其他西方国家为什么与伊朗如此纠结，特别是与伊朗核计划过不去？本文将就这些问题做一分析，力求还原事情真相。     

伊朗核问题:症结及前景

伊朗核问题的症结在于美国与伊朗的敌对关系,2005年以来,伊朗核僵局反映出美伊两国领导人激进立场间的严重对立.美国的目标是迫使伊朗彻底放弃核燃料生产能力;而伊朗则追于压力,寻求对铀浓缩能力的有限自主权,拒不暂停铀浓缩,更拒不放弃铀浓缩的权利.美伊两国各怀设想,但均为一相情愿,突破僵局需要双方审时度势.由于军事手段并不能一劳永逸地解决问题、伊朗核计划还难以定性,以及伊朗核问题并非迫在眉睫等原因,经济制裁和外交孤立仍将是美国的主要政策手段.     

从伊朗核危机看印度-美国战略关系

近期以来,美国力图以强化核不扩散机制为由开展与印度的民用核能合作,深化双边在战略层面的关系;与此同时,美国极力通过国际机制和军事威慑加强对据信正秘密发展核武器的伊朗进行制裁。由于印度、伊朗的相异处境及与美国和国际核机制的关联,伊朗核问题不可避免地成为影响、度量印美关系的重要因素之一。     

核危机中伊朗外交政策解析

伊朗的国家安全环境一直比较恶劣,在动荡的中东基本上处于孤立地位.面对恶劣的国家安全环境,以及由核问题引起的严重外部压力,伊朗表现出毫不示弱的民族个性,通过用外交手段、积极参与地区事务等措施改善发展环境,进而达到与美国抗衡的目的.尽管伊朗在与美国的博弈中频频得分,但与此同时,伊朗核政策也是一种"悬崖外交".随着伊朗核问题愈演愈烈的态势,伊朗面临的整体国际局势日益严峻.     

中东无核化:破解伊核问题的出路

由于伊朗与西方立场相去甚远,伊朗核问题谈判已陷入僵局.伊朗参加谈判的目的是争取时间,发展和完善核技术,而西方则希望通过谈判、经济制裁和武力威胁压伊朗屈服.双方互不让步,问题久拖不决,有可能引发战争或中东地区大规模杀伤性武器的急剧扩散.为了中东地区和平与稳定,国际社会需要下决心从根源上入手,将解决伊朗核问题与中东无核武器化的努力直接挂钩,来彻底化解伊朗核危机.     

伊朗核问题的发展态势

伊朗核问题的发展态势值得关注，主要有以下几个方面：1．伊朗核问题进一步恶化，向安理会报告的可能性增加。IAEA向安理会提交伊核问题，将使伊朗陷入极端被动的境地。伊核问题向联合国报告，事先五个常任理事国已达成共识，中俄在态度上发生了变化，俄罗斯对国际原子能机构理事会当天通过的有关伊朗核问题的决议感到满意，认为该决议体现了国际原子能机构继续利用外交手段促使伊朗停止核燃料研究活动的愿望。中国对该决议投了赞成票。决议表示“对伊朗的核计划只用于和平目的缺乏信心”，如果伊朗在3月前不执行决议，伊朗核问题将报告安理会。     

美国发表伊朗核评估报告与伊核问题前景

美国情报部门2007年12月3日公布的伊朗核评估报告既是美国根据其国家安全面临的威胁变化而进行的全球战略调整的一部分,也是美国对外战略由新保守主义向传统现实主义路线回归的重要表现.该报告的出台使伊朗核问题面临三种变化前景:一是增大了国际舆论对美伊朗核政策的质疑,导致美国以军事手段解决伊朗核问题的难度增大、可能性大大降低,但这种可能性目前尚不能排除;二是报告的某些条款为美国继续对伊朗施压提供了借口,伊朗核问题难以走出僵局;当然,也存在美国和伊朗以报告出台为契机相互妥协的第三种可能性.鉴于伊朗对美国民主党上台改变布什政府僵硬的对伊政策有所期待、因而存在拖以待变的心理,伊朗核问题在布什政府下台前取得突破的可能性不大.     

Learning From a Troubled Experience – Transatlantic Lessons from the Nuclear Standoff with Iran

With the US eventually embracing the European-devised ‘dual track’ approach comprising both sanctions and incentives, the transatlantic partners have currently reached a remarkable level of convergence on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear conundrum. Although EU--US unity might not be enough to solve the dispute, the experience of transatlantic cooperation on Iran offers some important lessons. It shows that strategic convergence between the transatlantic partners, or lack thereof, has a considerable impact on the way a crisis unfolds in an area in which both parties have a stake. It highlights the added value represented by European/EU political and economic assets in a situation in which US military options are both unlikely to have the desired effect and at grave risk of backlash. Finally, it sets an important precedent for a specific option for intra-EU and EU--US cooperation – the contact or lead group – that seems to suit the emerging multipolar world better than other, more institutionalised methods.     

