President Trump’s cease-fire announcement on June 23 failed to resolve the underlying issues that sparked the conflict. The ceasefire includes a series of pitfalls, mainly the vagueness around its terms and the uncertainty about the status of Iran’s nuclear program after the strikes.
In this context, not only Tehran’s calculations are unpredictable, but the Israeli government could easily get back to its desire to enforce a chaotic regime change in Iran or impose a continued military domination, both bearing prospects for further destabilization.
A cease-fire versus a political agreement
The cease-fire announced by President Trump on his X account on June 23 is full of pitfalls. Two key elements make its fate particularly precarious.
First of all, despite the declarations of the U.S. administration, a lot of uncertainties remain over the effective impact of the Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and therefore over how long the timeframe has been extended – if at all – before Tehran is able to obtain a bomb. Where is the stockpile of uranium enriched to the 60-percent level located? What are the capacities deployed at the new secret facility that Iran announced having built right before the war? What is left from the Natanz centrifuge manufacturing facilities?
All in all, one can affirm that the military strikes have not solved the Iranian nuclear issue, certainly not for the long term.
Under these circumstances, the risk of a prolonged lack of visibility on the current nuclear developments in Iran is a worrying prospect. As its military deterrence has been severely degraded, Iran might decide, in order to gain political leverage, to suspend its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and be tempted to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Iran’s Parliament approved a fast-track bill on suspending cooperation with the IAEA, illustrating the harde-ning of its positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment