Two weeks ago, US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman demonstrated the Biden administration’s magical thinking on Iran at the International Student House. State Department spokesman Ned Price insisted last week that there was a deadline for the talks, but did not say whether it would be in one day or five years. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program continues unabated. Progressives and the State Department may not like President Donald Trump for pulling out of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but that’s wrong for three reasons: First, Iran is tied by the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The JCPOA did not release Iran from its legal obligations. Second, Iran’s enrichment did not increase when Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, but when the Biden administration ended Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s “maximum pressure” campaign. Here, the calendar of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is final. Third, the JCPOA did not do what Presidents Obama and Biden said they would do. For the Biden team, basing its Iran strategy on fantasy rather than reality could quickly lead to the worst: not only is Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but a time when Supreme Leader adviser Ali Khamenei, Kamal Kharazi, says the situation is now very dangerous. The question is not when, not if, and an endless conflict that will destabilize the region.

Biden’s team may be obsessed with Iran’s nuclear program. Biden likely won’t live to see the results. Special envoy Robert Malley (an American lawyer, political scientist and specialist in conflict resolution, who was the main negotiator of the 2015 agreement) never saw the Islamic Republic as a threat. Through the prism of his moral equivalence, he believes Iran has the right to possess nuclear weapons.

Washington believes that they must do the maximum against Iran and South Lebanon (In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and during the conflict, according to Lebanese sources, between 15,000 and 20,000 people were killed, for the most civilians.) and imagine others should just take the pieces. Unfortunately, this is the scenario that Biden’s Iran policy is now leading to.

Undersecretary Sherman said “there is a very workable deal and Iran just has to say ‘yes,'” explaining that domestic politics are likely at stake as to who the current supreme leader really is. nation. She also privately believes that a failure in negotiations with Iran will be no worse than her failure with North Korean diplomacy. However, she added that North Korea had not (yet) used its nuclear weapons. However, there is no threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other regional states from nuclear Iran, but it is very unpleasant. If the regime collapses within a day or two and unless popular forces take control of Tehran, theoretically assessed IRGC units guarding, commanding and controlling Iran’s nuclear arsenal could seize power and launch an offensive to achieve their ideological goals before the end.

This situation makes regional states more fanatical about Iran’s nuclear program than the White House. Some academics believe that Iran’s nuclear debacle will be another opportunity to avoid blame if they don’t take it seriously. It can also be an existential threat to the Jewish entity of Israel. It might then be possible for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear program. But there is a question, why Israel was not against Iraq in 1981 but against Syria in 2007. I think Iran is not against Iraq or Syria. While Iraq had only Osirak and Syria only Al-Kabar, Iran’s nuclear program spans the entire country and includes more than a dozen targets. Moreover, Iran is bigger and more distant than Syria or Iraq. Iran is about four times bigger than Iraq and about nine times bigger than Syria.

It can also be difficult to defuse Iranian airfields, anti-aircraft missile batteries and Iranian command and control centers to strike multiple targets because many Iranian nuclear sites are underground. On the other hand, Iran can probably retaliate against Israel with Hezbollah’s missile arsenal and with Houthi missiles and drones against Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In short, this means that the decision to launch a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities requires not dozens of flights, but thousands of flights over several days.

The downside of such a military strike, of course, is that it validates Iran’s rhetoric about its need for nuclear weapons. History saw the Islamic Revolution collapse when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded and allowed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to consolidate power. After all, the biggest downside of a military strike is not overthrowing the regime and the nuclear program, but delaying it. Between 2010 and 2012, four Iranian nuclear scientists, Masoud Alimohammadi, Majid Shahriari, Darioush Rezaeinejad and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, were assassinated, while another, Fereydoon Abbasi, was injured in an attempted murder. In November 2020, another scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was murdered.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement, but Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said: “We will act in any way and are not prepared to tolerate an Iran armed with the weapon nuclear”. Unfortunately, this is the scenario that Biden’s Iran policy is now leading to.

Washington believes that they must do the maximum against Iran and South Lebanon (In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon and during the conflict, according to Lebanese sources, between 15,000 and 20,000 people were killed, for the most civilians.) and imagine others should just take the pieces. Unfortunately, this is the scenario that Biden’s Iran policy is now leading to.