伊朗核问题及其对大国关系的影响

伊朗核问题自成为全世界关注的焦点以来,国际社会不断斡旋调停甚至制裁,不仅未能取得任何进展,还有愈演愈烈之势。伊朗决心拥核,除有着追求充当地区强国的企图外,更主要的是伊朗伊斯兰政权自成立以来就始终面临着险恶的国际环境,尤其是美伊关系的长期敌对。多年来,伊核问题一直是大国之间相互较量的杠杆,其发展前景或是西方国家推动联合国安理会不断加大对伊施压,或是美国(通过以色列)对伊动武,或是美伊谈判和平解决。无论哪种前景都会对美俄关系、美欧关系、美中关系产生极其深远的影响。     

中国在朝鲜半岛的地缘安全战略分析

朝鲜半岛地处东北亚核心地带,是我国重要的战略侧翼。作为与中国山水相连、唇齿相依的邻邦,朝鲜半岛在中国的地缘安全战略中一直具有极其重要的意义。冷战结束以来,朝鲜半岛的地缘政治环境发生了重大变化,原来由美苏主导的两极格局趋向多极化,在某种程度上形成了大国相互竞争的局面,处于较弱地位的朝韩两国也不由自主地被纳入了周边大国的战略轨道,半岛形势空前复杂化。而两次朝核危机的爆发更使朝鲜半岛局势的发展跌宕起伏,波折不断。面对错综复杂的半岛形势,中国从"维护朝鲜半岛的和平与稳定"这一战略目标出发,确立了以"对话和合作"为基本特征的安全战略,并积极推动朝核问题的和平解决,为缓和半岛紧张局势,维护东北亚地区和平与稳定发挥了不可替代的作用。     

中美不对称核稳定与美国战略机会主义论析

中美两国安全关系在两国总体关系中扮演着重要的角色,研究中美之间的战略稳定关系,对于维护两国安全关系的稳定具有重要意义。中国的核威慑实力弱于美国,中美之间呈现出不同于传统战略稳定关系的不对称核稳定态势。中国对美国存在一定的核威慑能力,但有效性仍有差距和不足。这一差距容易使美国产生压制和削弱中国核报复能力的机会主义思想。实施限制损伤战略、发展导弹防御能力、进行战略反潜是美国对中国实施战略机会主义的主要行动。美国谋求削弱中国核报复能力、打破中美不对称核稳定的企图,与中国努力维持核威慑能力、维持中美不对称核稳定的行为形成了两股力量相持的态势。中国应重点提升核武器的质量,提高威慑信号的传递效能,以可信可靠的核威慑和核反击能力打消美国战略机会主义心态,维持两国间的战略稳定,特别是危机稳定性,筑牢遏制战争爆发的基础。     

Damned If You Do,Damned If You Don't: Performative Power and the Strategy of Conventional and Nuclear Defusing

This article seeks to initiate a new round of strategic intellectual innovation in an era when threats posed by non-state terrorist organizations and their state supporters do not resemble Cold War threats. Based on an interpretative sociological reading of the concepts of power, security, and rationality, it argues that a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” dilemma is to the post-Cold War era what the danger of surprise attack or unintended nuclear war was to the Cold War: the defining structural threat of international politics. The dilemma leaves states confronting asymmetrical warfare with the choice of reacting with force to a terrorist act or practicing appeasement. Neither approach, however, can achieve the goal of putting an end to terrorism. Deterrence sustains the dilemma by providing a rationale for why force should be used and why self-restraint is irrational. This article proposes a third option, defusing, which may be accomplished by denial (preventing provocateurs from dragging states into the use of force) and restructuration (transforming the structure and rules of the situation). Defusing relies on “performative power”—the capacity to project a dramatic and credible performance on the world stage and to decouple social actors, their audiences, and their most deeply held strategic beliefs. The force of the argument is illustrated by examples from the global “war on terror,” the 2006 Lebanon War, the 2008–09 operation “Cast Lead” in Gaza, and the Iranian nuclear crisis.     

A Fine Balance: India Walks a Tightrope between Iran and the United States

India confronts the conflicting imperatives of Indian domestic politics and its strategic interests when dealing with Iran. As India's global profile has risen in recent years and its ties with the United States have strengthened, this conflict has come into sharper relief. India's traditionally close ties with Iran have become a major factor influencing how certain sections of U.S. policymakers evaluate a U.S.-India partnership. India has tried to balance carefully its relations with Iran and the United States; however, due to intense American pressure, especially after the signing of the U.S.-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation pact, India has moved closer to the United States concerning the Iranian nuclear program. But strong domestic constraints remain that will prevent India from completely abandoning its ties with Iran, even as a re-evaluation of India-Iran bilateral ties is long overdue.     

Notes on Italian foreign politics

The relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran both shapes and is shaped by a new Middle Eastern “Cold War”. The United States and the Islamic Republic should transcend the prospects for hegemonial conflict or strategic standoff and seek a fundamental realignment of their relations, along the lines of the realignment in relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China that took place during President Richard Nixon's tenure in the White House. The article examines the imperatives for a comprehensive and strategic realignment of US–Iranian relations from the standpoint of Iranian interests and foreign policy concepts as well as from an American perspective. It also evaluates the actual prospects for US–Iranian rapprochement.     

Iran and nuclear ambiguity

A comparison between Iran's current nuclear efforts and those of the pro-Western regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi shows that Iranian ambitions for a full-fledged civilian nuclear programme have remained relatively constant for nearly half a century. Today, fuel cycle technology provides Iran with a latent nuclear weapon's potential. However, US concerns about an Iranian bomb, which began in the early 1970s and aggravated after the Iranian Revolution, long predate Teheran's uranium enrichment programme. Thus, Iran is a specific case of the general problem presented by the inherent potential of nuclear technology to both civilian and military ends. Approaches to dealing with a long-term, ambiguous, latent nuclear weapon threat, whether Iranian or other, are suggested.