Biden’s Iran Dilemma: Averting Nuclear Proliferation
Vineeth Jarabana, Online Branch, Staff Writer
January 17th, 2023
In 2015, the United States (U.S.), along with a few other nations, came to a historic agreement with Iran. The agreement restricted Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for reduced economic pressure on Iran. In 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from this agreement, leading Iran to begin violating the terms of the agreement. Upon entering office, U.S. President Joe Biden made it a top foreign policy priority to take another shot at diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear program. As of November 2022, this diplomacy has gone nowhere with limited possibility of a breakthrough anytime soon. Given the circumstances, Mr. Biden should recalibrate his approach to Iran’s nuclear program so that it elevates the economic pressure on Iran, promotes covert action against Iran’s nuclear program, and prioritizes an agreement that is narrower in scope.
The case for elevating economic pressure is clear; there is a strong precedent for Iran coming to the negotiation table after receiving significant economic backlash. In 2012, all member states of the Council of the European Union agreed to disconnect all Iranian banks from a key international banking network. Just a few months later, Iran started engaging in secret negotiations with the U.S. over its nuclear program, a surprising development considering that these two countries have had no formal diplomatic ties since 1979. However, it is important for Mr. Biden to implement economic sanctions with a clear strategy and end goal in mind. What steps can Iran take so that the U.S. will lift these sanctions? Have these steps been clearly communicated to Iran? While Mr. Trump imposed devastating economic sanctions on Iran, he failed to develop a cohesive strategy that capitalized on the effects of these sanctions. Consequently, Iran continued to make progress towards a nuclear weapon during Mr. Trump’s tenure as U.S. President.
Mr. Biden should also explore covert operations against Iran as another form of applying pressure. Former U.S. President Obama, during his time in office, authorized offensive cyber operations that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear program. This sabotage sent a clear signal to Iran: its pursuit of a nuclear weapon will be met with multifaceted resistance. These covert operations are also unlikely to break out into an all-out war, but offer another type of pressure that can induce Iran to prioritize diplomacy as a means of resolving international concern over its nuclear program. Critics of this strategy often contend that overt military operations against Iran offer a better alternative for limiting Iran’s nuclear program. However, the unintended consequences often outweigh any possible benefits of an overt military intervention. Many of Iran’s nuclear facilities are insulated from potential airstrikes. Therefore, in order to actually eliminate Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, any military intervention could require a boots-on-the-ground presence paired with a goal of regime change. In the past, both of these factors led to a range of unintended repercussions, ranging from morally unacceptable civilian harm to power vacuums filled by extremists. Covert operations, contrastingly, can pave the way for a peaceful resolution of disagreements over Iran’s nuclear program.
Pursuing an agreement that is relatively limited in scope offers both a realistic diplomatic pathway and lays the foundation for a broader agreement. The indirect negotiations between the Biden administration and Iran have come to a standstill in part due to a lasting focus from both sides on extracting significant concessions. For instance, Iran is asking for the removal of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the American list of terrorist organizations while the U.S. is seeking the ability to intrusively inspect Iranian nuclear facilities. Both of these demands may be too ambitious given the current state of negotiations. Instead, a “mini-deal,” an agreement that is narrower in scope and thus more achievable, would be a more intuitive end goal of negotiations. This “mini-deal” could also serve as a template for a future agreement that is broader in scope while also addressing short-term Western concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.
Diplomacy is always worth a shot, especially when it comes to the issue of nuclear nonproliferation. Iran, a longtime human rights violator and a state sponsor of terrorism with a nuclear weapon would pose innumerable global security challenges. Rather than immediately resorting to military confrontation as his critics advise, Mr. Biden should modify his approach to diplomacy with Iran by raising economic pressure, ordering covert operations, and striving for a narrower agreement.