Iran continues to make steady progress on its nuclear program. The international community, led by the United States, is imposing increasingly tough sanctions on Tehran, including a European ban on oil imports from Iran. The world should hope that Iran will negotiate away its uranium enrichment program.
But that is highly unlikely. And so, in the coming months, Washington might be forced to choose between simply letting Iran have nuclear weapons or conducting a military strike designed to prevent that from happening. The options are awful, but here are five reasons why, if faced with that decision, the United States should strike:
1. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a grave threat to international peace and security. Iran currently restrains its foreign policy because it fears US and Israeli retaliation. With nuclear weapons, Tehran will be emboldened by the confidence that it can engage in provocation and use its nuclear weapons to deter the worst forms of retaliation. A more aggressive Iran will increase its support to terrorists and engage in tougher coercive diplomacy.
ANOTHER VIEW: 5 reasons US must avoid war with Iran
Nuclear weapons in Tehran will cause global nuclear proliferation, as other states in the Middle East seek their own nuclear weapons in response, and as Iran provides uranium enrichment technology to US enemies. The global nonproliferation regime would be weakened.
A nuclear Iran could threaten nuclear war to stop developments contrary to its interests, giving the world a nuclear scare every few years. And given that the nuclear balance between Iran and its adversaries would be less stable than the one that held between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war, these future crises could very well spiral out of control resulting in a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel or even Iran and the United States.
2. Deterrence is costly and might not work. In practice, deterring a nuclear Iran means extending the US nuclear umbrella and pledging to fight nuclear wars on behalf of America’s regional partners. But, is the US really willing to trade New York for Riyadh?
To make this inherently incredible threat credible, the US would have to station troops and forward-deployed nuclear weapons in the region, ensuring that the United States will be dragged into any future conflict. These and other costly measures would have to remain in place as long as Iran exists as a state and has nuclear weapons, which could be decades or longer.
THE MONITOR'S VIEW: How to avoid war with Iran
And, while the threat of US retaliation could deter Iran from intentionally launching a nuclear war, the threat to go to war with a nuclear-armed Iran – especially after America was unwilling to fight a nonnuclear Iran – would be irrelevant or incredible as a response to other Iranian challenges. That means the US would simply have to live with those other challenges.
3. A strike would significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program. A US strike would cause immense damage to Iran’s nuclear program. It is unlikely that Iran has significant operational nuclear facilities that America doesn’t know about. The United States could destroy Iran’s known facilities.
While US government officials have said that an Israeli strike would only set back Iran’s nuclear program by one to three years, the US, with its superior capabilities, would impose a greater delay of three to 10 years. This purchases much time for diplomacy or other events that could result in permanently keeping Tehran from the bomb.
4. The consequences of a strike are manageable. While serious, the consequences of a US strike on Iran’s nuclear program would be less grave than many people fear. The US could also put in place a strategy to mitigate the worst-case outcomes.
Some have speculated, for example, that a US strike would lead to a full-scale war. But, while Iran would certainly retaliate, it wouldn’t want to commit national suicide. It knows that a major conflict with the United States could lead to the destruction of its regime. It would almost certainly, therefore, aim for a calibrated response that allows it to save face, but that stops short of risking the regime’s survival.
America can play on Iran’s fears by clearly communicating the red lines that, if crossed, would provoke a devastating US response. One such red line would be Iran closing the strategic oil shipping gateway, the Strait of Hormuz.
By promising to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, Washington should be able to get agreement from regional allies including Israel to stay out of the fight even if they become the victims of Iranian retaliation. And while the White House might feel political pressure to respond to Iranian provocations, the US should be content to trade Iran’s nuclear program for a round of retaliation, which would likely include missile and terror attacks against US and allied interests in the region.
5. A strike is the least bad option. Make no mistake about it, a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is an unattractive option. But it is better than the even worse option of allowing a nuclear-armed Iran to threaten international peace and security for decades to come.
Successive US presidents have declared that a nuclear-armed Iran is “unacceptable” and that “all options are on the table” to prevent that from happening. America is rapidly reaching the point where it must accept the unacceptable or exercise its last remaining option.
RELATED: Six ways for US to reset relations in the new Middle East
Faced with this choice, the United States should destroy Iran’s nuclear program, step back and absorb an inevitable round of retaliation, and seek to quickly de-escalate the crisis. Dealing with the problem now will allow the US – and its friends and allies – to avoid an even greater threat in the future.
Matthew Kroenig is a Stanton Nuclear Security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This article has been adapted from an essay in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
Sign up for our weekly Opinion and Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Commentary to your daily Monitor newsletter.
256 comments