Proliferation

Even with a deal now signed, the Obama administration still has many tools for countering Iran’s menacing behavior across the Middle East.

Although Iran's missile arsenal is conventionally armed, credible reports of links with its nuclear program underscore the need for limits on missile R&D work as part of a nuclear accord.

The deadline in the Iran nuclear negotiations has just been extended. But if an agreement is ultimately reached, Tehran is expected to receive a substantial financial windfall. Critics have argued that an influx of funds will permit Iran to expand its destabilizing regional activities. The Obama administration has argued that

If the United States and its partners do not stand firm in the coming days and years, Israelis feel they may be left alone to face the ayatollahs.

Michael Singh and Simond de Galbert

The Obama administration appears to be walking back from a full accounting of Tehran's nuclear weaponization efforts, leaving ample room for further clandestine research and weakening a central pillar of the global nonproliferation regime.

The final deal needs to specify the total enrichment capacity of Iran's installed centrifuges, mandate a robust verification regime, and include other restrictions to the nuclear program's size and content.

Any agreement should be judged not only by its verifiable nuclear restraints, but also by the credibility of U.S. readiness to contain the regime's asymmetrical military, ideological, religious, economic, and diplomatic moves in the region.

Few issues have so polarized U.S. and Israeli leaders as the prospective accord with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Between Obama’s “historic opportunity” and Netanyahu’s “historic mistake” lie differing threat perceptions, divergent worldviews and regional assessments, and a deep deficit of trust. From an Israeli perspective, the U.S. administration has