President Joe Biden and his national security team discussed potential military options to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities during a secret meeting weeks ago Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to the White House, laid out several options before President Biden and told him that a powerful and unequivocal answer must be ready in the event of Iran accelerating nuclear armament before the Presidency of Donald Trump on January 20th, 2025.
It included talks of a preemptive strike to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. No final decision was made, but the talks reflect growing alarm in the US government about Iran’s nuclear goals. It is all the more urgent given that the US is facing an administration shift with the outgoing president wanting to get things done ahead of the next candidate taking over.
In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine, the administration’s former deputy US special envoy for Iran Richard Nephew recently spelled this out. Nuclear Policy expressed by a nephew, As soon as President-elect Trump is in office the United States should make one last, bona fide effort to seek a negotiated end to the Tehran nuclear program. He also cautioned that if US attempts to secure a diplomatic solution were to fail, the United States would have to be ready to use force against Iran to stop it from going nuclear.
Debates within the US administration have attracted the attention of the world as Germany, Britain, and France again expressed concerns about Iranian nuclear activities. These European nations have appealed for fresh diplomatic moves to make sure that Iran will comply with global accords, and that more powers in the area might not experience further escalation. According to Al-Jazeera, Indirect talks between US President Joe Biden’s administration and Tehran to try to revive the pact have failed, but Trump said during his election campaign in September: “We have to make a deal because the consequences are impossible. We have to make a deal.” The January 13 talks will take place one week before Trump’s return to the White House.
For decades there has been a discussion about the possible military option against Iran’s nuclear sites. The most notable example in this regard is the Stuxnet cyberattack, attributed globally to the United States and Israel, which successfully destroyed centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment site in 2010, essentially disrupting Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The incident, which showcased the fragility of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, also demonstrated the extent to which countries will go to avert the spread of nuclear capabilities.
Noting the January 20 deadline, the world is watching closely to see what Iran makes of its unexpected victory in the country that has for so long sought regime change, and what the US administration, urging Iran to comply with its nuclear treaty obligations, will do to respond. The result of those discussions might influence stability in the region and the global non-proliferation movement.
However, the US is following the diplomatic routes for now, attempting to maximize its non-proliferation goals while navigating the waters of international relations and geopolitics. The next few weeks could be decisive for both US-Iran relations, and more broadly, the security landscape in the Middle East.
