by Zoe Curtaz
“As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”
On January 8th, 2020, Donald Trump began his remarks detailing the recent U.S. military action in Iran with these words, reiterating an internationally-held belief that nuclear proliferation to Iran would be incredibly dangerous for the globe, especially in the already unstable Middle East. However, Trump’s words and actions tell two different stories, as his current strategy, characterized by his usual brazen arrogance, is instead driving Iran to consider developing their own nuclear arsenal to fortify themselves against American hostility.
It is ironic that two of the nations most vehemently opposed to nuclear weapons proliferation to Iran – the U.S. and Israel – are nuclear-armed themselves. The Arms Control Association explains this paradox by arguing that “a nuclear-armed Iran would change the politics and the security of the region dramatically.” This motive for ensuring non-proliferation differs greatly from that of the disarmament movement, which sees the proliferation of nuclear weapons to any state to be in direct contradiction of its goals. Either way, experts have begun to sound the alarm as Iran appears closer than ever to developing a nuclear weapon.
U.S. policy to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions was a contentious point of Trump’s first presidency. In 2018, he pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), just two years after it went into effect. The agreement restricted Iran from producing highly enriched uranium (HEU), the key fissile material in a nuclear weapon, and required consistent monitoring through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in return for sanctions relief. Although the deal was imperfect – opponents pointed to the inability of sunset provisions and unfreezing of Iranian assets to halt nuclear weapons production in the long run – the IAEA certified Iranian compliance to the preliminary pledges, a step in the right direction for nuclear disarmament advocates. At the time, scholars at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs discussed Trump’s decision to pull out of the deal, with many characterizing the move as a “bad choice,” “major strategic mistake,” and “historic error.” Only one agreed that it was “a much needed move.”
Today, after seven years without a new deal, Trump’s mismanagement once again threatens to push Iran closer to achieving nuclear status. Amid ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, Trump has warned about the “great danger” facing Iranians and a “bombing the likes of which they have never seen before” if a new deal is not reached. Countering this, a senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had revealed a hardened resolve to resist Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign. Iran has indicated that they may expel IAEA inspectors if threats of military action continue, shutting the country’s doors to global monitoring and further dismantling Iran’s original JCPOA commitments. These warnings should be taken very seriously. At the beginning of April, the Institute for Science and International Security released a report that the Iranian nuclear threat has worsened significantly since February 2024, further exacerbating its overall threat score of Extreme Danger. Since then, Iran has doubled its stock of 60 percent HEU, which has substantially decreased its breakout time to produce a nuclear weapon. Equipped with a significant source of almost-ready material, Iran remains poised to reach the 90 percent HEU threshold necessary to produce weapons-grade material in a matter of days.
Following the first two rounds of negotiations, Trump’s hardline tactics seem to be already dissipating, as he has increasingly favored negotiating a deal over supporting an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. However, the path forward is still unclear. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi disclosed that mixed messages about the Trump administration’s objective – whether to pursue limiting or fully dismantling Iran’s nuclear enrichment program – have been “very unhelpful.” Unsurprisingly, Trump’s ego has also cast a shadow over the negotiations as he attempts to fulfill his original promise to sign a deal better than Obama’s. Rather than bringing diplomacy, cooperation, and a clear plan to the negotiation table, the current administration continues to prioritize Trump’s self-serving agenda at the expense of global security.
__
Zoe Curtaz is a junior at Lesley University and an intern at Massachusetts Peace Action