It has been less than a fortnight since what US President Donald Trump dubbed the “12-day war” between Israel and Iran came to an end. Despite the acute relief felt by most people across the Middle East, especially civilians in Iran and Israel, the atmosphere is tense and the situation remains volatile, with the war in Gaza ongoing, the Israeli government threatening more strikes and Iran’s nuclear programme raising concerns.
Such unpredictability is not helped by this week’s decision by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to approve a law suspending the country’s co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The UN nuclear watchdog has effectively been left in the dark and is awaiting further official information from Tehran, an IAEA spokesman told The National.
It should not be surprising that Iran – already formally in breach of its non-proliferation obligations – sees little value in acquiescing to demands for greater transparency over its nuclear programme. Israel chose to unilaterally strike targets across the country, killing hundreds of civilians in the process. The US later joined this assault, dropping several of its largest non-nuclear bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Nevertheless, for Tehran to cut ties with the IAEA would be a strategic mistake.
The agency remains the only trust-building mechanism for Iran to assuage international concerns about its nuclear programme, the condition of which is now shrouded in uncertainty. Threatening to walk away is not leverage, nor would it restore deterrence against further attack. In fact, Iran’s going dark would achieve the opposite effect; disengaging from the IAEA would generate more distrust and increase the speculation surrounding the country’s nuclear intentions. This does not negate the need to address Israel’s nuclear capabilities which are arguably more opaque than Iran’s. The need for a region free of nuclear weapons has never been greater.
The current situation leaves the rest of the Middle East in a difficult position. Iran’s unprecedented strike on Qatar’s Al Udeid air base upped the stakes for Tehran’s near neighbours by demonstrating that Tehran’s relationship with its GCC partners would come second to its perceived need for retaliation.
Indeed, although some reports have suggested that Iran’s missile salvo was choreographed so as to reduce the risk of casualties, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Majed Al Ansari, rightly noted on Monday that Tehran’s attack was not “harmless”, having forced the country to close its airspace for several hours, activate its air-defence systems and experience “reputational damage when it comes to safety and security".
All sides should be aware that the stakes are too high for further games of tactical ambiguity. More strategic nous by Israel and Iran is required. For Iran, there is a path to security and a truly civilian nuclear programme, but it will require Tehran to co-operate with the international community through bodies such as the IAEA, not abandon them. Meanwhile, Israel continues to fuel regional anger and frustration through the appalling violence being meted out by its forces to Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank even as Iranian missiles struck Tel Aviv and other cities. Agreeing to a ceasefire would be an important step to reducing the volatility gripping much of the Middle East, and starting to work on a long term peace plan for the region.
