The West Must Do More to Prevent Conflict With Iran

Relations between the West and Iran have hit an unprecedented low point. Tensions have risen sharply in the past six months: Iran has stonewalled nuclear talks, provided drones to Russia for use in Ukraine, and instigated a brutal crackdown against domestic protesters. Meanwhile, Tehran is convinced that the West is increasingly set on a regime change agenda. The two sides may have hoped to avoid escalation—opting for a no-deal, no-crisis scenario on the nuclear front—but that possibility is dwindling.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that traces of highly enriched uranium particles, up to 84 percent, were recently found in Iran. This is the closest Iran has gotten to reaching the 90 percent threshold required for weapons-grade nuclear fuel. The Israeli government is reportedly exploring military strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities that are likely to quickly draw in the United States. A series of attacks against Iran over the past month suggests that Israel is already moving ahead.

But military confrontation would be catastrophic. It must be averted before it is too late; war would have significant and counterproductive consequences for the West, Israel, Iran’s neighbors, and the Iranian people. Critically and unlike previous high-risk moments, such as in 2009 or 2012, there is seemingly little pushback coming from the United States and Europe to avert this outcome.

No matter how unsavory Iran’s repressive internal crackdown, Western governments need to engage their adversaries—including Tehran, to prevent a dangerous regional war.

Western governments have rightly hardened their stance in response to the Iranian government’s recent behavior. Since the protests began in September, more than 500 people have reportedly been killed. A recent human rights group report found that since January, Iran has executed 96 people. A British-Iranian national was executed in January, and a German-Iranian national has been sentenced to death in cases unrelated to the protests but clearly intended to send a message to Europe, highlighting the depth of the downturn in Iranian-Western relations.

The Iranian government views Western support for domestic protests as a sign of a regime change agenda. The European push to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization—which would be an unprecedented EU move against a state entity—is seen in this light. As was the recent decision to disinvite Iranian officials from the Munich Security Conference and replace them with exiled opposition figures.

Iran’s domestic context is extremely critical. Each week seemingly brings new flashpoints that further undermine the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. Most recently, a series of alleged poisoning incidents across Iranian schools since November has reportedly impacted more than 1,000 students. Given its track record of coverups and brutality, there is little trust placed in the Iranian state to swiftly put a stop to this national crisis, which could plunge the internal dynamics into further turmoil.

But no matter how unsavory Iran’s repressive internal crackdown, Western governments need to engage Tehran to prevent a dangerous regional war, which the nuclear situation could now provoke. Washington and its allies often engage their adversaries, despite brutal domestic policies—from North Korea to China—when global security is at stake. Proponents of military action, namely Israel but with some support across the U.S. government, are gaining steam given the perceived lack of alternative options to respond to Iran’s nuclear advances.

Since the new hard-line Iranian administration took office in August 2021, Iran’s actions have repeatedly poisoned the chances of diplomacy. Iran’s nuclear program is now more advanced than ever. The IAEA recently warned that Iran has accumulated enough material for “several nuclear weapons.” The facts behind the discovery of highly enriched uranium particles must be carefully investigated, given Iran’s claims that the report made a mistake.

The IAEA’s chief traveled to Tehran on Friday to explore pathways for nuclear de-escalation. For now, Iran has not accumulated uranium enriched above 60 percent, and recent U.S. assessments find that Iran has not made the political decision to restart its nuclear weapons program. But experts agree that Iran is dangerously close to being able to weaponize its nuclear program should its leadership decide to go down that path.

Israel, which has said it will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran, is increasingly talking up the need to strike before it is too late. And from what is seen in public, the Biden administration is not holding Israel back. Israel and the United States recently conducted unprecedented military exercises in what was widely seen as simulating attacks against Iran. And last month, the U.S. ambassador to Israel stated that “Israel can and should do whatever they need” to deal with Iran, and that “we’ve got their back.” He doubled down on these comments in recent days.

Intensified U.S. military consultations with the Gulf states are also creating the impression of increased preparedness for conflict. This approach stands in stark contrast to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who actively sought to block Israeli military action that threatened to drag Washington into another direct regional confrontation. European states that long played an active role in pulling the United States and Israel back from the brink of conflict with Iran have been largely silent over the risks of military strikes.

U.S. and Israeli military strikes may tactically succeed in delaying Iran’s nuclear program. However, it is uncertain how long this will last, given Iran has shifted to deep underground nuclear facilities to avoid sabotage. More importantly, military attacks will almost certainly shift the still-unresolved strategic debate inside Iran toward active nuclear weaponization, strengthening hard-line IRGC elements that view the Pakistan model as the best means to guarantee their military hold over the country.

Israeli and U.S. military strikes would likely accelerate the move toward weaponization.

This faction believes that despite the short-term price paid by Pakistan for its nuclear program, its attainment of weapons ultimately guaranteed the country’s security situation to the advantage of its military. Some within Iran’s leadership believe that Tehran has already paid the political and economic price of having a full-fledged nuclear weapons program and should now proceed with actual weaponization to lock in the benefits. Israeli and U.S. military strikes would likely accelerate the move toward weaponization.

