TEHRAN – The discussion regarding Iran’s nuclear program is once more at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy talks, with a recent article from the Wall Street Journal advocating for the total nuclear disarmament of Iran.

The piece, titled “The Art of the Nuclear Deal With Iran,” sites a report from Foundation for Defense of Democracies and contends that Iran needs to completely eliminate its nuclear infrastructure, likening the scenario to South Africa’s voluntary disarmament in 1990 and Libya’s renouncement of its nuclear goals in 2003. It implies that only significant pressure—via sanctions, military intimidation, and economic exclusion—can compel Iran to adhere.

However, this storyline is fundamentally problematic. It overlooks the historical background of Iran's nuclear initiative, the double standards of U.S. and Israeli actions, and the repercussions of previous Western interference in West Asia. For genuine diplomacy, Washington should shift from coercion to a fair and respectful method of negotiation.

Hypocrisy of nuclear disarmament demands  

One of the report’s central arguments is that Iran should follow the example of South Africa and Libya. But these comparisons do not hold up. South Africa abolished its nuclear program as part of a peaceful shift away from apartheid, and not due to external pressure. Libya, in contrast, gave up its nuclear goals following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003—a decision that ultimately failed to shield the Libyan regime from Western intervention. Iran is fully cognizant of this history and sees no reason to think that unilateral disarmament would result in security or stability.

Furthermore, the expectation for Iran to give up its nuclear program is a clear double standard. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has consistently permitted inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Conversely, Israel, which has nuclear weapons, has never signed the NPT and does not permit international inspections of its nuclear sites. However, there is no demand for Israel to surrender its weapons. If the aim were genuinely non-proliferation, Washington and its partners would enforce the same standards for all parties, not solely for those they consider rivals.

The article depicts Iran as a country that uses negotiations to gain more time for its nuclear program. However, history reveals an alternate narrative. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a significant agreement that imposed stringent restrictions on Iran's nuclear operations in return for the easing of sanctions. Iran adhered to the agreement, as verified by the IAEA on several occasions. In 2018, the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement unilaterally and reinstated sanctions, even though Iran fully complied. This action shattered the last remnants of confidence in U.S. diplomatic efforts.

After the U.S. withdrawal, Iran initially continued to abide by the JCPOA’s terms, hoping that European countries would uphold their end of the deal. Only after it became clear that Washington’s sanctions would remain in place did Iran gradually reduce its commitments. The idea that Iran is the party responsible for breaking agreements is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.  

Now, the very voices that challenged the JCPOA are advocating for a new agreement—one that demands Iran to completely eliminate its nuclear infrastructure while providing scant or no concessions in exchange.

Sanctions as tools of economic warfare, not diplomacy  

A central point made in the article is that Iran has a fragile economy and that heightened sanctions will compel the government to surrender. This is the identical approach the U.S. has employed for years, and it has repeatedly proven unsuccessful. Although sanctions have certainly impacted everyday Iranians, they have not caused the government to fall or compelled Iran to give up its nuclear program. Conversely, they have merely intensified suspicion and prompted Iran to pursue different economic allies, like China and Russia.

The assertion that Iran's economy is about to collapse is likewise deceptive. Despite enduring years of economic strain, Iran has adjusted by enhancing its domestic industries and creating new trade alliances. The belief that Iran will ultimately be subdued overlooks the nation's resilience and the fact that economic warfare frequently fortifies, rather than diminishes, national resistance.

Additionally, sanctions primarily impact civilians while having minimal effect on altering government policies. Iranian households face challenges due to inflation, shortages of medicine, and various difficulties, all while the government remains operational. If the U.S. genuinely aimed to assist the Iranian people, it would participate in sincere negotiations instead of resorting to economic suffocation.

Real source of instability in region  

The piece also implies that Iran needs to decide between disarmament and military conflict, suggesting that ongoing resistance may result in an assault on its nuclear sites.

If stability in West Asia is the objective, then Iran's nuclear initiative is not the main concern—Western military involvement and backing for dictatorial governments are.

The dangers posed to Iran’s nuclear initiative are not rooted in security concerns; they focus on preserving U.S. and Israeli military supremacy. The very groups insisting that Iran relinquish its arms are themselves equipped with nuclear weapons and sophisticated military technology. The communication is straightforward: nuclear arms are permissible for U.S. allies, but not for nations that oppose American dominance.

Iran has consistently demonstrated its readiness to partake in discussions, but it will not—and should not—agree to an agreement that requires complete surrender without providing anything in exchange.

Instead of reiterating historical errors, the U.S. should acknowledge that diplomacy demands mutual respect, not threats. Only then can a genuinely just and enduring agreement be achieved.