For more than two decades, the world has been warned that Iran’s nuclear program was about far more than a benign pursuit of civilian energy. Yet successive Western governments repeatedly chose negotiation over verification, promises over dismantlement, and hope over evidence. Today, after the United States and Israel have inflicted serious damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and Washington is demanding a meaningful reduction in Tehran’s enrichment capacity, the same fundamental question confronts the West. Will it finally insist on deeds rather than words?

The warning bells rang loudly in August 2002. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) publicly revealed the existence of two secret nuclear facilities in Iran, the uranium enrichment complex at Natanz and the heavy water facility at Arak. The information had reportedly been obtained through networks inside Iran. The revelations shattered Tehran’s claim that its nuclear activities were fully transparent and peaceful. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) subsequently visited the facilities. That disclosure was a watershed moment. It demonstrated that the international community was not discovering Iran’s nuclear activities through its own inspection machinery. It was being alerted by the Iranian opposition.

The history that followed should have taught the West a lesson about the dangers of diplomatic complacency. By 2003, the IAEA was already raising concerns about shortcomings in Iran’s declarations and limitations in the safeguards system. European governments negotiated temporary suspensions. Tehran signed agreements, offered assurances, and later resumed enrichment. The IAEA repeatedly demanded greater transparency, access to facilities and implementation of the Additional Protocol. Yet Iran continued to exploit the gap between political........

© Townhall