Today, CNAS released a paper by my colleague Dr. Colin H. Kahl that provides some important context for the talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries that took place earlier this month and will continue on Nov. 20. The paper argues (pg. 2) that a final deal should seek three main goals: 1) Lengthen breakout times; 2) Shorten detection timelines; 3) Provide assurances against a covert nuclear infrastructure.
It warns (pg. 4-5) against the dangers of pursuing a maximalist deal for four broad reasons:
1) “[I]t is unclear if any escalation of sanctions could bring the regime to its knees in time to prevent Iran from achieving a breakout capability.”
2) “[S]omewhat paradoxically, escalating sanctions at this moment could actually end up weakening international pressure on Iran.”
3) “[I]ssuing more explicit military threats (through a possible authorization of use of military force, for example) is also unlikely to achieve a maximalist diplomatic outcome.”
4) “[A]ttempting to generate an existential crisis for the Islamic Republic could backfire by increasing the regime’s incentives to acquire nuclear weapons.”
The paper then goes on to explain (pg. 5-6) the major components of a “sufficient” deal. They include, broadly:
1) Significant constraints on uranium enrichment
2) Significant constraints on the plutonium track
3) An intrusive inspections regime
4) Transparency into past military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program
Kahl concludes that “if we are to avoid the worst possible outcomes – unconstrained Iranian nuclearization or another major war in the Middle East – then a good-if-imperfect deal is clearly preferable to no deal at all.” Of course, the devil is very much in the details—and Kahl gets into all of them, so read on if you’re interested. You can find the full paper here.
More from CNAS
CommentarySharper: Global Coronavirus Response
As regions across the United States enforce states of emergency and a growing list of countries restrict travel, close schools, and quarantine citizens, the economic and human...
By Chris Estep & Cole Stevens
CommentaryThe American Public Wants a Sustainable Middle East Policy
After the U.S. strike on Qasem Soleimani, Americans feared the United States was on the brink of war with Iran. “World War III draft” memes circulated around the internet, and...
By Kaleigh Thomas & Emma Moore
CommentaryThe Iranian Missile Strike Did Far More Damage Than Trump Admits
Over 100 American soldiers have been treated for traumatic brain injuries following Iran’s missile strike on Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq. The strike came in retaliation f...
By Loren DeJonge Schulman & Paul Scharre
CommentarySending Troops Back to the Middle East Won’t Stop Iran
The Trump administration’s decision to kill Qassam Soleimani is the latest in an escalatory “maximum pressure” Iran strategy that is shifting American foreign policy attention...
By Chris Dougherty & Kaleigh Thomas