|
Trending Topics
|
A "Good Deal" with Iran? Requirements for Preventing a Future Nuclear Breakout
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Zohar Palti - The Iranian regime's direct ballistic missile attacks against Israeli civilian populations demonstrate that its missile program is not a theoretical adjunct to its nuclear ambitions, but an operational instrument of military and political coercion. Therefore, any new agreement cannot simply slow down Iran's nuclear progress. It must structurally and irreversibly prevent the possibility of a rapid nuclear breakout, in part by constraining efforts to integrate nuclear activities with missile development work. The result of previous agreements like the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was that Iran was able to preserve vital nuclear know-how, develop advanced centrifuges for faster uranium enrichment, and maintain its future breakout options. A future framework must therefore be based on structural prevention rather than optional political enforcement or assumptions that the Islamic Republic will moderate. Any agreement that falls short on structural constraints may delay a breakout but would not prevent it, thereby replicating the JCPOA's core deficiencies. A "good deal" with Iran should be defined by whether it permanently removes the regime's ability to transition rapidly from civilian nuclear activities to a military nuclear capability. This necessarily includes constraints on any Iranian missile activities that might facilitate nuclear coercion. An agreement that fails to meet these definitions would risk giving Tehran the time, legitimacy, and technological progression it needs to attain a military nuclear capability down the road. The writer, an International Fellow with the Washington Institute, previously served as head of the Mossad Intelligence Directorate.