• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Ariel (Eli) Levite"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Global Governance"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The Iran Deal Was Bad, but Leaving It Was Worse

The negative consequences of pulling out of the JCPOA could be diminished by aligning the goals announced by the Trump administration into an operational, strategic agenda.

Link Copied
By Ariel (Eli) Levite
Published on May 31, 2018

Source: National Interest

The most negative consequences of casting the JCPOA aside could still be mitigated by converting the lofty goals announced by the administration into a far more pragmatic operational agenda. To succeed, three requirements stand out. First, to define realistic red lines that Iran's nuclear, missile, and regional activity must not be allowed to cross, indefinitely, regardless whether a new deal is in place. The credibility of U.S. deterrence against crossing them would be greatly enhanced by making these more modest than the goals envisaged by Secretary Pompeo, which in turn would enhance the chances of building broader international support for them. All of these would also make compliance with such red lines somewhat easier for Iran to contemplate. Second, Trump must resuscitate an international coalition that is far broader than the Gulf States and Israel. He must include the transatlantic alliance by refraining from imposing broad secondary sanctions on allies' companies, while also seeking complementary quiet understandings with China. Third, he should seize on some positive signals from the Kremlin about seriously exploring the possibility of building a partnership with Russian to significantly narrow the permissible scope for Iran's nuclear, missile, and Syria activities.

Ultimately, though, much would also depend on explicit U.S. willingness to walk away from the goal of actively promoting regime change. The pursuit of regime change will only stiffen the resistance of all elements of Iranian society (including those who otherwise despise clerical rule). Finally, the threat of American-forced regime change will also enhance Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons as an insurance policy. We should not abandon the hope of a fundamental transformation in the orientation of the Iranian regime, but this development should come from the inside.

This article was originally published in the National Interest.

About the Author

Ariel (Eli) Levite

Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Technology and International Affairs Program

Levite was the principal deputy director general for policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission from 2002 to 2007.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    Demystifying the Nuclear Threshold

      Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton

  • Article
    Promoting Responsible Nuclear Energy Conduct: An Agenda for International Cooperation

      Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton

Ariel (Eli) Levite
Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Technology and International Affairs Program
Ariel (Eli) Levite
Political ReformNuclear PolicyGlobal GovernanceNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Article
    Separable, not Separate: Governing Europe’s Collective Defense

    European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.

      Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont

  • Ukraine Poland Zelensky Tusk Enlargement EU
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Uncomfortable Truth About EU Enlargement

    Before the next wave of EU enlargement takes place, the union needs to grapple with thorny questions of how power is distributed among its members.

      • Ditte Brasso Sørensen

      Emil Sondaj Hansen, Ditte Brasso Sørensen

  • Greenland United States Denmark Agreement Nuuk
    Commentary
    The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time

    The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Speech Ursula von der Leyen Can’t Deliver

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Le Pen France Far Right
    Article
    How Europe’s 2027 Elections Could Test EU Governance

    Radical-right parties are expected to do well in upcoming elections in four of the EU's biggest member states. If successful, they could prevent the union from addressing key challenges ahead.

      Stefan Lehne

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.