Moreover, given the Israeli and Western unwillingness to launch a full regime change operation, military strikes are likely to strengthen, rather than weaken, the IRGC’s domestic hold on power, accelerating the intense securitization of the state. In this scenario, as during the Iran-Iraq War, it will be easier for the Islamic Republic to intensify its repression against protests.

The external implications are likely to be equally disastrous. Israeli military strikes will provoke a wider Iranian response. Iranian actions through its presence and proxies in Syria and Lebanon that target neighboring Israel are obvious places where this could begin, but Tehran could also resume direct attacks on key shipping routes and oil installations in the Gulf Cooperation Council states in a bid to disrupt global energy markets already under strain because of the war in Ukraine. It could also disrupt the fragile calm in Iraq and the cooling of hostilities in Yemen, seeing these as theaters to stir regional conflict and target Arab Gulf countries and U.S. interests.

Ironically, despite their previous hard-line positions toward Iran, it is regional actors who are now most wary of conflict—they know the cost of escalation and want regional stability. Responding to Israeli attacks inside Iran in January, a senior Emirati diplomat noted that escalation is “not in the interest of the region and its future,” adding that there is “no alternative to dialogue.” In retaliation against Israel, Iran is believed to have conducted a drone attack against an Israeli-owned ship in the Arabian Sea.

Saudi Arabia supports more sanctions enforcement against Iran, but Riyadh remains wary of confrontation and has resumed direct dialogue with Iran  to prevent conflict. Qatar and Oman are actively mediating to prevent escalation. These regional powers know a military conflict would derail their current focus on economic development.

Military confrontation with Tehran would also tighten the relationship between Iran and Russia, including in Ukraine. In the nuclear realm, Moscow could become more permissive of Iran’s march toward weaponization and could help shield Iran from further U.S. and Israeli attacks through military and intelligence cooperation.

Some argue that a more aggressive Israeli and Western posture is the only means of getting Iran to back down and that the intention is to send a signal rather than be pulled into a conflict. But this bluff has a self-reinforcing dynamic that is extremely dangerous, especially when there is no viable political off-ramp.

Read More

Iran Doubles Down on Arms for Russia

Despite fresh salvos of Western sanctions, Tehran and Moscow are buddying up on defense ties.

Report |

Robbie Gramer

The Post-Iran-Nuclear-Deal World Won’t Be Pretty

If the JCPOA really is dead, the United States will soon have to choose from a range of bad options.

Analysis |

Anchal Vohra

Iran’s Growing Rift Between Theocrats and Security Elites

In the aftermath of nationwide protests, tensions are rising among the Iranian establishment.

Analysis |

Sajjad Safaei

At this stage, much depends on Iran, which may also be playing its own game of escalatory bluffing by increasing enrichment in a bid to get the West to back down. Tehran needs to step back and also end executions and avoid further military support to Russia in Ukraine. But from the Western side, important steps are also needed to avert dangerous escalation.

First, the United States needs to clearly dial back signals of imminent military action, pressing Israel in particular to cool its recent positioning. Second, there needs to be an acknowledgment that conflict prevention and any hope of preventing nuclear escalation requires dialogue. U.S. allies in Europe, that retain important embassy presence inside Iran that can be used as a hotline for de-escalation must avoid measures that cut down channels of communication for little material gain.

The immediate focus for the West then needs to be on intensifying efforts to secure small agreements that can prevent an immediate crisis. This will have to involve arrangements to limit Iranian enrichment and broaden the scope of international inspections. It could also entail the release of European and American detainees in Iran. This will have to involve limited economic relief channeled through the West or the Arab Gulf countries to incentivize Iran.

This will neither solve the whole problem nor provide the significant inflow of economic support that the Iranian opposition fears will cement the Islamic Republic’s hold on power. But it could create breathing space to try to tackle the range of issues in a manner short of war.

Some argue that diplomacy means giving up on protesters inside Iran. But this reductionist view equates diplomatic engagement to a free pass on human rights—an approach long supported by Western-backed autocrats in the region. If anything, eliminating the prospect of diplomacy, which in turn makes the military track more likely, will set back prospects for critically needed change inside Iran because it will feed the state’s security narrative and strengthen the IRGC’s role.

Tangible measures are available to the West to simultaneously help brave Iranians inside the country—including ensuring internet access so they remain connected to the world, easing banking ties to allow remittances to flow back to them so they can survive as they protest against the state, and providing safe harbor to activists in danger. This can be followed up by building a truly multilateral and principled pressure on Iran for its human rights record.

Calibrated and targeted pressure in the form of sanctions and political pushback is necessary in response to Iran’s behavior at home and abroad. But the West and Iran are now firmly on a maximum-pressure path that is fueling dangerous escalatory dynamics. It is time to slow the runaway train before it’s too late.