A Toughened US Stance toward Iran

There have been a number of indications of late that the US is adopting a new and considerably more determined approach to Iran's nuclear program. These include stepped-up pressure on Iran through sanctions without waiting for Russia and China to "come on board," as well as a series of covert actions that are specifically targeting different elements of Iran's nuclear program. The US is suspected of either leading this effort or cooperating with others in executing it.

Following the release of the November IAEA report on Iran, the US identified Iran's entire financial sector as a jurisdiction of "primary money laundering concern" under the Patriot Act, and expanded sanctions to target Iran's petroleum resources development and its petrochemical industry. On December 31, 2011, Obama signed into law significantly harsher sanctions that target the Central Bank of Iran, although he secured the power to grant 120-day waivers in cases where he believes that US national security is at stake – namely, if relations with Russia and China are at risk due to these states' trade with Iran. There are reports about US efforts to have Saudi Arabia increase its output of oil in order to mitigate the risk of a hike in oil prices that many predict will result from these measures. On the covert operations front, the series of mysterious explosions in Iran over the past few months – at a missile base, near the nuclear facility at Isfahan, and in a steel factory – join the targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists and the effects of cyber warfare, carried out via the computer worm Stuxnet.

Perhaps the strongest indication of the change in tone and approach in the United States is the string of statements over the past weeks from top US officials that place the military option squarely on the table in a more credible manner. These statements depart from previous instances where officials would repeat the mantra that "all options are on the table," but in the same breath undermine that very message with warnings about the dire implications of opening up another military front in the Middle East.

The recent statements – in terms of both content and frequency – are unprecedented in the framework of close to ten years of international efforts to confront Iran's military ambitions in the nuclear realm. The two most significant statements were one by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in mid-December in an interview with CBS, which was quickly followed by an interview with CNN by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey. In a stark turnaround from remarks he had delivered only weeks earlier, Panetta clarified to CBS in no uncertain terms not only that Iran can assemble a bomb within a year or even less (if they have a hidden facility), but that the US shares the same concern and red line as Israel as far as Iran's developing a nuclear weapon is concerned. If the US gains information that Iran is proceeding with developing weapons, it will take whatever steps are necessary to stop it. Panetta's statement is significant precisely because it reversed his previous reservations about military action, implying that he might have been led to understand that the earlier statement was not in line with the new US approach.

Dempsey also reinforced the message that the US and Israel share the same concern regarding Iran, and noted with satisfaction that different options that the US is developing are reaching the stage where they can be carried out if necessary. He was clear in saying that Iran should not make the mistake of miscalculating US resolve. These high level statements followed remarks made by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon in November, when he reiterated the determination of the Obama administration – as stated by the President himself – to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Other statements, by the US ambassador to Israel and Dennis Ross, have emphasized the unprecedented level of coordination between the US and Israel on the question of Iran's nuclear activities.

What might be behind this noteworthy change in approach? First and foremost, the change is most likely attributable to the more clear cut assessments of Iran's nuclear progress, especially as contained in the annex of the November 2011 IAEA report. As Iran advances its program and the picture becomes clearer to all, US concern is on the rise. An additional explanation for the more forceful US stance is the provocative steps on the part of Iran that have angered the administration. The plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador on US soil was not taken lightly by the administration. Similarly, the recent Iranian threats to block the Strait of Hormuz in response to a possible US and European decision to impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports triggered a direct deterrent threat to Iran. The US indicated that this would be an unacceptable breach of international law, and would constitute a clear red line regarding US action to redress the situation.

Finally, some would attribute the new determination in the Iranian sphere, and especially the emphasis on coordination with Israel, to election year politics and Obama's need to court Jewish voters. While there are indications of a greater degree of coordination of positions with Israel, this confluence is not necessarily political only, if at all. Rather, Iran's actions themselves have sparked a fuller convergence of interests. The closer Iran gets to its goal, and the more it demonstrates its willingness to confront the international community with force, the more agreement there seems to be about what Iran is doing, the threat it poses, and the way to confront it.

What impact is this change likely to have on international efforts in the coming months? With regard to the US itself, putting in place a credible threat of military force and consequences for Iranian intransigence is a necessary condition for increasing prospects that Iran might finally get serious about negotiations. Absent such a threat, Iran has demonstrated that its interest in acquiring nuclear weapons is stronger than any inducements it was offered in the context of diplomatic efforts over the past decade. With regard to the P5+1, the new approach underscores the deepening divide between the US and Russia/China as far as the preferred means of dealing with Iran, and there is no visible path at present that leads back to greater cooperation, especially with the issue of missile defense in Europe sparking some of the harshest Russian rhetoric toward the US in years.

In parallel to the Obama administration's approval of tough new sanctions, and despite its deep-seated aversion to the economic consequences of harsher sanctions, Europe has agreed in principle to impose an embargo on oil from Iran, with a final decision expected in late January. In addition, the European Union announced its willingness to return to negotiations with Iran, as long as Iran sets no preconditions. Yet Catherine Ashton seems not to have received any message from Iran that would give her reason to expect a better outcome of negotiations today over results from last year's failed talks in Turkey. Without clear indication of a changed Iranian approach, a new round of negotiations at this time would not only be an exercise in futility, but could very well undercut the new level of determination that the US has begun to exhibit.