The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: An Assessment

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Iran's nuclear program has become the major dispute between the Islamic Republic and global powers, led by the United States. This essay identifies the principal elements in any potential agreement, and outlines the steps needed to enhance the opportunity for a successful negotiation. Rapprochement between Tehran and Washington is not only possible, but indeed, desirable. ********** Since 1979, relations between the United States and Iran have been characterized by mutual suspicion and hostility. The areas of contention include human rights, the Arab-Israeli peace process, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. In recent years few crises have attracted the attention of the international community as much as the controversy over Iran's nuclear program. The claims and counterclaims by the Islamic Republic and its major rivals have pushed all sides to the edge of a military conflict and a range of uncertain and unpredictable scenarios. Western powers, led by the United States, accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and Tehran categorically denies these accusations and asserts that the program is solely for civilian purposes. In the last decade, several measures have been employed to curtail Tehran's nuclear drive. These include assassination of the country's nuclear scientists, cyberattacks, severe economic sanctions, and threats of military strikes. It is difficult to assess the success (or failure) of each of these measures. Rather, together, they suggest two conclusions. First, Iran is paying a heavy price in human capital and economic prosperity. Second, despite this heavy price, the Islamic Republic has continued to make progress on its nuclear program. True, it can be argued that the combination of these measures has slowed the progress, but it is also true that the nuclear program in 2013 is more developed than it was a few years ago. In other words, it is increasingly harder to sustain the current confrontation without some kind of a breakthrough or, at least, a gradual reduction of tension. Furthermore, despite Western powers' suspicion, at present there is still consensus that an Iranian nuclear bomb is neither imminent nor inevitable. The Iranian leaders have not made the strategic decision to make the bomb and the country does not have all it needs to make a nuclear device. In short, there is time for diplomacy. Based on open sources, it is difficult to determine if this time is long or short. Still, most parties in this controversy appear to agree that diplomatic efforts have not yet been completely exhausted. The uncertainty and unpredictability of a military operation (limited or otherwise) further underscores the significance of a diplomatic solution. There is no way to predict with any certainty that Iran and its international rivals would agree on a diplomatic outcome any time soon. Still, one can argue that major players on both sides understand that other options are, for the time being, more costly and less desirable. Finally, it is important to point out that pursuing diplomatic efforts does not mean suspending uranium enrichment or lifting economic sanctions. All parties are likely to retain all their options until they reach an agreement. The goal is to pressure the other side to comply with one's demands. Against this background, this article seeks to examine the American and Iranian stances on the nuclear dispute and highlight the main characteristics of a potential diplomatic agreement between global powers led by the United States and Iran. Again, reaching such an agreement is by no means guaranteed. Still, the argument of this article is the differences between the two sides are not unbridgeable. In the following sections, I examine the Iranian, American, and European stances on the nuclear dispute. The goal is not to assess the rightness or wrongness of each; rather, to understand Iran's, the United States', and the European Union's perceptions of themselves and the other powers. …