The Strategic Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran
Chapter Four

Creating Better Policy Options

Even armed with nuclear weapons, Iran will not necessarily be hostile to U.S. interests, and the United States should not necessarily treat a nuclear-armed Iran as an enemy. Whether a nuclear-armed Iran is a danger to the United States and its interests depends on Iranian threat perceptions and the progress of internal reform. A cautious, moderate Iran armed with nuclear weapons may be an improvement over the status quo. However, a nuclear-armed Iran raises several important issues about which the United States will need to build more intellectual capital to make judicious choices about the course of its policy toward Iran and other issues that will be affected by Iran's crossing the nuclear threshold. What follows is an effort to think through how a nuclear-armed Iran could affect U.S. interests and to craft a strategy of political, economic, and military measures to minimize the negative impact of such a development.

This analysis is premised on the assumption that the United States cannot prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons without incurring prohibitively high political and diplomatic costs, especially while Iranian domestic politics are in flux.⁷⁰ A second assumption is that Iran's domestic circumstances are likely to remain unclear for a long time.⁷¹ These two considerations bound the range of choice for U.S. policy, reducing the likelihood that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons will cease to be a cause for concern, but also limiting U.S. responses short of attack on Iranian nuclear facilities except in extreme circumstances. In this range of choices, the optimal course for U.S. interests is to adopt a set of policies that minimizes the political gains to Iran for acquiring nuclear weapons.

U.S. Interests

The United States has four national interests that could be jeopardized by a nuclear-armed Iran with long-range means of delivery: preserving the safety of U.S. territory, retaining the ability to use U.S. conventional forces freely in the Middle East, sustaining nonproliferation regimes, and maintaining the willingness of allies and friends to work in coalition with the United States. The degree of effect depends on how Iran behaves once it is a nuclear state.

Safety of U.S. Territory

The current U.S. national security strategy is based on the argument that regional or local wars will not endanger the homeland. When considering whether to attack Serbia, coerce Iraq, or defend South Korea, the United States has had the luxury of assuming that its own territory would not be affected. Relaxing the assumption that U.S. territory is a sanctuary dramatically raises the cost to the United States of choosing to engage its forces in regional wars. Currently, U.S. political leadership must weigh the potential for acts of terrorism but not for outright attack on U.S. territory by governments it engages in regional conflict. An Iran armed with nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles calls the premise of the current strategy into question because the United States will need to evaluate the risk of attack on the U.S. homeland as it considers whether to use force against Iran or states Iran may choose to defend.

Countries with the ability to attack the United States with nuclear weapons will radically change the U.S. calculus about engaging in conflict. The costs of advancing U.S. interests and protecting regional allies for American involvement in the Middle East are likely to escalate dramatically because the United States will not have the luxury of considering its territory a sanctuary. With U.S. territory at risk, the threshold in U.S. political consciousness for American involvement in the Middle East is likely to rise. Without U.S. territory at risk, the United States was willing to take an expansive view of interests and allies: the Government was risking soldiers and money but not U.S. national security or civilians. The increased cost of voting whether to risk the security of U.S. cities will likely make the United States define its interests more narrowly and become more reluctant to extend security assurances to other states.

The multivariate problems raised by a nuclear-armed Iran prompt the question of whether deterrence alone will be sufficient to prevent Iran from threatening U.S. interests. Deterrence evidently prevented combat between the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. It seems to prevent the strongest states from fighting each other. Yet it did not prevent Iran and Iraq from going to war in the 1980s. Would deterrence prevent Iran and the United States from going to war?

It might. Deterrence has seemed to function at the most basic level of preventing the strongest powers from attacking each other's homelands. Some states, including the United Kingdom, France, and--at least until recently--China, seemed to want nuclear weapons principally to prevent other states from attacking their territory. They did not attempt to threaten the use of nuclear weapons for other purposes or to extend the guarantee of their weapons to other states. However, even in the case of direct defense, deterrence is stable only if nuclear forces are survivable and numerous enough to threaten a retaliatory attack.

If the only areas of conflicting interest between Iran and the United States were threats posed to each other's territory, deterrence alone might be sufficient. Iran certainly might commit the money and effort to build nuclear weapons for status quo purposes, as the United Kingdom, France, and China have done. However, Iran is more likely to try to exploit the political value of nuclear weapons to jockey for advantage in other areas. The Iranian perception of itself as a natural leader in the Gulf, a cultural hegemon in the Middle East, and a challenger to the U.S. presence and role as protector suggest that Iran would want to use the clout of its nuclear force to further its aims beyond the defense of its homeland.⁷²

Efforts to extend deterrence from the immediate defense of territory more broadly to friendly or allied states are likely to foment crises between the United States and Iran. Would the United States persevere in the face of an Iranian threat to attack it for intervening in a South Asian, Caspian, or Middle Eastern conflict? Politically, crossing the nuclear threshold makes a state such as Iran a force to be reckoned with in a very different way. The practical impact of Iran as a nuclear state will make it a major player in the politics of extended deterrence.

