Sharon Dolev and Paul Ingram
The United States has followed Israel’s bombing with attacks on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, using B‑2 bombers and submarine-launched cruise missiles. President Trump praised the operation as a “spectacular military success,” while Tehran condemned it as a grave violation of international law and vowed to respond.
Whatever the bomb assessments, Iran retains the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, and this latest military attack may encourage some in Iran to conclude they now need a nuclear weapon more than ever. Israel cannot ultimately stop them. At best, it can delay the process. Only diplomacy offers a sustainable solution.
According to the latest IAEA data, Iran has the capability to produce 10-12 nuclear weapons in short order, should it choose to do so. Even if they don’t, they will likely suspend cooperation with the Agency, and possibly leave the NPT.
The IAEA reports that it no longer knows where the highly enriched uranium is stored. Satellite imagery from June 19–20 shows a convoy of approximately 16 trucks and heavy machinery near the entrance to Fordow’s underground tunnel, possibly indicating the relocation of this uranium, centrifuges or structural reinforcement ahead of the strikes.
In 2015, after years of advocacy and negotiations, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed. It subjected Iran to the world’s most rigorous nuclear inspections—and it worked. Iran complied. But Prime Minister Netanyahu opposed the deal and lobbied President Trump to withdraw. That pressure succeeded, at great cost. Even Israel’s own Atomic Energy Commission acknowledged the JCPOA was a strong technical agreement that blocked Iran’s plutonium path and delayed uranium weaponization. Imperfect? Yes. Dangerous? No. Breaking such agreements, however, damages diplomacy itself.
When commitments are discarded, the very foundation of diplomacy begins to erode.
Today, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has enriched over 400kg uranium at 60% U235 purity, close to weapons-grade. This has no clear civil purpose, though Iran has a right to do this under the NPT under Agency inspections. The Agency has confirmed it has no evidence Iran is actively pursuing a weapon.
The Agency’s judgement on May 31st that Iran was not fulfilling its safeguards obligations centred around unexplained trace elements of uranium the Agency believes date back to experiments conducted before 2003. Since the report’s publication, it has been widely—but incorrectly—reported that Iran’s safeguards failures were recent and linked to a renewed push for weaponization.
All credible experts—including Israeli ones—have consistently stated that military strikes cannot eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity. Iran and the United States were in the midst of indirect negotiations. Israel’s military is already stretched thin. The attacks (prior to the US attacks of 22 June) did not target the core facilities where highly enriched uranium is believed to be stored.
So why should PM Netanyahu now take such a gamble and escalate the conflict?
One answer may lie in his political needs. For years, he has relied on external threats to maintain cohesion within unstable coalitions. His very political identity has been formed through confrontation with the Islamic Republic, which has played along with him by consistently calling for the dismantling of the Jewish state.
At home, Netanyahu’s political standing is severely weakened. His failure to prevent the October 7 attacks dealt a major blow to public confidence. His corruption trial has entered a critical stage, with cross-examination underway, and new allegations emerging in the “Qatargate” affair have raised further questions about foreign influence and media manipulation. Escalating tensions with Iran may serve now as a political distraction, unify a fractured coalition, and delay domestic reckoning.
Some argue his military action was also an attempt to scupper any revival of the Iran nuclear deal just as the US and Iran were close to completing one. Iran has been significantly weakened by strategic attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas, and this may be a moment to exploit.
What’s certain is that the already existing gap in Israel between the security of the government and that of its people has never been wider. The Israeli cabinet meeting approving the attack on Iran heard it would likely cause up to 4,000 Israeli casualties as a result of the Iranian missile attacks. The messaging over the nuclear ambiguity raised the stakes and has successfully confused Israeli public opinion and neutralised the opposition.
So, what can be done in this moment of darkness and despair?
In 2018, the United Nations adopted a resolution establishing an annual conference on Middle East WMD Free Zone. Since then, nearly every country in the region—all Arab states, Iran, and four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—has participated. Each outcome document has been adopted by consensus, giving every state de facto veto power.
Israel and the United States, however, have so far boycotted these talks, but the door remains open to their participation. Israel has the power of veto baked into this consensus initiative; its participation does not involve stepping onto an escalator out of its control. It has all the diplomatic tools necessary to protect its interests when it engages in this process, in the interests of security for all.
No military confrontation can change the fact that the only sustainable solution is a diplomatic one, establishing a regional process of normalisation, reconciliation and mutual respect.
We urge Israel and the United States to take their seats at the UN conference table—not as an act of surrender, but of responsibility and opportunity. A regional mechanism for mutual verification and arms control is not a dream. It is already being built.
Our recommendations are clear:
- All parties must immediately halt military action and engage in diplomacy:
- The United States should rejoin nuclear negotiations with a view to re-establishing a new Iran nuclear deal, rebuilding trust and restoring a JCPoA framework that worked.
- Israel should end its policy of boycott and join the annual UN conference on a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone.
- Recognise that any nuclear deal with Iran can only be a stepping stone to a regional structure that eventually will not be focused on one state, or one type of weapon but entail equal restraint on all, taking into account all weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
- Iran should stay a member of the NPT, and maintain full safeguards with the IAEA.
It’s time to step forward.
Representating METO (the Middle East Treaty Organization), we have spent years working with diplomats, experts, and civil society leaders across the region to lay the groundwork for a durable, inclusive, and just security framework based upon mutual respect, and human security for all.
We are not calling for the impossible. We are calling for the implementation of existing UN decisions, the revival of proven agreements, and the courage to imagine a Middle East where security is built together—not enforced by threats. This is not an abstract vision. It is a concrete, negotiated and possible path. The only thing missing is political will.