Is the Biden administration’s strategy on Iran’s nuclear ambitions drifting dangerously from prevention to containment?
Reports are cropping up that the administration and the Iranians are discussing new agreements that would, in theory, seek to limit the Tehran’s nuclear program. While denying any deals are imminent, a senior Biden administration official acknowledged that there have been indirect talks with the Iranian government in Oman.
The Iranians are being less coy. Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, formerly the head of the Foreign Policy and National Security Committee in the Iranian parliament, claims that unwritten understandings have already been reached. The Biden administration “will close its eyes to some of Iran’s energy deals, and [allow] the release of some of Iran’s frozen funds in return for Iran refraining from expanding its nuclear program more than the current level”, he said.
Furthermore, in the past few weeks, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has alluded to “heroic flexibility” and said that a deal with the West is acceptable provided it doesn’t touch the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. His rhetoric was similar in 2015, when the original Iran nuclear deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — was reached.
In recent meetings with Israeli officials in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, I heard that a limited deal appeared to be on the horizon. The outlines would be as follows: Iran would not enrich uranium above 60 percent and not add to the amount it has already enriched to that level. In addition, Tehran would release the dual U.S.-Iranian citizens they have imprisoned. The Biden administration in return would put no new sanctions on the Iranian regime and would offer waivers that would allow the Iranians to gain access to roughly $20 billion currently in frozen accounts.
As evidence that such a process was already producing steps, several Israeli officials cited the Biden administration decision this month to grant the Iraqis a sanctions waiver to pay the Iranians $2.76 billion for a debt it owed for Iranian oil and gas.
Iran has already accumulated five bombs’-worth of uranium enriched to 60 percent — a level that Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency , says has “no justifiable civilian purpose”. If the Iranians continue at their current pace, they will have 10 bombs’ worth of near-weapons-grade fissile material by the end of 2023.
The Israelis are very worried. The near-weapons-grade material is one concern. Iran’s hardening of its nuclear infrastructure is another, especially because Iran is making its nuclear facilities less and less vulnerable to military strikes. Being in a position to potentially produce a large number of nuclear bombs from facilities that might be invulnerable to attack could deny Israel a military option for preempting the Iranian nuclear threat. Given Jewish history, no Israeli government is going to wait and accept the possibility of losing the military means to prevent a perceived existential threat.
The Biden administration is clearly trying to forestall open conflict in the Middle East. But would the deal that is emerging be good enough to achieve this end?
Senior administration officials have indicated that they have threatened Iran with severe consequences should they enrich to 90 percent (which is weapons-grade.) That’s good, but going from 60 to 90 percent takes little time. Moreover, freezing the Iranians at 60 percent means that enrichment to that level is now acceptable, even though it has no real utility other than for bombmaking. Worse, if 60 percent is largely in sites or facilities that are less and less vulnerable to attack, it means that Iran can develop a bomb at a time of its choosing.
In other words, allowing the Iranians to enrich to 60 percent while allowing them to make their nuclear facilities invulnerable to attack amounts to the United States fundamentally altering its approach to the Middle East. Instead of seeking to prevent Iran from going nuclear as it has up until now, the United States would be tacitly shifting to a policy of accepting Iran’s nuclear status and relying on deterrence. It would be shifting from a policy of prevention to a policy of containment.
Such a posture would all but guarantee nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. The Saudis have already said they will get a bomb if the Iranians have one. And Turkey and Egypt are certain to not be far behind. Unchecked proliferation is the last thing the world needs at a time when Russian President Vladimir Putin is already lowering the psychological threshold for nuclear use.
The Biden administration must therefore structure any forthcoming deal with prevention — not containment — as its goal.
First, it must make the understandings time-limited — good to the end of the Biden administration’s first term.
Second, President Biden should make it clear, publicly and privately, that if the United States sees Iran moving toward a weapon after the end of these understandings, he is prepared to destroy the 40-year investment Iran has made in building its nuclear infrastructure.
Third, the United States should conduct exercises in the region rehearsing attacks against hardened targets to underline its seriousness. And if the United States is to reduce the Israeli impulse to preempt lest they fear they lose the option, the Biden administration should provide the Israelis with the means to counter the hardening that Iran could produce between now and January 2025. More powerful bunker busters and aerial refuelers provided to Israel would not only reduce Israel’s need to act sooner rather than later but also send a message to Iran that if it violates the understanding or if it presses ahead with hardening we will not hold the Israelis back.
Finally, the Biden administration must immediately refill the 180-million-barrel drawdown of our strategic petroleum reserve, showing we will make ourselves less vulnerable should there be a conflict in the Middle East.
All this sounds very belligerent for a deal that would be intended to lower the temperature in the region. But the reality is that blandishments and rewards must be balanced by threats. A dangerous war can be avoided. Unfortunately, a policy of containment rather than prevention might hasten its arrival.
Dennis Ross, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama, is the counselor and William Davidson distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute.