Worthless Moves

As the Iran nuclear talks continue, a report from The Jerusalem Post tells us that Israel has their own views on things:

With Israel concerned that the Trump administration may cut a weak new nuclear deal with Iran, one way out of such a scenario could be a theoretical Mossad operation that kills the key Iranian official who ordered 400 ballistic missiles fired on Israel in 2024, think-tank sources conjectured to The Jerusalem Post.

Their logic is to stop a nuclear Iran by goading Iran into attacking Israel again:

The purpose of this theoretical scenario would be to provoke the Islamic Republic into a new direct attack on the Jewish state, which could then be used as a basis for a wide strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities even after a new nuclear deal would have been cut with Trump.

Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps air force chief, publicly declared his role in trying to harm Israel in multiple rounds of attacking it with around 400 ballistic missiles in 2024.

Such a move was discussed last year:

A number of Israeli and American officials even discussed assassinating him in October 2024 as a potential response to Tehran’s second direct attack – though in the end, Jerusalem sufficed with destroying Iranian air defense and ballistic missile production capabilities.

Although Hajizadeh failed to kill Israelis, this was only due to a monumental air defense effort by the US, Israel, and many other allies.

There is still the chance that diplomacy will work:

Of course, there is still hope that the Trump administration can be convinced to either demand a deal that truly cuts off the ayatollahs’ path to a nuclear bomb or to maintain the current maximum pressure campaign, Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright told the Post.

According to Albright, “For the first time in years, maximum pressure is working, and it can be ramped up further. Moreover, the military option is credible. The Iranian regime is facing the prospect of its collapse.

Albright does see a possibility where a military attack may still happen:

“Without concessions that go beyond JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), it is better to keep increasing pressure.”

“If the regime refuses to make these concessions, then it makes sense to carry out targeted destruction of key nuclear assets and capabilities, and perhaps certain leaders, with a threat to destroy far more, such as economic targets and leadership, if the regime moves to rebuild its nuclear sites or starts to build a nuclear weapon,” he added.

Iranian Concessions Needed

According to another source, US negotiations shouldn’t go any further until Trump gets the concessions needed to end the Iranian nuclear program:

Former national security council (NSC) chief Jacob Nagel echoed to the Post, saying that Trump should not get deep into negotiations with Iran, as it seems he is doing, unless he first secures most of the concessions needed to end its nuclear program.

Both Nagel and Albright see the need for agreeing to end the program altogether first and then the talks moving to when the ending happens and what Iran gets for doing it:

Accordingly, both Nagel, who is currently a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Albright agreed that the key is framing the process as an Iranian surrender of its nuclear program, with the negotiated details being more about the timing of taking it apart and of Iran receiving sanctions relief following its compliance.

As I’ve heard from the Trump team so far, there are indications that a watered down deal is being pushed:

But what if Trump does go forward with a deal that he frames as better than the 2015 JCPOA Iran nuclear deal, and that does have some advantages, but still leaves far too many loopholes for a country already far closer to crossing the nuclear threshold than it has ever been?

Nagel warned that Trump’s current direction seems to be the “less for less” model nuclear deal in which “they want to carry out the model of interim confidence-building measures.”

Nagel sees Iran getting an edge the way things are going now:

“Some of the 60% enriched uranium will be diluted for partial sanctions relief,” which, to the former NSC chief, smacks of giving away most of the US’s leverage over Iran without even returning to a weak JCPOA-style deal.

He cautioned, “If this is how it plays out, Israel’s chance to attack will disappear, and then Iran will get stronger again.”

Nagel said that some concessions are meaningless:

Nagel was pressed about specific theoretical concessions that Trump might seek from Iran, which would fall short of an end to the nuclear program, such as shutting down or destroying the underground nuclear facility at Fordow.

“Fordow is not relevant. Even if they destroyed it now, it would not be worth anything and destroying Natanz [Iran’s largest nuclear facility] would not be worth anything,” he responded.

How Should Things Happen?

Nagel explained a path to eliminating the nuclear threat noting that Iran can still pursue a nuclear weapon even if the two sites are taken out of the picture:

Explaining all the other ways that Iran could move toward a nuclear weapon even without Fordow and Natanz, Nagel stated, “They have around 275kg. of 60% enriched uranium; they have underground facilities; and they have advanced centrifuges which enrich at 10 times the rate of the older models.”

“All they need is 500 advanced centrifuges, their weapons group, some missiles, and for sure they will eventually get to a nuclear weapon,” he said.

He then got into the specific details of slowing down the Iranian nuclear program:

Questioned about what interim concessions – short of ending the nuclear program, which is what Israel wants – would at least set Tehran back somewhat, he responded:

“At least if they dilute all 275kg. of 60% enriched uranium, we would get a buffer of a few months until they would be able to re-enrich the uranium back to high levels, but ultimately that would not be enough” of a concession for Israel and the West to remain safe from a potential Iranian nuclear threat.

Albright gave his suggestions for the Trump team:

According to Albright, the most critical concessions Trump needs to secure from Iran to make any real difference in its ability to acquire nuclear weapons would be: “destruction of excess centrifuges; blending down of all 20 and 60% enriched uranium; demonstration of cooperation with the IAEA; and progress on issues of undeclared nuclear material and activities before any sanctions relief.”

After those measures are achieved, Albright would also push hard for Trump to close the Fordow facility to return to the initial limits and monitoring of the JCPOA nuclear deal, but for 20 years, not 10 years.

Further, he would recommend that Trump demands “ratification of Additional Protocol and Code 3.1, and demonstration of cooperation, such as providing access to key people and information relevant to the Amad Plan.” The Amad Plan was Iran’s code term for its clandestine nuclear weapons program from 1999-2003, prior to its discovery by the Mossad and the CIA.

The carrot for Iran would be lifting the sanctions and the threat of future ones:

Moreover, Albright said that not only should the limits on Iran’s nuclear program be extended for 20 years, but so should the threat of the global snapback sanctions mechanism.

Nagel has his path to follow forward, too:

Nagel’s formula for permanent nuclear disarmament of Iran is similar and requires wiping out all vestiges of uranium enrichment, weaponization activities, and the ballistic missile program (to the extent that it can in any way be adjusted to carry nuclear warheads.)

An Israeli voice has his opinions as well, but he also wonders what could happen if nothing works:

Former NSC chief Meir Ben-Shabbat also has a similar stance for eliminating the nuclear program completely. After all of this, Nagel said the toughest scenario would be if “Israel will need to act – but what if Trump says ‘Don’t act?’” as opposed to not approving or nixing an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

And that leads to my opinion on all this. Iran will never end their nuclear ambitions unless they are forced to but I don’t see that happening when they are this close to fulfilling them. They can stall and wait things out until they clandestinely have it ready. As alluded to by Albright and Nagel, they may be hiding their capabilities and only stop things that they don’t need anymore. I see the US taking out Fordow and Natanz and Israel taking out the southern Iran nuclear plants. This actually will fulfil the prophecy in Jeremiah 49:34-38:

God’s message against Elam came to Jeremiah in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah: 35 The Lord says: I will destroy the army of Elam, 36 and I will scatter the people of Elam to the four winds; they shall be exiled to countries throughout the world. 37 My fierce anger will bring great evil upon Elam, says the Lord, and I will cause her enemies to wipe her out. 7TLB)

Ancient Elam is now part of modern day Iran and is home to the Bushehr Nuclear facilities. A Nuclear meltdown will force those living there to evacuate much like Chernobyl. And it would take out the last of the three key areas of Iran’s nuclear program. But your mileage may vary.