Should the United States Consider Military Action to Hinder Iran's Nuclear Program? >
Only Threat of Military Action Will Stop Iran
Iran must believe that if it tries to build a nuclear bomb, the U.S. will undertake military action to disrupt it
November 16, 2011
About Michael Eisenstadt:
Michael Eisenstadt is a senior fellow, and director of the military and security studies program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Prior to joining the Institute in 1989, Mr. Eisenstadt worked as a military analyst with the U.S. government.
Military action is a last resort. But for nuclear diplomacy to succeed, Tehran must believe that if it tries to build a bomb, the United States will undertake military action to disrupt such an effort.
Iran's near-term nuclear intentions are unclear. The recent International Atomic Energy Agency report supports the conclusion that at the very least, Tehran seeks an option to build a bomb. Believing that its nuclear program would be attacked if it sought to exercise this option might deter it from doing so, or at least cause it to defer such a decision.
[See a collection of political cartoons on Iran.]
The recent alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington should be a wake-up call. It indicates that 30 years of Iranian terrorist attacks on American interests, without a U.S. military response, has convinced Tehran that it can continue to act with impunity—even on U.S. soil. Unless Washington alters Tehran's risk calculus, the United States may be targeted again. Iran may even conclude that it can also build a bomb with relative impunity.
Advocates of containment—the much-touted alternative to diplomacy or to preventive military action—often present it as a low-cost, low-risk policy option. They frequently gloss over the fact that to work, it must be backed up with a credible threat of force; that the costs of a nuclear deterrence failure in a proliferated Middle East may be measured in millions of lives lost; and that the likelihood of a nuclear deterrence failure is not trivial, given the propensity of an embattled, and increasingly insular and hard-line regime in Tehran, to miscalculate and overreach.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the turmoil in the Middle East.]
U.S. interests are best served by a diplomatic deal regarding Tehran's nuclear program, bolstered by a robust deterrent posture toward Iran. Paradoxically, to succeed diplomatically and to deter, the United States needs to be ready to use force in response to further acts of terrorism by Iran, or to an attempt by Iran to build a bomb. For the threat of force to work, however, it has to be credible, and it has to dramatically alter Iran's risk calculus. Right now, neither condition is present. The United States ignores this state of affairs at its own, and its allies' peril.
- See a slide show of 6 vulnerable potential terrorist targets.
- See a slide show of 15 post-Cold War uprisings.
- See an opinion slide show of 5 ways Arab governments resist democracy.
- Other Arguments
-
#125436
No — Engagement has failed, but supporting Iran's internal opposition is a better option than U.S. military action
ALIREZA JAFARZADEH, Author of 'The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis'
-
#217640
No — U.S. should stop calling Mujahedeen-e-Khalq a terrorist group, and allow it to fight Iran regime
RAYMOND TANTER, Founder of the Iran Policy Committee
-
#46159
Yes — America cannot shirk its responsibility to stop Tehran's nuclear aims
JAMIE M. FLY, Former Director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council
-
#48179
No — Cost of military action outweighs its limited benefits
MATTHEW DUSS, Director of Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress
-
#65167
No — The last thing U.S. needs is another war in the Muslim world
JUSTIN LOGAN, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute
-
#73999
No — A pre-emptive strike would make containing Iran's nuclear program harder, not easier
JAMES DOBBINS, Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation
Reader Comments Read all comments (1)
Andrita of ID 9:58AM November 16, 2011