Skip to main content

If, Until, and There’s No Hurry

If Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi meets with Donald Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, I can imagine Araghchi’s message would be something like this: 
• Tell President Trump that we are ready and willing to restart talks if the U.S. guarantees that there will be no military strikes on Iran during the negotiations by the U.S. or by Israel. If there are military strikes by Israel and/or the U.S., Iran will give its 3-month notice of withdrawal from the NPT because the U.S. will have demonstrated that it is an existential threat to Iran. 
 • Also tell President Trump that, to ensure the safety of IAEA inspectors while in Iran, we have suspended our cooperation with IAEA under our NPT safeguards agreement until the U.S. guarantees no military strikes by Israel and/or the U.S. 
 • Further, tell President Trump that there is no hurry. As Jennifer Kavanagh and Rosemary Kelani wrote in Foreign Affairs on June 25, 2025: 
            With Iran’s nuclear program set back and its ballistic missile infrastructure severely damaged, there is not an urgent need for either a deal or further military action. 

A slow timescale is favorable for Iran. In October UNSC/RES/2231 comes to an end. Even if the E3 starts the dispute resolution process under JCPOA, it is unlikely to get to a UNSC vote on snapback sanctions on Iran, and even if the E3 with U.S. pressure (tariffs!) on UNSC members were to get a vote, few countries would implement it. Most of the world is on Iran’s side after the illegal military attacks by Israel and the U.S. 

Will the U.S., can the U.S., give a credible guarantee that neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran while negotiation of a deal is going on? 

 Netanyahu said on July 9, “I think the Iranians understand that what the US and Israel did once we could do twice, and thrice.” He added that Iran won’t attempt to renew nuclear efforts “Because they’re afraid.” 

With such open threats, why would Iranian leaders believe a “guarantee”, especially regarding Israel. Probably their plan is to drag things out as long as they can, hoping that there is an election in Israel and Netanyahu loses, or Donald Trump gets tired of the whole mess in the Middle East and gives up on it. Meanwhile, they will bide their time and rebuild their air defenses, while engaging with Saudi Arabia and UAE and Oman on strengthening their relationships. 

 The question is, will Donald Trump and Netanyahu let things play out that way?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more