The election of the pragmatic Hassan Rowhani has is no way alleviated Israeli concerns about Iran's nuclear programme. This was the main take-away from a visit to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem this past week with Survival editor Dana Allin. For every optimist comment we heard, a half dozen reasons were advanced for pessimism. Apart from two Israelis who have personal experience in Iran, our interlocutors offered a series of riffs on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's post-election warning that the West should not be taken in by appearances: Rowhani is a regime insider, who in any case is second fiddle to a grumpy old man; sanctions pressure must be tightened; engagement is not an end in itself; neither, for that matter, is a diplomatic deal unless it eliminates a latent capability to produce nuclear weapons.

Our four-day visit was book-ended by the Internet publication of two attention-grabbing commentaries, one by an Iranian who may be re-joining Rowhani's circle and one by an American who just left Obama's team. The first, by Hossein Mousavian, which came out in English the day after we arrived, suggested that Iran's best option may be to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and instead abide solely by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons as a means of guaranteeing a non-nuclear status. The second, by former State Department senior advisor Robert Einhorn, which appeared the day of our last meetings, suggested that the US and its negotiating partners should change tactics and take advantage of Rowhani's election by considering a comprehensive proposal involving sanctions relief.

Mousavian's article was seen as a window to Rowhani's aims, which most Israeli strategists already view with deep suspicion. It was noted how, in a 2004 speech, Rowhani held up Pakistan's nuclear weapons determination as an example of why Iran should not give up its quest for a full nuclear-fuel cycle. Threats to leave the NPT have already been voiced by senior members of Parliament and by Iran's ambassador in Vienna. Although Mousavian wrote the article several weeks before the election and insists it had nothing to do with Rowhani, the NPT withdrawal idea has now become associated with the president-elect. Mousavian was a key member of Rowhani's nuclear negotiating team from 2003-2005 and worked in Rowhani's think tank afterwards. He is rumoured to be under consideration for a senior position in the new government.

Mousavian's purpose, surely, was to hold out the threat of NPT withdrawal as leverage to push the West for diplomatic concessions. He knows that NPT withdrawal would be seen as a de facto declaration of nuclear weapons intention, akin to North Korea. But such subtlety was lost on at least one of our Israeli friends, who advised that we take Mousavian's threat at face value – and to ignore the fatwa, which holds no weight in Jerusalem.

Just as Mousavian's thesis confirmed Israel's worst-case perceptions of Rowhani, Einhorn's thesis may have confirmed their worries about the West being deluded by best-case thinking. Nobody criticised Einhorn directly; they remain respectful of his long-time role in applying non-proliferation rules vis-à-vis Iran and his most recent assignment in strengthening sanctions. In meetings that took place before his article came out, however, we heard ample arguments for not going wobbly. One senior official even said that if the Iranians offer a small compromise, the proper negotiating tactic in response should be to raise demands even higher, so as to show that they should have taken the deal previously offered. The role of bad cop comes easily.

To be fair, most of our interlocutors offered more nuanced views and the idea of a comprehensive agreement was not ruled out. If the US is to make a new effort for a diplomatic deal, several urged that it include limits not only on Iran's uranium enrichment capacity but also on Tehran's ability to produce plutonium, the other path to an atomic bomb. This means stopping the Arak reactor before it goes online next year. The impending Arak timeline, along with the more efficient gas centrifuges being introduced at Natanz concentrated the minds of nearly every analyst we met.

The trend lines in Iran are also concentrating Netanyahu's mind, we were assured. Never mind that he hasn't said much about it in public recently. When he made his infamous Wile E. Coyote nuclear bomb red line speech last September, Netanyahu warned that the red line of weapons capability would come in spring or summer. It is now mid-summer. And we were reminded of the aphorism that the time to worry most is when the war drums go silent.

Mark Fitzpatrick is Director of the IISS Non-Proliferation and Disarmament programme and the author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Avoiding Worst-Case Outcomes (IISS Adelphi Paper 398, 2008). His article 'Reinforce Rowhani's Mandate for Change' will appear in the August–September 2013 issue of Survival.

Back to content list

Politics and Strategy Homepage

The Survival Editors' Blog

Ideas and commentary from Survival editors and contributors

Latest Posts

  • Politics and Strategy
    23 August 2016

    Mark Fitzpatrick: Russia, Iran and the air-base deal that wasn’t

    The abruptness with which Russian use of an Iranian air base was halted this week is a reminder that the two nations are not so much allies as partners in a marriage of convenience. The episode is also a reminder...

  • Politics and Strategy
    19 August 2016

    Mark Fitzpatrick: A welcome North Korean defection

    At a London think tank two years ago, I had an argument with a North Korean diplomat. Fed up with his ambassador's peace-loving protestations and the polite questions put to him by the largely British audience, I broke protocol and asked what possible purpose was...

  • Politics and Strategy
    02 August 2016

    Dana H. Allin: Taking Trump Seriously

    Is it ‘a category error’ to critique Donald Trump’s policy ideas because, as Matthew Yglesias suggests, they are so ‘ridiculous and inconsistent’? The answer, at the most obvious level, is yes. That is why it makes more sense to focus...

  • Politics and Strategy
    01 August 2016

    Jonathan Stevenson: The German Attacks and the Categorisation Problem

    Four ‘lone wolf’ attacks within a single week rocked Germany last month – all four by Muslims, three by recent immigrants and three in Bavaria, the area of the country most accessible from the Middle East. On 18 July, an...

  • Politics and Strategy
    29 July 2016

    Mark Fitzpatrick: The security risks of nuclear weapons in Turkey outweigh the benefits

    Of the five NATO allies that still host United States nuclear weapons, I used to think that Turkey would be the last to see them removed. Unlike in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and (less so) Italy, there has been very little...