In light of escalating tensions in the Middle East, Geoff Bennett interviewed Ernest Moniz, the former U.S. Secretary of Energy under President Obama, focusing on the prospects of military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly the Fordow site.
Moniz, instrumental in the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), believes that the situation surrounding Iran’s nuclear program is complex. He notes that the recent Israeli strikes have intensified the dilemma for the U.S., pointing out that only the U.S. has the capacity for a significant military operation against Fordow, the heavily fortified underground site used for uranium enrichment.
However, Moniz cautions against such military intervention. He argues that a strike would not eradicate Iran’s nuclear ambitions but rather involve the U.S. more directly in the conflict, potentially leading to a protracted war. The risk, according to him, is significant; even with military action, Iran’s nuclear program would likely resurface without substantial changes in Tehran’s political climate.
Bennett pressed Moniz on the implications of bombing Fordow, to which Moniz acknowledged the facility’s criticality but emphasized that Iran could still conduct enrichment activities at other sites like Natanz. While the U.S. intelligence community has historically assessed that Iran is not currently focused on developing a nuclear weapon, President Donald Trump recently stated he believes Iran could be mere weeks away from achieving nuclear capability.
Moniz responds to this assessment by distinguishing between enriching uranium and producing a deliverable nuclear weapon. He outlines that while Iran has enriched uranium to a level of 60 percent—close to the weapons-grade standard of 90 percent—they possess sufficient material to create multiple nuclear weapons. The real challenge, Moniz argues, lies in how Iran would deliver such a weapon, noting they have faced difficulties in targeting Israel with conventional weapons.
Furthermore, Moniz highlights that real negotiations over Iran’s nuclear capabilities cannot commence until hostilities between Israel and Iran are resolved. In this volatile context, he believes the U.S. should primarily focus on defensive measures for Israel while cautiously navigating the prospect of military options.
The potential for military action, as described by Moniz, is underscored by recent preparations by the U.S. military for a large conventional strike on Fordow. Nevertheless, he opines that diplomatic avenues remain preferable for the U.S. and that viable negotiation could emerge from a phased approach to Iran’s nuclear program.
He suggests a two-step negotiation process, where Iran might agree to moderate its nuclear activities without a complete renunciation of its capabilities. In this way, both parties could engage in further discussions to reach a more sustainable agreement. Moniz’s insights underscore the weighty considerations facing U.S. decision-makers as they navigate the complexities of Iran’s nuclear ambitions amid rising regional tensions.
image source from：pbs
