Sorry, Folks, Nuclear Weapons Are Passé

by Peter Jenkins

Two lines of attack on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, finalized on Bastille Day this week, are that constraints on Iran expanding its uranium enrichment capacity will lapse after 10 years and that, in the meantime, Iranian cheating will be inevitable and hard to detect.

It is true that from 2025 Iran will be free to start deploying large numbers of highly efficient centrifuges. And, in theory, a significant quantity of these centrifuges could produce enough weapon-grade enriched uranium for several bombs in a matter of months.

It does not follow logically, however, that producing weapons is the intention of those who have insisted on having this freedom (which is also a right under international law). Nor does it follow that those in power in Tehran 10 years from now will decide to abuse such freedom.

It has been a recurrent theme of US national intelligence estimates (NIEs) that Iranian nuclear decision-makers are “rational actors.” They are not the “mad mullahs” of Benjamin Netanyahu’s nightmares. They are not bloodthirsty psychopaths. They are not suicidal depressives. They are not ruthless empire-builders.

What is the probability that 10 years from now Iran’s decision-makers will decide that Iran needs nuclear weapons (NWs)? The authors of the NIEs have pointed the way to an answer by reminding us repeatedly that cost/benefit calculations will determine Iran’s nuclear decision-making.

No Nukes Is a No-brainer

Producing, or trying to produce NWs—in contravention of the legally binding Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and of solemn assurances given, often, to the international community (see, for example, paragraph III of the Preamble of to the Plan of Action)—would cost Iran’s decision-makers a lot:

  • Iran would be excluded from the community of nations for many years. This is not a fate that would hold any attraction for the leaders of the Islamic Republic. As President Hassan Rouhani’s speeches at the last two UN General Assemblies have shown, Iranian leaders want their country respected by its peers. They want Iran to enjoy the influence and “soft power” that come from being respected. They do not want Iran to be cast out, reviled, isolated;
  • The economic and financial consequences would almost certainly prove deeply destabilizing. They would have far greater impact on Iranian living standards than the current sanctions have had. The Islamic Republic would be exposed to the risk of revolution.
  • The risk of a military confrontation that could endanger the decision-makers’ lives, and the lives of their families, could not be excluded.

And the benefits? Nugatory. The only value of nuclear weapons is to deter the use of NWs by others. Rational actors cannot inject NWs into a conventional confrontation without risking annihilation. It is, or at least has become in recent decades, a myth that possessing NWs confers prestige and influence. As awareness of the humanitarian consequences of NW use has spread, most of mankind has condemned, not admired, possessor states.

So the probability of Iran seeking to acquire NWs 10 years from now is low.

It can become lower if the P5+1 follow through on their promises of nuclear cooperation and bring Iran’s nuclear program in from the cold. Cooperation will create opportunities to influence Iranian nuclear thinking, including on enrichment. It will also create legitimate long-term confidence-building options, such as multilateral involvement in Iran’s enrichment program, possibly as part of a global move toward multilateral enrichment facilities.

The probability can be lower still if the United States throws its weight behind the push for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East—one of the last regions to be without such a zone. That will mean abandoning the pretense that American officials do not know whether Israel possesses NWs and embarking on the arduous task of persuading Israeli politicians that NWs are a liability, not an asset. It will also mean keeping a watchful eye on Saudi Arabia and ensuring that the Kingdom respects its obligations as an NPT non-nuclear-weapon state.

US politicians are inclined to like mechanical fixes. Their instinct is to deny other states the physical capacity to do things that the US does but does not want other states to do.

It is time that these politicians understood that some foreign policy problems are not susceptible to mechanical fixes, not least because other states are sovereign and have rights under international law. Instead, the US must learn to rely for its security, as other states do, on intangibles: on deterring, on creating disincentives, and on developing relationships that increase the cost that others incur if they ignore the wishes of the world’s greatest power.

The Cheating Fallacy

Much of the argument above is relevant to the allegation that Iran will be looking for opportunities to “non-perform” its Plan of Action obligations. Iranian decision-makers are not just rational actors. They are, by and large, very smart human beings. Those who want to spread panic by pretending that Iran will ignore its commitments should be asked why they think any smart human being would see utility in undermining an agreement that is fully compatible with what Iran proposed to the UK, France and Germany 10 years ago, and that a great majority of Iranians has now acclaimed with jubilation..

It is not as though these smart Iranians can imagine that cheating will go undetected. The verification provisions of the Plan of Action are unprecedented. The US negotiators have covered every conceivable angle. Never before has a theoretical temptation to cheat on a nuclear agreement been so effectively deterred.

Of course some Americans believe that the first thing an Iranian asks himself in the morning is: “who can I cheat today?” Presumably Wendy Sherman now regrets her earlier claim that Iranians have deception in their DNA. But her lapse revealed an unfortunate strain in US thinking about Iranians, which many Iranian Americans have condemned. Such racial stereotyping is unworthy of an American nation that prides itself—somewhat sickeningly for the rest of us—on its virtue, on being a beacon for mankind, or whatever.

Is the underlying problem that some Americans believe that NWs are the must-have accessory for any state? If so, other Americans, while there is still time—while the fate of the Vienna Plan of Action hangs in the congressional balance—must help them to understand the error of that judgment.

Since 1945 acquiring NWs has ceased to pose enormous technical problems. Yet only nine states, less than 5% of the total, have chosen to become nuclear-armed. Sorry, folks, but nowadays nukes are an accessory that only old fogies prize.


Peter Jenkins

Peter Jenkins was a British career diplomat for 33 years, following studies at the Universities of Cambridge and Harvard. He served in Vienna (twice), Washington, Paris, Brasilia and Geneva. He specialized in global economic and security issues. His last assignment (2001-06) was that of UK Ambassador to the IAEA and UN (Vienna). Since 2006 he has represented the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, advised the Director of IIASA and set up a partnership, The Ambassador Partnership llp, with former diplomatic colleagues, to offer the corporate sector dispute resolution and solutions to cross-border problems. He was an associate fellow of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy from 2010 to 2012. He writes and speaks on nuclear and trade policy issues.



  1. Thank you for another superb analysis.

    I would offer two further comments to dispute the ‘naysayer allegation’ that “Iran will cheat”. First of all, up until now- including during that period when Iran has been most vulnerable to an air war by the U.S. and Israel, and, therefore, might have been most persuaded to regard a nuclear deterrent as crucial to its security- Iran did not embark on a WMD program. Second, looking into the future, e.g., the next ten years, Russia has positioned itself to be both Iran’s nuclear program ‘benefactor’, and its program ‘minder’- and this is reflected in Russia’s planned investment in the dozen or more commercial nuclear plants it has already signed agreements to build, and in the recently reported preliminary or final agreement to provide Iran with enriched uranium (to which Foreign Minister Lavrov alluded on July 15th or 16th).

    Both countries are looking for peace, stability, and economic prosperity at home, and for their region, and both have experienced (and understand better than any of our leaders and planners here) the human cost of war- so, it is clear that these two nations have much to gain from compliance and much to lose otherwise, and their leaders know it.

