عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
World

US, Israel Reaffirm Pressure on Iran to Stop ‘Nuclear Enrichment’

A photo distributed by the US State Department of Blinken and his German counterpart Annalina Birbock at a press conference in Washington on Wednesday
A photo distributed by the US State Department of Blinken and his German counterpart Annalina Birbock at a press conference in Washington on Wednesday
TT
TT

US, Israel Reaffirm Pressure on Iran to Stop ‘Nuclear Enrichment’

A photo distributed by the US State Department of Blinken and his German counterpart Annalina Birbock at a press conference in Washington on Wednesday
A photo distributed by the US State Department of Blinken and his German counterpart Annalina Birbock at a press conference in Washington on Wednesday

The United States and Israel affirmed that the challenges posed by Iran in the region are going to be confronted, as Washington emphasized commitment to the "security and safety of Israel".

The US position came as major countries are meeting in Vienna for indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States, aimed at saving the 2015 nuclear agreement.

The State Department said in a statement that US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his Israeli counterpart, Yair Lapid, discussed, in a phone call, Wednesday evening, a set of regional and global issues, including "the challenges posed by Iran."

The two sides also discussed "the dangers of Russian aggression against Ukraine," noting that "Blinken reiterated the administration's firm commitment to Israel's security."

In a tweet, Lapid said he discussed the regional and global challenges with Blinken, and the need to “pressure Iran to halt its nuclear weapons race.”

Lapid and Blinken did not mention the exact nature of the "pressure on Iran."

The call came a few hours after Axios reported that US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, during a visit to Jerusalem last month, informed Israeli officials that the “snapback” mechanism in the nuclear agreement, was an effective way to "deter Iran from enriching weapons-grade uranium.”

Sullivan said he was very concerned that the Iranians felt they were getting closer to the possibility of breaking out toward a nuclear weapon. The sanctions would be particularly devastating to Iran's economy because all UN members would be bound to comply, the report said.

In turn, Israeli Foreign Ministry officials told Sullivan they believe the United States and the European troika (France, Germany, and Britain) should move forward with the “snapback” mechanism if the Vienna negotiations yield nothing, regardless of Iran’s enrichment levels and uranium production.

“Only the UK had shown any openness to the snapback idea so far,” Israeli officials say after Iran abandoned all of its commitments under the agreement and increased its uranium enrichment from less than 4 percent to 60 percent, a "technical short" step from weapons levels seen by some observers, as international inspectors face challenges in monitoring progress.

Israel strongly opposed talks aimed at restoring the agreement; but in recent weeks, officials have indicated a shift toward "accepting an agreement in some form."

State Department spokesperson Ned Price said there had been “some modest progress” in recent days.

Meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers accused the Biden administration of opposing a provision in the Department of Defense budget law for 2022, which requires the administration to provide Congress with "detailed reports" on Iran's military capabilities, funds, and related activities.

According to the law's provisions, it requires a "detailed description" of Iran's military progress, all arms sales and transfers to and from Iran, all missile launches by Iran, and changes in the capabilities of Iranian-backed military groups.

The American Free Beacon website quoted foreign policy leaders of the Republican Party in Congress, criticizing the Biden administration's decision not to comply with the legal mandate, by providing details to Congress about Iran's capabilities, and how easing sanctions on Iran would not enhance the regime's ability to launch terrorist attacks.

“Biden’s administration does not want Congress to know how much money Iran's terrorist allies are getting because of sanctions relief, while negotiations continue with Tehran on a new nuclear deal,” Republicans say.

The "strict reporting" requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act, is the first of its kind and will compel the administration to "provide details about how sanctions relief will support Tehran's terrorist allies," and strengthen the capabilities of the militias, referring to Lebanon's Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Hamas movement.

Most Viewed

 
 
World

How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
TT
TT

How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)

On 24 February 2022, in a televised speech heralding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin issued what was interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons against NATO countries should they interfere.

“Russia will respond immediately,” he said, “and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.”

Then on 27 February 2022, Putin ordered Russia to move nuclear forces to a “special mode of combat duty’, which has a significant meaning in terms of the protocols to launch nuclear weapons from Russia.”

