Allowing Iran to keep even a civil nuclear program is still too great a risk for regional and international security.
The consensus that recently emerged within the Trump administration rightly identifies the absolute necessity of permanently preventing the Islamic Republic from enriching uranium on its own soil. The Trump administration must remain firm on this issue and not weaken this requirement with “creative” solutions. To allow the Islamist regime in Tehran such a capability is to pave a pathway, however disguised, to a nuclear bomb—an outcome the world can ill afford.
The allure of allowing Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear energy program masks a hazardous potential. Even a domestic, industrial-scale enrichment capacity, ostensibly limited to the 3–5 percent low-enriched uranium (LEU) suitable for reactor fuel, is fraught with peril. Such an endeavor would cultivate indigenous expertise and stockpiles of fissile material, dramatically shortening the “breakout time”—the period required to dash towards weapons-grade uranium, typically 90 percent or higher.
The history of nuclear proliferation is replete with examples where civilian programs served as a smokescreen for military intentions. Given the opaque nature of Iran’s decision-making, its persistence in supporting terrorism, its commitment to annihilate Israel, and its track record of clandestine activities, entrusting it with the complete nuclear fuel cycle is an unacceptable gamble. The dual-use nature of enrichment technology means that any facility capable of producing reactor fuel can, with relative ease and speed, be repurposed to yield material for a warhead.
This inherent technological risk is magnified exponentially by the character of the Islamist regime. A government whose official slogans remain “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” cannot be viewed as a responsible custodian of the atom. Its statements in this vein are not merely political posturing; they reflect a deeply entrenched ideology consistently manifested in malign actions. The Islamic Republic stands widely recognized as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, systematically diverting its nation’s wealth to fund, arm, and direct a vast network of proxy forces. From Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia militias in Iraq to the Houthis in Yemen, these groups actively work to destabilize the Middle East, incite conflict, and target US interests and allies.
The pronouncements of its leadership offer further chilling clarity. When Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently reiterated his conviction that Israel “must be and will be eliminated” and demanded that the United States be “kicked out of the region,” he articulated a vision of regional hegemony. Imagine such ambitions backed by a nuclear arsenal or even the latent capability to produce one on demand. This aggressive posture is particularly alarming in a region that remains the heartland of global fossil fuel production, a critical resource for economies worldwide. American strategic interests and global economic stability necessitate a Middle East not threatened by a nuclear-emboldened Islamic Republic.
Furthermore, acceding to Khamenei’s demand for domestic enrichment would unlock a Pandora’s Box of regional proliferation. If Tehran is granted this concession, on what logical basis could similar capabilities be denied to other regional powers? Nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and the UAE, each with their own security concerns and ambitions, would almost certainly feel compelled to pursue parallel paths. The result would be a dangerous proliferation cascade, transforming an already volatile region into a landscape of multiple nuclear-threshold states. The potential for miscalculation, accidental escalation, or a full-blown nuclear arms race would become terrifyingly real.
This is not a theoretical concern in a region already contending with the virulent presence of terrorist organizations like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The specter of industrial-scale enrichment facilities operating in proximity to such groups or a nuclear-armed Iran feeling emboldened to provide them with even greater shelter and support presents an intolerable risk. The potential for nuclear materials, technology, or, in a nightmare scenario, a crude device to fall into extremist hands poses a direct and existential threat that extends far beyond the Middle East, reaching the US homeland itself.
It is for these compelling reasons that leaders like President Donald Trump, alongside officials such as Ambassador Witkoff and Secretary Rubio, are entirely justified in their uncompromising stance: the Islamic Republic must be unequivocally denied indigenous enrichment capacity. This objective requires nothing less than the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of the Islamic Republic’s enrichment infrastructure.
This includes the destruction or permanent conversion of hardened clandestine facilities, such as Fordow and Natanz, the elimination of centrifuge production and assembly centers, and the cessation of all related research and development activities with dual-use purposes. Crucially, any diplomatic framework must categorically reject “sunset clauses,” which merely defer the threat, allowing the regime to legally revive and expand its nuclear program after an arbitrary interval. The only acceptable sunset clause is the end of the regime.
While neutralizing the immediate nuclear threat is paramount, it must be the cornerstone of a broader strategy. Should a path to complete nuclear dismantlement emerge, the United States and its allies must then rigorously address Iran’s other destabilizing behaviors: its ballistic missile program, its unceasing support for terrorism, and its relentless efforts to destabilize its neighbors. A critical lesson from past diplomatic endeavors is to prevent the regime from accessing financial windfalls—whether through sanctions relief or unfrozen assets—that would inevitably be channeled towards nefarious ends.
Ultimately, a robust policy towards Iran must also recognize and support the aspirations of its people. Millions within Iran yearn for freedom, economic opportunity, accountable governance, and peaceful relations with the global community. A strategy that resolutely counters the regime’s dangerous ambitions while empowering its citizens through a maximum support campaign offers the most sustainable pathway to a more secure and stable Middle East.
About the Author: Saeed Ghasseminejad
Saeed Ghasseminejad is a senior adviser for Iran and financial economics at FDD, specializing in Iran’s economy and financial markets, sanctions, and illicit finance.
Image: Photo Tripper 92 / Shutterstock.com.
