Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour
{
"authors": [
"Karim Sadjadpour"
],
"type": "testimony",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Iranian Political and Nuclear Realities and U.S. Policy Options
U.S. policy options toward Iran lie in engaging Iran on issues of common interest, focusing communication on the office of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and presenting a united international approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee

- Attempt to discern which Iranian policies are driven by an immutable revolutionary ideology, and which are a reaction to punitive U.S. measures.
- Focus on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who steers Iran’s nuclear ship and whose constitutional authority is far greater than that of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The most influential institutions within Iran—the Revolutionary Guards, the Guardian Council, the presidency, the parliament—are all currently led by individuals who were either directly appointed by Khamenei or unfailingly loyal to him.
- The nuclear issue is a symptom of the mistrust between the United States and Iran, not the underlying cause of tension. Given that neither side trusts the other’s intentions, there are no technical solutions to this nuclear dispute, only political ones.
- Maintain an airtight multilateral approach on the nuclear issue. Iran is adept at exploiting rifts within the international community, and the entire diplomatic approach could unravel if key countries approach Iran with divergent talking points and red lines.
- A small group of spoilers will likely attempt to subvert a serious dialogue, whether by committing gratuitous human rights abuses or purposefully sending easily-discovered weapons shipments. Ending confidence-building efforts in retaliation strengthens the influence of these hardliners.
- Project the self-assurance of a superpower. Don’t mimic Tehran’s criticism; hostile U.S. rhetoric allows Iranian leadership to depict the United States as an aggressor.
- Refrain from any grand overtures to Tehran that could redeem Ahmadinejad’s leadership style ahead of the country’s June 2009 presidential elections. At the same time, refrain from commenting on the Iranian presidential campaign or expressing a preference for any particular candidate.
About the Author
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.
- Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?Q&A
- What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for NowQ&A
Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright
Recent Work
Carnegie India 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 India
- AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance GapCommentary
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal