Skip to main content

What Iran and Israel Want: What Experts Think

Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations published on September 29, 2025, “The Ripple Effect of UN Sanctions on Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Here is his pessimistic, if realistic, view. 
        The Iranian regime has survived the war intact. Both Israel and the United States have come out of the twelve-day war believing they can impose costs on Iran with impunity. The country is permeated with fear that a war can restart at any time. 
         Iran has maintained its redlines. It will not abandon enrichment or discuss its missile program. Exchanging nuclear concessions for sanctions relief has little audience in Iran’s corridors of power. Should there be talks between the U.S. and Iran, they are likely to be quickly deadlocked. 

 Meir Ben-Shabbat and Asher Fredman published in Foreign Affairs dated September 12, 2025, “What Israel Wants.” Here is their view. 
        Israeli leaders have not changed their goal of preventing Iran from rebuilding its nuclear and ballistic capabilities after the June campaign. Israel is willing to strike again if necessary. Israel insists on enforcement arrangements that would prevent Iran from enriching uranium on its soil, controlling a nuclear fuel cycle, or advancing the weaponization of its nuclear capabilities. Israel also wants to prevent Iran from producing ballistic missiles and precision weapons. 

And on October 1, 2025, the U.S. issued new Iran-related sanctions. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said: “In support of the United Nations Security Council snapback of Iran sanctions, Treasury is targeting Iranian weapons procurement networks that help maintain its ballistic missile and military aircraft programs.” ( A bit surprising that with ‘maximum pressure’ imposed, they came up with more sanctions.) 

        In that context, it is difficult to take seriously President Trump’s optimistic talk about peace between Iran and the U.S. and a peaceful Middle East.

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