Axios recently reported that Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor to the White House, presented President Joe Biden with several options for a potential American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, should Iran move toward developing a nuclear weapon before January 20th. This discussion occurred in a meeting held secretly several weeks ago. While Biden has not yet given the “green light” for such a strike, the website described it as a “huge gamble” in the final days of the “lame-duck” administration, which has promised not to allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon and risks transferring a “new conflict” to its successor, Donald Trump.
While the proposals referred to are still considered “planning” for any potential response from Washington if Tehran decides to enrich uranium to 90% before Trump’s inauguration, one source told the site that some of Biden’s top aides argued that Iran accelerating its nuclear program, “and its weakening and its proxies after their war with Israel,” provide the necessity and the right timing for Biden to launch an attack.
The American discussions referred to are consistent with the positions recently issued by a number of American officials and media outlets, including Sullivan; he recently considered at a conference in New York that Iranian statements that have become public about the necessity of changing the nuclear doctrine must be looked at “very carefully,” pointing out that “the strikes Iran received may push it to develop a nuclear weapon, which requires us to remain vigilant.” Meanwhile, American and Israeli officials claimed that over the past year, Iranian scientists conducted research they described as “suspicious,” likely aimed at reducing the time needed “to develop a nuclear device if the Iranian leadership decides so.”
These insights prompted the Biden administration to send a special warning to Iran in the spring, expressing its “serious” concerns about “nuclear research and development activities,” according to Western officials, amid American-Israeli fears that Iran might “exploit” the presidential transition period in the United States to make progress toward nuclear armament.
Foreign Policy magazine believes that if Iran feels “weakness,” it will not make it, in some ways, “less dangerous,” noting in a report that as a reaction to recent developments, “Iran has doubled down on its nuclear program,” placing it on a collision course not only with Israel but also with the United States and Western powers. Proponents of this view note that although the Trump administration expressed its intention to revive the “maximum pressure” policy on Tehran, the latter could be just weeks away from a “nuclear bomb,” raising doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions in preventing an “Iranian nuclear breakout” as quickly as needed.
Diplomatic Avenues
On the other side, amidst Western concerns and the military proposals that entail a “response” to the Iranian nuclear program, Richard Nephew, the “architect” of sanctions on Tehran during former President Barack Obama’s administration, published a report in the American magazine Foreign Affairs, stating that the diplomatic solution “remains the best and most sustainable option for the Iranian nuclear issue,” pointing out that “engaging Iran would lead to igniting chaos and instability in the Middle East” and would drain significant American resources at a time when Washington seeks to focus “on other areas.”
Among the reasons that mandate giving “one last chance” to diplomacy, according to the report, is the “ignorance of American officials of the outcome of any potential military attack,” given that the latter, despite the availability of necessary resources to the United States and its allies, would not guarantee the elimination of all Iranian nuclear materials and equipment, as some of it may be “in secret places, and deep underground.” Furthermore, such an attack, even if it destroyed all the nuclear equipment and materials, would not eliminate “the knowledge and nuclear science that the Iranians possess.” In a broader sense, any military strike, even if successful in delaying the Iranian nuclear program, would not be “the end,” according to the report, which follows that “the killing of Iranian physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in 2020, or the attack on a site for making centrifuges in 2021,” are prime examples of the preceding.
Despite the failure of negotiations to revive the nuclear deal in 2021 and 2022, due to Tehran’s distrust of Washington, Trump’s approval to return to the agreement may signal to Iran that reaching it is indeed possible, especially since most Democrats agree with it. Nephew notes that Iran’s nuclear progress has made time a “precious element,” warning that if Washington decides to exercise the “maximum pressure” policy again to push Iran toward negotiation, it is possible that the latter might respond by withdrawing from the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
In the context of the diplomatic movement related to the Iranian nuclear file, Tehran announced on Wednesday that it would hold a new round of nuclear talks on January 13th with the “European Troika,” which includes France, Britain, and Germany, noting that the last discussions between the parties occurred at the end of November. The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted the Deputy Foreign Minister for International Affairs, Kazem Gharib Abadi, confirming that “what is happening between Iran and the three European countries are discussions, not negotiations,” and that “Iran has always sought, in continuous cooperation with countries at the regional and international levels, to expand the scope of joint cooperation in the field of counter-terrorism.” Earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, after meeting his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi last Saturday, affirmed that 2025 “will be an important year for the Iranian nuclear issue,” praising Beijing’s support and its contribution to completing the Iranian nuclear deal.
