Iran International
Iran’s nuclear strategy has entered an ambiguous new phase, said veteran non-proliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick, and Israel’s attacks in June could have left intact Tehran's ability to pivot toward a bomb if it so chose.
"It’s all about ambiguity. Nuclear hedging is all about the other side not knowing exactly what we have or exactly what our intentions are," Fitzpatrick, an associate fellow with The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), told Eye for Iran.
Fitzpatrick, the author of “The Iranian Nuclear Crisis" and former US Deputy Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation, spoke after Iran this week rejected a new International Atomic Energy Agency resolution demanding access to its bombed nuclear sites.
US strikes capped off a surprise military campaign against Iran in June and targeted the Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow nuclear sites. Iranian authorities have barred international inspection of the stricken facilities in the months since.
A leaked report from the UN nuclear watchdog says it has lost continuity of knowledge on Iran’s 60 percent enriched uranium stockpile, which had grown to roughly 400 kilograms before the attacks.
Rafael Grossi, head of the agency warned this week that monitoring gaps have become a serious proliferation risk. Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, responded by saying the resolution voided an earlier deal with the nuclear body.
What has actually changed?
Fitzpatrick says none of these developments signal a shift in Iran’s doctrine and that ambiguity may be a deliberate part of Iran's strategy.
“I don’t see any evidence that they’ve given up the desire to have a nuclear option for the future.” He argued Iran remains committed to so-called nuclear hedging, a strategy designed to maintain the capability to produce a weapon quickly while avoiding the political cost of crossing the threshold.
What has changed is Iran’s capacity, as Iran's foreign minister said this week that no enrichment had occurred since the attacks. “We’re not enriching for now because we can’t,” Abbas Araghchi said this week.
Araghchi told The Economist in an interview published on Thursday that Tehran is open to talks with the United States but not on Washington’s terms. “Zero enrichment is impossible ... zero (nuclear) weapons is possible.”
Fitzpatrick believes Iran is now stuck between possible inclination to revive its nuclear capability and desire to avoid renewed attack.
If Tehran tries to recover the buried canisters of 60 percent material or construction accelerates at the sensitive sites, he says Israel will likely strike again. The current drift, Fitzpatrick added, may be a sign of Iran making a bid for time, or "temporizing."
Despite the damage, Fitzpatrick believes the strikes may have strengthened the internal argument for a bomb.
“It probably steels a determination to have an option.”
Regional dynamics add further risk
In Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was in Washington this week he inked a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with Washington, which “builds the legal foundation for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar nuclear energy partnership."
It positions the United States as Saudi Arabia’s “civil nuclear cooperation partner of choice," according to a release by the White House.
White House officials said the partnership would not entail Saudi enrichment, though it adds another nuclear element to the tense Persian Gulf region.
“If Saudi Arabia has an enrichment capability, then not just Iran, but other states in the region will say well we should have it too.”
You can watch the full episode of Eye for Iran on YouTube or listen on any podcast platform of your choosing.
“Like the diplomacy which was assaulted by Israel and the US in June, the Cairo Agreement has been killed by the US and the E3,” Araghchi wrote on X, referring to Britain, France and Germany.
He said the chain of events began when “Iran was suddenly attacked by Israel and then the US” on the eve of a new round of indirect nuclear talks.
“When Iran later signed a deal with the IAEA in Cairo to resume inspections despite the bombings, the E3 pursued UN sanctions against our people under US pressure,” he wrote.
Araghchi said that when Iran began allowing International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors access to its facilities, “the US and the E3 ganged up to censure Iran” at the agency’s Board of Governors.
“Iran is not the party that seeks to manufacture another crisis,” he added. “The official termination of the Cairo Agreement is the direct outcome of their provocations.”
Tehran says resolution is politically driven
His comments followed Iran’s announcement that it will respond to a resolution passed on Thursday by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors, which Tehran called “illegal and unjustified.” The Foreign Ministry said the measure, backed by Washington and its European allies, was a “political misuse of the Agency” and had nullified the Cairo inspection accord reached in September.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said Tehran had officially informed the IAEA that the understanding reached in Cairo was “no longer valid.” “The so-called Cairo accord, which had been achieved through lengthy negotiations and Iran’s goodwill, is now considered void,” he told state media.
The ministry said the United States and the three European countries “ignored Iran’s responsible and good-faith conduct, disrupting the positive path that had emerged between Iran and the Agency, and forced Iran to declare the termination of the September 9 understanding.”
Resolution presses Iran for access after attacks
The IAEA Board of Governors adopted the Western-backed resolution urging Iran to provide full access and information about its nuclear program. Diplomats said the measure passed with 19 votes in favor, three against and 12 abstentions, with Russia, China and Niger voting against it.
The resolution calls on Iran to allow verification of its enriched uranium stockpile and inspections at sites damaged by US and Israeli airstrikes in June. Iran says those attacks killed several nuclear scientists and halted cooperation with the Agency because of security concerns.
Earlier this week, Araghchi said Washington’s approach amounted to “dictation, not negotiation,” accusing the US of trying to achieve through diplomacy what it failed to gain by force. “They want us to accept zero enrichment and limits on our defense capabilities,” he said. “This is not negotiation.”