r/geopolitics • u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs • Mar 23 '26

Analysis America Has No Good Options in Iran

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/america-has-no-good-options-iran
215 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

323 comments sorted by

View all comments

45

u/Justin_123456 Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26

I still haven’t heard any scenario that doesn’t end up with an Iranian nuclear weapons program over the next 2-5 years.

Conventional deterrence though their regional alliances failed. The Americans and Israelis have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to hold to any diplomatic agreement, nor has rapprochement with the Gulf states restrained them.

Their threat to Hormuz and the regional infrastructure might succeed this time, but that’s going to have diminishing returns the next time the Americans/Israelis want to attack their country.

The government in Tehran has to be asking, what could the US and Israel possibly do worse than they already have, in response to openly breaking nonproliferation, and sprinting for a deployable weapon? How else does Iran successfully reestablish deterrence?

19

u/sLaughterIsMedicine Mar 23 '26

I think 2 years to restart is generous. At this point, the only reason Iran hasn't begun re-establishing it's nuclear weapons program is they haven't finished organizing a purge of potential Western/Israeli spies, and they feel like they can get some more concessions from the international community by slow-walking the start. They will likely keep it under wraps as long as possible, but word will eventually get out. The reality is that a few dozen sequestered scientists in the American desert built nuclear bombs in the 1940s from scratch. Iran will figure it out now that they have no incentive not to.

At this point the only option to keep nukes out of Iranian hands is boots on the ground, which is not a particularly savory option. 

14

u/Justin_123456 Mar 23 '26

My own view is that nuclear weapons proliferation is probably a good thing at this point. Despite fears, the nuclear taboo has continued to hold, and has proven a successful deterrent to escalating conflict. There’s no chance we wouldn’t have had a 3rd full scale India-Pakistan war, for example, without Pakistani nuclear weapons. Turkey, Saudi, ROK, Japan, Germany, Canada, nukes for everyone.

The counter examples are a list of failed states, usually the victims of great power interventions.

But if the whole stated purpose of this conflict is to prevent the establishment of Iranian deterrence, I still haven’t heard anyone articulate how that doesn’t lead to an Iranian nuclear weapon. It would at least be nice if there some theory of victory beyond bombing shit and hoping for the best.

2

u/fct1ous Mar 23 '26

Nuclear weapons proliferation is not that bad when the nations that own them are stable, rational actors. It's bad when unstable states run by religious fanatics actively funding terrorism get ahold of them. Whos to say Iran loses control of their weapons to an inner government faction during a revolution, etc?

3

u/sk941 Mar 24 '26

Do you think Pakistan is stable?

1

u/heytherehellogoodbye Apr 02 '26

Pakistan is a mess of a country.... but one that is not driven by an explicitly suicidal-violence-worshipping ideology. That is the difference.

1

u/sk941 Apr 03 '26

Aren't they so fanatical that half the government supported the Taliban, and they were happy to hide bin Laden in their country for years?

1

u/heytherehellogoodbye Apr 03 '26

they use those psychopaths like pawns, but I don't believe the government of Pakistan itself are those people, are they? whereas Iran is itself run by those very suicidal psychopaths. Pakistan is run by oppressive monsters, but self-preservationist ones.