An analysis published by the magazineForeign PolicyThe US indicated that any nuclear agreement with Tehran would not prevent it from making a nuclear bomb, because its program has become more advanced than it was when the 2015 agreement was signed.
The analysis, written by Dennis Ross, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, suggested that the actual threat of force is the only way to prevent the Iranian regime from crossing the nuclear threshold and reaching a nuclear bomb.
Ross, a former US diplomat who held several positions including Middle East envoy under President Bill Clinton, said that under the terms of the current potential agreement, Iran following 2030 would be in a position to move quickly towards obtaining a nuclear bomb unless Iranian leaders believed that the cost of doing So very expensive.
Ross therefore believes that any new agreement with Tehran will delay the Iranian nuclear threat, not end it.
In the event of any agreement being signed with Iran in the coming days, Ross points out, Tehran will use it by getting hundreds of billions of dollars to bolster its regional proxies, build its arsenal of ballistic missiles further, and strengthen its nuclear infrastructure to make it less vulnerable to attack.
The bottom line, according to Ross, is that a failure to reach a deal would bring Iran closer to obtaining a nuclear bomb, and the agreement would delay that slightly unless the United States and its allies act to convey to Iranian officials the dangers they face, including explicitly brandishing the use of force.
The writer points out that the Iranians do not believe today that Washington will use force once morest them, but US officials can still change this perception by taking a number of steps.
First, the writer says that Washington should send a message to the Iranians that the United States will act at a certain point and destroy Tehran’s entire nuclear infrastructure.
Second, he believes that US forces should conduct air-to-ground operations once morest fortified targets, because Tehran pays great attention to US training and will understand the type of attacks that the Pentagon is preparing for.
In addition, the author suggests that Washington continue to modernize its regional partners’ defenses once morest missile and drone attacks, with the aim of reassuring its regional partners and reducing the impact of Iranian threats in the region.
The writer concludes by pointing to the need for the United States to enhance Israel’s capabilities in the field of aircraft refueling, increase its ability to strike Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and convince Iranian leaders that the military option is real.
On Saturday, European powers expressed “serious doubts” regarding Iran’s sincerity in seeking an agreement on its nuclear programme, warning that Tehran’s position undermined prospects for reviving the 2015 deal.
European negotiators appeared to be making progress toward reviving the 2015 deal, with Iran largely agreeing to the text of the final proposal. But the degree of optimism declined when the United States sent its response, to which Iran responded in turn.
In a joint statement on Saturday, France, Germany and Britain said that the final proposal presented to Tehran represented the “maximum flexibility” of the European powers on the file.
“Unfortunately, Iran has chosen not to take advantage of this crucial diplomatic opportunity,” she added, noting that Tehran “instead continues to escalate its nuclear program beyond any reasonable civilian justification.”
The statement of the three European powers comes a day following US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken confirmed that Iran’s latest response to the issue of reviving the nuclear agreement represents a “backward” step.
