Skip to main content

The Iran nuclear conundrum continues

Ilan Goldenberg and Nate Swanson, in a January 31, 2026, Foreign Affairs article titled America’s Best Chance to Transform Iran, The Right Way to Deploy Military Threats, Pressure, and Support for the Opposition, included the recommendation that U.S. President Trump ‘demand that Iran allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into the country’. 
        Why the United States? The Iranian obligation to accept IAEA safeguards on its declared nuclear material arises from its adherence to the Nonproliferation Treat (NPT). The matter of Iran’s compliance with its NPT obligations is dealt with by the IAEA Board of Governors, upon notification by the IAEA Director General based on findings of the IAEA Secretariat, specifically by the Department of Safeguards. If Iran is found by IAEA in noncompliance, the matter is reported to the United Nations Security Council. No individual State has competence to meddle in NPT matters. 
        Individual States do have competence to negotiate with another State, in this case Iran, nuclear verification and monitoring measures additional to NPT. Thus, JCPOA was negotiated between Iran and China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union. JCPOA was endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution (S/RES/2231 (2015)) which mandated IAEA to carry out the nuclear measures in JCPOA. It is noteworthy that it took 3 years to negotiate JCPOA. 
        US President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from JCPOA and imposed ‘maximum pressure’ in 2018. That resulted in a series of escalations leading to the situation in Iran at the start of the 12-day war (Israel, U.S., Iran) in June 2025. 
        Negotiations of a new nuclear agreement were in progress between Trump’s envoy and Iran when Israel attacked Iran, with the intention of stopping those negotiations - which was successful. 
        Now, talks are to take place on February 6 in Oman, beginning the process again of negotiating a new agreement additional to NPT. Reaching agreement is difficult. But one thing is certain: Israel will attack Iran again if it sees an agreement coming together that it does not accept. 
        So, Iran tries to negotiate while preparing for war with the U.S. and Israel. What is the justification in international law for the attacks on Iran? Oh, they are just demonstrations of Steven Miller’s pronouncement that the strong will use their power to do what they want. 
        Nice world Donald Trump has brought us.

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

More on MOABs

MOAB is a 30,000-pound steel-alloy, precision-guided bomb designed to destroy subterranean targets. Its proper name is GBU-57, also known as “bunker buster” or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP). MOP development dates to at least 2002. In 2007, the Air Force said it could penetrate up to 200 feet. The latest version, known as GBU-57E/B, has been in the operational inventory since 2016. In January 2018, the 4th upgrade was completed. Upgrades continue, especially improving the fuse.  The number available for operational use is not public; the initial order to Boeing was for 20. In February 2018, more were ordered. Some have been used in tests.  The small number of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers are the only aircraft that can deploy MOAB. There are no public reports of MOAB being used in combat. ( But it was reported that one was deployed in Afghanistan .)  Much of the impetus for the MOP program was provided by Iran’s push to bury its nuclear enrichment infrastructure deep und...
Post a Comment
Read more