Dr. Patricia Lewis, director of the International Security program at Chatham House, wrote in a report that according to Russian nuclear weapons experts, Russia’s command and control system cannot transmit launch orders in peacetime, so increasing the status to “combat” allows a launch order to go through and be put into effect.

She said Putin made stronger nuclear threats in September 2022, following months of violent conflict and gains made by a Ukrainian counterattack.

“He indicated a stretch in Russian nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapons use from an existential threat to Russia to a threat to its territorial integrity,” Lewis wrote.

In November 2022, according to much later reports, the US and allies detected manoeuvres that suggested Russian nuclear forces were being mobilized.

Lewis said that after a flurry of diplomatic activity, China’s President Xi Jinping stepped in to calm the situation and speak against the use of nuclear weapons.

In September 2024, Putin announced an update of the 2020 Russian nuclear doctrine. The update was published on 19 November 2024 and formally reduced the threshold for nuclear weapons use.

According to Lewis, the 2020 doctrine said that Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

On 21 November 2024, Russia attacked Dnipro in Ukraine using a new ballistic missile for the first time.

She said Putin announced the missile as the ‘Oreshnik’, which is understood to be a nuclear-capable, intermediate-range ballistic missile which has a theoretical range of below 5,500km.

Lewis added that Russia has fired conventionally armed nuclear-capable missiles at Ukraine throughout the war, but the Oreshnik is much faster and harder to defend against, and suggests an escalatory intent by Russia.

Nuclear Response During Cold War

In her report, Lewis said that nuclear weapons deterrence was developed in the Cold War primarily on the basis of what was called ‘mutually assured destruction’ (MAD).

The idea behind MAD is that the horror and destruction from nuclear weapons is enough to deter aggressive action and war, she added.

But the application of deterrence theory to post-cold war realities is far more complicated in the era of cyberattacks and AI, which could interfere with the command and control of nuclear weapons.

In light of these risks, presidents Biden and Xi issued a joint statement from the 2024 G20 summit affirming the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia exchange information on their strategic, long-range nuclear missiles under the New START agreement – a treaty to reduce and monitor nuclear weapons between the two countries which is set to expire in February 2026.

But, Lewis said, with the US decision to exit the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, there are no longer any agreements between the US and Russia regulating the number or the deployment of ground-launched nuclear missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km.

She said short-range nuclear weapons were withdrawn and put in storage as a result of the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives but are not subject to any legal restraints.

The 10th NPT Review Conference was held in 2022 in New York. The issue of nuclear weapons threats and the targeting of nuclear power stations in Ukraine were central to the debate.

Lewis noted that a document was carefully crafted to finely balance concerns about the three pillars of the treaty – non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But Russia withdrew its agreement on the last day of the conference, scuppering progress.

“It was believed that if Russia were to use nuclear weapons it would likely be in Ukraine, using short range, lower yield ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons,” she said, adding that Russia is thought to have more than 1,000 in reserve.

“These would have to be taken from storage and either connected to missiles, placed in bombers, or as shell in artillery,” Lewis wrote.

Increasingly the rhetoric from Russia suggests nuclear threats are a more direct threat to NATO – not only Ukraine – and could refer to longer range, higher yield nuclear weapons.

For example in his 21 September 2022 speech, Putin accused NATO states of nuclear blackmail, referring to alleged “statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.”

Putin added: “In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.”

There have been no expressed nuclear weapons threats from NATO states.

NATO does rely on nuclear weapons as a form of deterrence and has recently committed to significantly strengthen its longer-term deterrence and defence posture in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The current UK Labor government has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to British nuclear weapons – including before the July 2024 election, according to Lewis.

Therefore, she said, any movement to ready and deploy Russian nuclear weapons would be seen and monitored by US and others’ satellites, which can see through cloud cover and at night – as indeed appears to have happened in late 2022.

Lewis concluded that depending on other intelligence and analysis – and the failure of all diplomatic attempts to dissuade Russia – NATO countries may decide to intervene to prevent launch by bombing storage sites and missile deployment sites in advance.