Listen to the article
Iran’s Nuclear Program: Unraveling Decades of Confrontation and Diplomacy
In a recent interview with The American Conservative, foreign policy expert Scott Horton offered a comprehensive analysis of U.S.-Iran relations, particularly focusing on the contentious issue of Iran’s nuclear program and the legal framework surrounding it.
Horton argues that successive U.S. administrations have consistently shifted negotiating terms with Iran at Israel’s behest, presenting what he describes as intentionally unacceptable demands. The latest reported Trump ultimatum requires Iran to not only end its nuclear program but also cease producing missiles capable of reaching Israel and terminate support for groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
“It’s a deal that was made to be rejected,” Horton states, comparing it to the Rambouillet Accord that preceded the Kosovo War in 1999. He points out that Iran’s leadership has maintained since 2006 that abandoning uranium enrichment entirely is non-negotiable, viewing it as “a matter of national independence and national pride.”
The demand regarding missile capabilities is equally problematic, according to Horton. “What good is a missile deterrent if it has to be short of the range that can hit the country that’s threatening you?” he questions, highlighting the fundamental contradiction in these requirements.
Iran’s relationship with nuclear technology dates back to 1968 when it became a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under this agreement, Iran committed to allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of its nuclear facilities to verify that nuclear materials weren’t being diverted for military purposes.
While Iran began developing nuclear reactors during the Shah’s era in the 1970s, these efforts were largely abandoned after the 1979 revolution. The country didn’t establish indigenous fuel-production capabilities until the opening of the Natanz enrichment facility in 2005-2006, using uranium from domestic supplies and equipment reportedly acquired through A.Q. Khan’s black market network.
Horton explains that uranium enrichment exists on a spectrum: 3.6% enrichment for electricity generation, 20% for medical isotopes, and around 90% for weapons-grade material. The technical capability to enrich uranium, he argues, has been framed by American and Israeli hawks as inherently threatening, despite being permitted under the NPT for peaceful purposes.
“From the Israeli point of view, enrichment at all is unacceptable,” Horton notes, explaining how this perspective has influenced U.S. policy across administrations. He characterizes Iran’s approach as creating “a latent nuclear deterrent” – not an actual bomb, but the capability to produce one if needed – similar to the status of countries like Brazil, Germany, and Japan.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) represented a diplomatic breakthrough, with Iran agreeing to significant restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Under the agreement, Iran poured concrete into its heavy water reactor, scaled back centrifuge operations, and accepted unprecedented inspection protocols. However, Horton points out that promised sanctions relief largely failed to materialize.
In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the agreement at the urging of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions – a policy continued under President Biden. Last year, military strikes targeted key Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, significantly hampering Iran’s capabilities.
Looking ahead to potential new talks between the U.S. and Iran, Horton expresses uncertainty about Trump’s intentions. “I don’t know whether Trump is trying to build an escape hatch or if he means to give them an offer they can’t possibly accept,” he says.
Horton concludes by suggesting that Trump would be “out of his mind” to initiate an unprovoked war of regime change against Iran, given the unpredictable commitments such a conflict would entail. “He has no real reason to do it and a hell of a lot of reasons not to risk it,” Horton observes, pointing to Trump’s own expressed concerns about military operations that could end in disaster.
As global tensions continue to simmer, the path forward remains uncertain, with decades of mistrust, shifting demands, and regional power dynamics complicating prospects for diplomatic resolution.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Horton’s insights on Iran’s redlines regarding uranium enrichment and missile deterrence are informative. While these issues are understandably contentious, a workable compromise seems possible if all parties are willing to negotiate in good faith. Avoiding further escalation should be the top priority.
Agreed, the path forward requires flexibility, patience and a genuine commitment to diplomacy from all sides. Intransigence and inflexible demands will only deepen the impasse.
This is a nuanced and balanced analysis of the complex US-Iran relationship. I appreciate Horton’s perspective on the negotiation dynamics and Iran’s core positions. It’s clear the demands on Iran are designed to be unacceptable – a concerning approach that risks further escalation.
Agreed, the reported ultimatum does seem intended to provoke rejection rather than reach a diplomatic solution. De-escalation and pragmatic negotiations are sorely needed to avoid a potentially disastrous conflict.
This analysis highlights the complex web of geopolitical interests and shifting negotiation tactics that have defined the US-Iran nuclear dispute. I’m curious to learn more about the historical precedents Horton cites, like the Rambouillet Accord. Understanding the context is key to evaluating the current dynamics.
Iran’s national pride and independence are understandable given the history of foreign interference. While missile capabilities are a legitimate concern, the US demands appear unrealistic and counterproductive. A more constructive dialogue is needed to address all sides’ core security interests.
You make a fair point. Overly aggressive posturing often backfires and entrenches positions. A nuanced, patient diplomatic approach has a better chance of yielding meaningful progress on this longstanding dispute.
This article provides a thought-provoking counterpoint to the more hawkish narratives often pushed regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Horton’s analysis suggests the US negotiating position may be unrealistic and designed to torpedo progress. A more impartial, evidence-based approach is clearly needed.