Ephraim Asculai, an expert on atomic energy, details the numerous flaws that render the agreement powerless to prevent the Islamic Republic from continuing work on its nuclear-weapons program (article begins on p. 23):

[According to the terms of the deal], only the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can ask for access [to a suspected nuclear site], and [even then] it must provide reasons for this request. . . . [B]oth conditions pose serious problems. As an example, let us assume that the U.S. intelligence community receives sensitive source-verified information that Iran is setting up an installation at a hitherto unknown site. The U.S. would then need to convince the IAEA, which would in turn need to divulge this information to Iran. The Iranians would then deny the entire claim and refuse entry to IAEA inspectors at the suspect site and the area around it. In addition, one must remember that the IAEA is not above politics, and there have been past occurrences when its director-general did not act according to the evidence and refused to indict Iran for incidents of non-compliance. . . .

[Furthermore], Iran would have 24 days to prepare for the IAEA’s arrival. This would be insufficient time for hiding or removing large-scale facilities such as nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants. . . . . However, smaller-scale prohibited facilities and activities . . . can be removed and/or hidden from sight within this period. These could include small-scale experimental setups, or computers with relevant software, which could be easily removed before an inspection. For the Iranians this would constitute a cat-and-mouse exercise, but for the inspectors this would be a predestined failure. Only inspections based on the “anywhere, anytime” principle would enable IAEA inspectors to perform their duties satisfactorily.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”