  2. All through the Iran sanctions affair I wondered why Iran would be silly enough to want nuclear weapons, or even peaceful nuclear power when cheaper, safer and less controversial energy alternatives are coming onto the market. Now it seems this was just a ploy to get the sanctions off its back. And, thanks to Netanyahu, the Republicans and others who howled about Iran getting nukes, it seems to have succeeded.
    Given Peter Jenkins’ interest in renewable energy I hope he can give an insight into how the uptake of renewable energy could transfer the Middle East into a far more peaceful place by giving each nation access to all the energy it needs, within its borders and without competing for the declining petrochemical resources that have that have caused much animosity over the decades.
    I refer particularly to photovoltaics (direct conversion of sunlight to electricity), which is continuing to make great progress in increasing efficiency and reducing costs. In the US and elsewhere power supply agreements are being signed to supply electricity for say 25 years (the life of a PV panel) at 5 or 6 US cents a kWh, while consumers typically pay about 30 cents. Barring unforeseen events these costs can be expected to halve in 10 or 15 years. Given unforeseen events (which physicists can see but engineers cannot yet reach) these costs could fall much further.
    PV can provide cheap, distributed energy and is suited to sunny climates, although it works better in a cold rather than a hot environment. Unlike nuclear fusion or thorium reactors it is happening now. Unlike uranium power it is available at a village or local level and being suited to small installations it is virtually indestructible.
    PV has the potential to democratise energy sources rather than keeping them in the hands of the few. My guess is that in 10 to 15 years global energy markets will bear no resemblance to today’s markets, energy and territorial conflicts will be pointless and, given a bit of sanity, people in the Middle East should be able to live much more peacefully than they can now.
    Further thoughts on this would be appreciated.
    Rory McGuire, [email protected]

  3. Khamenei: “There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

    We should also take into account Iran’s strong objections to nuclear weapons on humanitarian and religious grounds, which have been consistently expressed in scores of statements by religious and political leaders over several decades –

  4. Mr. McGuire: you may be right about alternative energy and its competitive costs, and the development advantages of it on at a village level, especially with the storage technology being developed- and that may be another approach Iran will also follow- but right now Iran seems to be focused on unlocking its huge oil and gas reserves for export at market prices while using nuclear as a way to meet its domestic commercial power needs.

  5. Thank you Mr. Jenkins for another excellent analysis .
    Netanyahu&his alikes always argued against any deal with Iran on the basis of false assumptions; that Iran is determined to produce NCWs with the express aim of dropping it on Israel !!
    This is a completely false assumption which should not be given even the benefits of the doubt.
    Iran generally supports the Palestinians, but meanwhile Iran was one of the first to point out that the two state solution will not work and proposed one state on the basis of one man one vote irrespective of ethnicity or religion. Now such an idea is quite common among those wanting a solution for the Palestinian problem.
    Apart from being sympathetic with the Palestinians Iran has no conflict of interest of any sort with Israel. Would it be rational to assume that Iran would go through all the costs and troubles of developing NCW to drop it on Israel just because she feels that Palestinians are being treated badly?? Would the Palestinians want such an action ?? How would the Palestinians and other non-Zionits be exempt from death, destruction and radiation of a nuclear explosion?? …IMPOSSIBLE !!
    Suppose such a mad action was taken by Iran. What would be the reaction of the US and the world to such action ? Can the Iranian regime stay in power in peace ,or in existence at all, to reap the “benefits” of such action ?? As Chomsky puts it,Iran would evaporate before the missiles carrying the NCW weapon ever reach the destination !! So such an action is a sure catastrophic national suicide . Why would Iran do that ? What would Iran gain by such an action ? Just to show that it is a supporter of Palestinians?? Thus it is an IMPOSSIBLE assumption.
    Netanyahu&his followers try to project an image of the Iranian regime as a bunch of ruthless, fanatic and irrational ideologues. As Mr.Jenkins puts it “.. a recurrent theme of US national intelligence estimates (NIEs) that Iranian nuclear decision-makers are “rational actors.” They are not the “mad mullahs” of Benjamin Netanyahu’s nightmares. They are not bloodthirsty psychopaths. They are not suicidal depressives. They are not ruthless empire-builders ” !!
    The most ruthless,irrational empire builders in the Middle East are Mr.Netanyahu and his rightwing Zionist followers. This is testified by their policies and actions time and again-the most recent being last year ‘s pointless attack on Gaza killing innocent defenceless people and Netanyahu’s plan to attack Iran, even dropping Atomic bomb on Iran.

Comments are closed.