Iran Needs an Ultimatum, Not a New Deal

The West still does not have a clear understanding of the regime’s nuclear activities.

By and
17
Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, is shown during a press conference with IAEA chief Rafael Grossi in Tehran on March 4, 2023. Grossi was in Iran for talks after the discovery of uranium particles enriched to near weapons-grade level. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)

Five years ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a shocking revelation to the world: Iran had cheated from the start on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, concealing an atomic weapons archive from Western negotiators and U.N. inspectors. Not long after, the Trump administration withdrew from the deal—formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—and thus fulfilled one of his major campaign promises. 

President Joe Biden vowed to reenter the nuclear deal if he were elected, and his administration has participated in several rounds of negotiations, all of which failed. Now, European powers are pressuring Biden once again to jump back into that deal—or an even weaker one—while still not having a full picture of Iran’s clandestine activities. 

Reviving the deal now would be a mistake. Instead, the United States and other signatories to the JCPOA should press Iran to come clean about its nuclear program and close down proliferation-sensitive activities once and for all. 

When the United States and its European allies concluded the Iran deal in 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could find no evidence of nuclear weapons development by the regime after 2009. The West took this as a green light to lift sanctions in return for temporary nuclear restrictions and few answers from Iran. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
17
By and
Comments (17)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    DougCLE

    Thank you for this analysis. I have been pounding this drum myself for awhile now.

    It seems like some people will say anything to avoid having to confront Iran on this issue, whether that be to accuse the U.S. of "just wanting to bomb Iran" or to assert that any deal wouldn't be honored anyway, so why bother?

    These are the same people who complain that the U.S. and Russia are putting the world in danger of nuclear annihilation over Ukraine. Yet they are unable to connect the dots from a nuclear Iran to a fully nuclearized M.E. - with its weak authoritarian regimes with ties to extremist organizations - to a nuclear disaster.

    If we can shut down Iran's nuclear program using only carrots, I'm fine with that. If it requires a great big stick, I'm fine with that. If we're worried about the mullahs reneging on their agreements, tell them that any location the IAEA is blocked from will be assumed to be a nuclear site and destroyed. I'm fine with that, too.

    The only thing I'm not fine with is a nuclear-armed theocracy surrounded by historical and religious enemies and with close ties to anti-US extremist groups. Even Pakistan doesn't hit all the notes like Iran does.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      I'm 1000x more worried about Pakistan who has a proven nuclear bomb capacity. https://nuke.fas.org/guide/pakistan/nuke/

      "We estimate that Pakistan now has a nuclear weapons stockpile of 140 to 150 warheads (See Table 1). This stockpile exceeds the projection made by the US Defense Intelligence Agency in 1999 that Pakistan would have 60 to 80 warheads by 2020 (US Defense Intelligence Agency 1999, 38)."

      Pakistan has borders with the 2 largest nations, China and India, as well as Iran and Afghanistan. India is estimated to have produced enough military plutonium for 150 to 200 nuclear warheads, but has likely produced only 130 to 140.

      Israel has about 80 nukes.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        Yes, Pakistan and India have had nukes for decades and have not used them, which is one reason I am not particularly concerned about them. Another reason is that Pakistan has until relatively recently been a secular, U.S.-friendly state, whose leaders, especially in the military, came from the U.S. Ivy League and military academies. Even now, as a more Muslim-oriented state, they are relatively moderate compared to their neighbors. Most importantly, though, I am not concerned because they don't have a long record of supporting extremist groups.

        Even so, Pakistan is the poster child for why we need to keep the nuclear circle small. Don't forget that North Korea has nukes because of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan, who arranged an exchange of Pakistani nuclear tech for North Korean missile tech. His company also provided the first fissile material processing equipment to Iran, getting that ball rolling and putting the world where it is today. Thanks, AQ!

        However, Khan's motivations were rational (profit, and gains for his country) and hence able to be planned for. Even the Norks, crazy as they are, still have fairly rational motivations (profit and respect). We can deal with them. Frankly, I think Iran's mullahs have rational motivations, as well. Their terrorist friends, however, do not. Neither do the Wahhabist friends of the Saudis, or all the other Arab states who will be scrambling to obtain their own nukes once historical and religious enemy Iran has them.

        How much do you want bet your grandkids' futures on whether one of the scientists in an authoritarian Middle Eastern country's nuclear program has extremist sympathies? Maybe a brother-in-law in AQAP? An old college buddy who runs with an ISIL splinter group? That's the nuclear nightmare that keeps me up at night.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougAz

          As we have no kids over 46 yrs...I worry about yours and everyone else's future.

          You are more optimistic about Pakistan than I am. I'm pretty convinced something nuclear will go off somewhere between the Middle East, Iran over to India in my lifetime... sigh

          Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    Just send in the Nuclear Bombers is your goal?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    What’s the point in negotiating a deal when the other side will cheat on it?

    Collapse
  4. Kevin M

    We should have made an example of North Korea in the 90s. Now we are just managing the proliferation.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    It's not clear to me what the point is in a deal that the other side has shown it won't honor.

    It may be that sanctions won't stop the Iranian program, but what they obviously will do is constrain Iran to doing less damage than it otherwise would. Isn't that what we want, given that Iran practically defines the term "bad actor"?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      If sanctions had never been used the way they were, we would’ve had an opportunity to stop Iran’s nuclear program back during the second Bush term. Because we implemented sanctions Iran accelerated their nuclear program. By the time the deal was struck in 2015, Iran had so much infrastructure that the deal was the best way to prevent them from being a nuclear state but we had to allow them to be a 9 month-1 year threshold nuclear state.

      Instead in the infancy of their program Bush could have stopped the nuclear program the way he did in Libya (2003 I think). Libya is mostly a failed state since then with evil abound but no one considers them a threat to the region like Iran now is.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Michael Berkowitz

        Are you asserting that Iran and Libya were comparable in their susceptibility to international pressure (which in any case included sanctions and the threat of sanctions)? I can think of significant differences.

        In any case, I didn't claim that sanctions would stop the Iranian program. I'm for them regardless.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Nice analysis

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Cthocas

    The Israelis understand what Iran needs, and I'm always satisfied when they deliver it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      They murder the scientists but isn’t that one step forward two steps back? Netanyahu wanted us (or the UN security nations) to bomb the underground sites while there was time. Hence his ridiculous bomb graphic. But Israel won’t do it themselves and we weren’t under Obama or Trump stupid enough to get into another Middle Eastern war this one likely more catastrophic than Afghanistan and Iraq put together.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        It's crazy how many conservatives like the authors are literally just bomb bomb bomb.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Logical

    "Instead, the United States and other signatories to the JCPOA should press Iran to come clean about its nuclear program and close down proliferation-sensitive activities once and for all. "

    That statement is false. US rescinded a while ago.

    The title itself shows arrogance. If you want to bomb Iran, please go ahead. But there's no way to compel. Iran doesn't give a damn about what these authors think.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    The sanctions were what caused the Iran nuclear program to accelerate in the first place. No amount of sanctions will stop their nuclear ambition just will continue to accelerate it. The nuclear deal during the Obama administration was necessary because the size of the program had gotten so massive.

    You can choose sanctions or denuclearization. You can’t have both. It’s been the simplest of logic that has been proven time and time again. Unfortunately the Dispatch has a monolithic view on this issue that defies reality.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      DougAz

      Unfortunately the Dispatch thinks these WarCon ivory tower Foundation for Defense of Democracy clowns have something credible to say. These 2 are just WhackHacks posing for Netanyahu and US Defense Industry.

      Collapse