The U.S. and Iran held a pivotal third round of talks in Geneva on February 26, in what many saw as a last-ditch effort to stave off U.S. military action. Washington has focused the talks on Iran’s nuclear program, but at times suggested that limits on its ballistic missiles and support for so-called proxies in the region are necessary to reach a deal.
Middle East Program Director Rose Kelanic argues in a new explainer that the U.S. should focus solely on nuclear issues in these negotiations with Iran.
In this DEFP Q&A, Kelanic explains why nuclear issues matter most to U.S. interests and what the U.S. should do if the talks fail. (This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.)
What’s the state of play for these negotiations?
Kelanic: Well, it’s a good thing that they’re still talking. Iran has gone into these talks trying to telegraph in every way it can that it’s willing to make concessions on its nuclear program, but it’s not willing to make concessions on ballistic missiles or on support for regional terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
The United States’ position is much less clear. President Trump has said that the U.S. can never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, but what that entails in terms of exact limits isn’t clear. There’s also been discussion about whether missiles and proxy groups should be included in the talks, but American red lines remain unclear at this point, even after three rounds of negotiations.
Why should the U.S. keep the talks focused on nuclear issues alone?
Kelanic: The nuclear issue is the place where an agreement is both most attainable and most valuable. If Iran went nuclear, it would not be the end of the world for the United States. Iran is not a major threat to the United States. It can’t reach the United States militarily in any way, shape, or form.
That said, the U.S. has an interest in preventing nuclear proliferation by any country, including Iran, and if the U.S. wants to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon, the best way to do it is with a diplomatic arrangement that has inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency monitor and verify that Iran is complying with the provisions of the deal.
The ballistic missiles and support for terrorist groups are different issues. For Iran, those are two of its main deterrents. Iran is a weak country, much weaker than the United States or Israel. It can’t afford missile defense or an air force. So its way of deterring threats is to have this missile program with which it can potentially retaliate against U.S. bases in the region and against Israel. It’s not going to give up that retaliation capability, because if it did, it would essentially be defenseless.
Iranian support for terrorists is repugnant and awful. But it’s not a reason for the United States to go to war with Iran. These terrorist groups weren’t created by Iran. They exist for their own purposes and they do have some agency here. Even if Iran stopped supporting them tomorrow, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis would not just cease to exist. They also don’t attack U.S. targets by and large, and can’t hit anywhere outside the region either.
What should the U.S. do if the talks fail?
Kelanic: The overarching imperative for U.S. interests is not to get into another forever war in the Middle East—and a secondary imperative is to not even get into a small war. The Trump administration seems to believe that a limited strike on Iran could improve the United States’ negotiating position. Of course, if we strike Iran at all, it’s very possible that they’ll retaliate and could kill U.S. troops in the region.
Ultimately, while it would be better for the world if Iran didn’t get nuclear weapons, fighting a war over this issue would be much worse than having Iran maintain a nuclear program. Iran can’t hit the United States. And the only reason that we are having this standoff is because the Trump administration brought the standoff to Iran. The U.S. chose to create this confrontation, and it might be somewhat embarrassing for Trump if he pulls the United States back. But Washington shouldn’t fight wars or risk American troops’ lives for credibility or to save face. The far better path is to dial down the pressure and move on to something else.
Author
