The failure of diplomatic efforts to bring Iran back to the JCPOA nuclear deal, and the problematic role being played by Iran in the Russia-Ukraine war, require a new Western strategy regarding Iran. This would aggressively push back against Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional aggressions to reduce the risk of actual war with Iran. It also would seek to reverse the drift of regional players toward Russia and China, and to stabilize a new global order.
Washington should seek a joint U.S.-European declaration that the JCPOA no longer holds, and a U.N. Security Council resolution on the resumption of sanctions on Iran ("snapback"). The United States should also advance a military option against Iran and pose a credible threat to the survival of the Islamic Republic's regime. This would not necessarily lead to war. Just the opposite is true: Without such measures, the likelihood of a violent eruption in the Middle East significantly will increase.
The present Iranian leadership could not have hoped for an easier period than the one it is now experiencing. Tehran is marching forward towards its hegemonic goals, unhindered and away from the limelight.
While Washington is absorbed by domestic concerns, by the war in Ukraine, and by the ebb and flow of tensions with China (and while Israel is distracted with internal disputes), Iran is enhancing relations with Russia and China. Iran may very well feel that catapulting to the threshold of military nuclear power is but a simple, riskless decision away.
Iran has enriched uranium to 84 percent which is very close to the 90 percent level necessary for a nuclear weapon. It has accumulated significant amounts of fissile material at various levels of enrichment and is barring International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors access to sites associated with the nuclear project. It refuses to answer the agency's questions.
At the same time, Iran is continuing its subversive activities across the region via proxy forces, deepening its political, economic and security grip in Iraq and Syria, expanding its production and export of military drones, and overall playing a significant role in the creation of an anti-American axis.
Internal protests against the regime in Iran are continuing but have been contained by brutal repression. The protests have not succeeded, yet, in posing a real threat to the regime.
As for Western responses, the European Union parliament indeed has adopted a resolution calling to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its subsidiaries as terror organizations (given its terror activities, its involvement in repressing dissent, and its supplying of drones to Russia), but this is a non-binding text. The resolution has been met with derision and disdain by the IRGC commander, General Hussein Salami. He warned that such Western resolutions only motivate the IRGC to escalate its opposition to "Iran's enemies."
U.S. policy towards Iran remains anemic. President Joe Biden and his team regularly declare their commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining military nuclear capability, but they present neither a plan of action nor take active measures towards this goal.
Biden may have said, in passing, that the JCPOA "deal is dead," but the fact that no such formal announcement has been made, and no alternative measures have been announced, leaves open the prospect that Washington has not yet fully abandoned the idea of a return to former President Barack Obama's weak nuclear deal with Iran.
Iran's arrogance and its overweening self-confidence regarding the Biden administration demonstrates the erosion of U.S. standing and influence in the Middle East. This can be deduced from the conduct of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, which studiously have avoided siding with the U.S. against Russia on Ukraine and have bolstered their relations with China in the search for diplomatic support, alongside or in place of Washington's.
Even committed believers in the diplomatic option within the White House will find it difficult to deny that their approach to Iran has failed, with the U.S. paying dearly as a result. Now, with diplomacy at the point of collapse and in the face of Iran's provocative involvement in the war in Ukraine, it is finally time for Washington to check Iran's aggrandizement and aggression (as long urged by Israel), and in the process to rebuild U.S. ties with pro-Western countries in the Middle East.
This is the place to note that in Iran's view both its nuclear and conventional build-up are meant primarily to secure the survival of the Islamist regime against external foreign intervention. But the regime is there not just to survive. It is driven by an ambitious vision of Islamic revolution and regional hegemony.
In the past, sanctions have taken a heavy economic toll on Iran. However, sanctions not only have failed to generate a real threat to the regime's survival, they have not halted Iran's terrorist aims nor its military build-up.
The Biden administration cannot leave the Iranian question hanging. It would do well to put together a road map with the following elements: Snapback sanctions on Iran with tight supervision (especially of Iranian oil exports and dual-use technologies); designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization across Europe; suspension of Iranian membership in international forums; sanctions and economic pressure on individuals and organizations involved in repressing human rights; penalties on key Iranian industries; covert disruptive measures against Iran's nuclear program; and the articulation and demonstration of a credible military threat against Iran's rulers.
Some Americans fear that such steps will bring the U.S. closer to war with Iran. We argue that instead these moves will enhance American deterrence and prevent war. The elimination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 by a U.S. drone strike is a case in point. Iran reduced its overall terrorist activity in the wake of this bold move. Tehran understood the imbalance of power between the U.S. and Iran.
While this may not be a sufficient base upon which to draw broader conclusions, it does suggest that there is no need to overstate the dangers involved in tough action against Iran, nor to ignore the huge gap in relative strength between the two rivals. And the cost of the alternative—the implications of failure to act against Iran—must be borne in mind.
Meir Ben Shabbat is head of Misgav: The Institute for Zionist Strategy & National Security, in Jerusalem. He served as Israel's national security advisor and head of the National Security Council between 2017 and 2021, and for 25 years held senior positions in Israel's General Security Service. Eran Lerman is vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. He served as a deputy national security advisor, and for 25 years held senior positions in Israeli military intelligence.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
