Paper
George Perkovich
{
"authors": [
"George Perkovich"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Why Was Iran’s Top Nuclear Scientist Assassinated?
More than an effort to prevent nuclear proliferation, the killing of Iran’s top nuclear scientist was sanctioned to foment trouble between Washington’s incoming administration and Tehran.
Published on Dec 1, 2020
The assassination last Friday of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the leader of Iran’s suspended program to develop nuclear weapon capabilities, was less about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons than it was about embarrassing the current Iranian government and impeding it from negotiating a rapprochement with U.S. President-elect Joe Biden’s incoming administration.
Even a partial detente would require, above all, a mutual return to something like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the nuclear deal that Iran agreed to in 2015. That agreement, notwithstanding its necessarily negotiated compromises, had verifiably suspended the most alarming nuclear activities in Iran, which again must be the top priority of any feasible U.S. policy toward Tehran.
An Attempt to Stir the Pot
Fakhrizadeh’s assassins, and the Israeli, American, and probably Saudi leaders who sanctioned or condoned his killing, prefer conflict to hasten the demise of the hostile Iranian regime, rather than a nuclear arrangement that leaves the regime in place. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu secretly met with Saudi leaders days before the assassination; it is easy to imagine that he bore news of the pending attack as a gift to encourage the Saudi normalization of relations with Israel.
To believe that the assassination was primarily intended to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran requires us to accept two things as fact: first, that Iran has decided to build nuclear weapons, and second, that the loss of one top official will change Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s mind or significantly slow the effort. All of this is questionable.
Moreover, to believe the effects of this assassination will be salutary requires assuming that Iran will not exact revenge on Israelis, Americans, or other individuals to even the score in the minds of Iranian militants.
The best that can be practically hoped for now is that Iranian leaders will resist temptations to play into the hands of the assassins and instead explore with Biden’s administration mutual steps to revive the JCPOA. For this to happen will take a lot of luck and discipline among leaders in Tehran, Washington, and other capitals.
About the Author
George Perkovich
Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow
George Perkovich is the Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program. He works primarily on nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and disarmament issues, and is leading a study on nuclear signaling in the 21st century.
- How to Assess Nuclear ‘Threats’ in the Twenty-First Century
- “A House of Dynamite” Shows Why No Leader Should Have a Nuclear TriggerCommentary
George Perkovich
Recent Work
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital AmbitionsCommentary
Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.
Aruzhan Meirkhanova
- The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for RussiaCommentary
Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.
Ruslan Suleymanov
- Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria ConundrumCommentary
Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.
Vladimir Solovyov
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