The key to extending deterrence is the credibility of a state's threat to choose war in defense of other states. Nuclear states with aspirations beyond the defense of their own territory have tended to engage in risky behavior to establish the credibility of their promises to extend deterrence: for example, the United States in Berlin, the Soviet Union in Cuba, China with Taiwan. Nuclear states have tended to go through a period of crisis as they prod the limits of each other's interests, a pattern particularly evident early in the course of their relations. If Iran conforms to the pattern of other nuclear states seeking influence beyond self-defense, the United States in particular should expect a period of Iran's testing the limits of power and exploring the extent of advantage gained in becoming a nuclear state.

Alternatives to the use of American military power also are likely to gain currency, especially in the debate about whether the free flow of Gulf oil is a vital U.S. national interest. Is a plentiful supply of relatively inexpensive oil a sufficient cause to rally the American public in the face of a nuclear threat? Higher gas prices, alternative fuels, exploration in other regions, and agreed quotas of oil from states outside the Gulf (especially Mexico, with which the United States already has a limited access agreement stemming from the 1996 peso crisis), or ending sanctions against Iraq could emerge as options in lieu of enforcing the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf if that enforcement puts the United States at risk of nuclear attack.⁷³

In addition, the vulnerability of U.S. territory probably will lead to increased pressure on regional allies to conform to U.S. political and social values. Will the United States remain willing to defend allies who do not share its values when American cities are at risk? The Cold War experience suggests that the United States is unlikely to extend nuclear deterrence to states that are not solidly democratic and closely tied to the United States politically. States not meeting the standard are likely to gain support by proxy or assistance but will not enjoy the direct involvement of U.S. forces when the forces of another nuclear power are engaged.

Such standards have not, however, been applied to the Persian Gulf region to date. U.S. forces were directly involved in protecting Gulf shipping during the Iran-Iraq war and in defending Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. They are committed to protect regional security in the event of similar aggression. If the United States chooses to provide a nuclear umbrella for the Persian Gulf countries, it will do so to protect U.S. strategic needs and security commitments. GCC states are not likely to choose nuclear protection or security engagement with Iran over democratization of their own political systems, and the United States is not likely to make democratization a quid pro quo of defending GCC states.

Use of U.S. Conventional Forces

The United States unquestionably has the finest conventional military in the world. U.S. forces have the most sophisticated equipment and highest level of training of any armed forces on the planet. The U.S. military has no peer as a high-intensity fighting force, and the gap will widen further as the United States incorporates revolutionary advances in communications and intelligence.

A state could not engage the United States on a conventional battlefield and rationally expect to win. The Clinton administration's rogue state policy considered Iranian choices irrational or incapable of being affected by the logic of state interests, but most Middle East scholars disagree with such an assessment.⁷⁴ States wishing to defeat America thus are likely to appeal to asymmetric warfare or to affect the decision to engage the Armed Forces to neutralize their conventional power.

A nuclear-armed Iran could threaten the United States with attacks on its territory or forces to prevent the United States from intervening in areas of importance to Iran. An Iranian threat of this sort could aggravate a crisis in two ways. It would increase the political risk to the United States of using force. It also is likely to slow U.S. response time as measures to reduce the operational impact of nuclear attack against U.S. forces were planned and reviewed.

An Iranian threat to stage a nuclear attack on the United States would radically drive up the political costs of U.S. intervention. At a minimum, the situation would likely require more explicit decisions than currently exist about the level of risk acceptable to the United States to defend its interests and those of friendly states in the Gulf. Absent dependable missile defenses, the United States would need to either preemptively strike Iranian nuclear sites or rely on the threat of retaliating against Iran for any attacks on the United States.

Publicly threatening to use nuclear weapons against the United States would be a costly gambit for Iran, both politically and militarily. Simply making the threat would drastically endanger the current of political goodwill and economic investment Iran seems to covet from the West. Relations with the West already have become a tool for both sides in Iran's internal struggle for control, with reformists holding out the prospect of prosperity and international recognition and conservatives threatening actions that could delegitimize the Khatami government in the West. Michael Eisenstadt has even suggested that conservatives could precipitate military conflict to embarrass President Khatami and to end his Western initiatives. Given hard-liner efforts to reverse the election of an overwhelming number of reformists in 2000 and the arrest and conviction of a number of Khatami supporters and appointees to government office, such a prospect needs to be taken seriously.

Unless Iran had high confidence in the reliability of its weapons and delivery systems (which probably would require a substantial testing program), it could not expect to damage sites of importance to U.S. nuclear operations--which would constrain Iran's targeting to a countervalue strategy. Such an approach relies on terrorizing civilian population centers rather than attacking military forces and installations. As Western countries grow more concerned about the morality of using force, threatening a countervalue nuclear strike could be even more politically damaging to Iran than holding U.S. nuclear forces and facilities at risk. However, once Iran has the capability to attack the United States with nuclear weapons, the United States will need to plan on the basis of Iranian capabilities, even if the costs to Iran would be high to engage in such behavior.

In threatening to use nuclear weapons against the United States, Iran would have to take into account the likely prospect of a preemptive U.S. attack on Iranian launch facilities and other key strategic sites. If the likelihood is judged as high that Iran would actually carry out its threats against U.S. cities during a crisis, an American President might launch a military operation to attempt to destroy Iran's long-range attack capacity.

A military strike by the United States on Iranian facilities would have disastrous consequences for Iran and for U.S. interests in the region. Iran's deep-seated hatred of the United States would be confirmed by any such attack, which would halt any trend toward a moderate foreign policy or a defensive security strategy. The Iranian government would feel obligated to retaliate against U.S. targets--civilian or military--as well as against Israel and any regional ally hosting U.S. forces. Retaliation could be by conventional or nonconventional means, such as by surviving NBC weapons systems, chemical or biological terrorism, an attack in the Gulf, or by a closure of the Strait of Hormuz. A U.S. attack would accomplish what the Iranian political process, the weak economy, and the loss of the war with Iraq have not done: to unite the reformist-minded Iranian public with the most outrageous of the hard-line elements in anger against the United States. It would effectively end, for all intents and for a very long time, any efforts at rapprochement or easing of tension in the region.

At an operational level, the longstanding Iranian objection to deployment of U.S. forces in GCC states could translate into a military challenge. The threat of nuclear weapons against U.S. forces could require the administration to review policy and military plans for operating under these circumstances and to consult with Congress and allies--possibly delaying deployment of U.S. troops whose timely arrival could be critical to the defense of friendly states. An Iranian move to a more visible and assertive military posture would increase the likelihood of military incidents and have a deleterious effect on crisis stability, as would a U.S. response that appeared reticent. An Iranian nuclear threat also could cause the United States to consider deploying nuclear weapons in the region, either in host countries or aboard U.S. vessels operating in the region.

A nuclear-capable Iran would necessitate reducing the operational vulnerability of U.S. conventional forces in the Gulf. Most of the means of doing so have the pronounced political drawback of also reducing the regional visibility of U.S. forces. A nuclear-armed Iran that succeeds in reducing the visibility of U.S. forces in the area would have achieved a substantial political benefit from crossing the nuclear threshold.

Iran also could threaten to attack regional governments willing to host U.S. forces. Threatening GCC or Central Asian neighbors does not have the political resonance of challenging the United States. It would incur international opprobrium and create impediments to the growing cooperation between Iran and GCC states, and it could reduce Iran's ambition to speak as the major voice in the Muslim world. For example, just threatening to attack Saudi Arabia raises the politically dangerous image of damage to Islamic holy sites and might justify Saudi exclusion once again of Iranians from the pilgrimage (hajj), a risk the Islamic Republic is unwilling to run.

Even if Iran does not overtly threaten host nations in the Gulf region, those states are certain to expect increased U.S. protection. Thus, with a nuclear-armed Iran, the United States would need to plan for theater missile defenses sufficient to defend civilian population centers, as well as U.S. force concentrations and key logistics nodes, in GCC states.

The increased risk to U.S. forces also could affect American willingness to continue enforcing sanctions and implementing a containment policy against Iraq that threatens military retaliation for a breach in sanctions. That obligation is a major driver of the size and configuration of U.S. forces in the Gulf region. Absent the requirement to enforce United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iraq, the U.S justification would be less compelling for much of the air power currently stationed in Turkey for Operation Northern Watch, or in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia for Operation Southern Watch. Monitoring Iraqi compliance with UN Security Council resolutions provides a convenient rationale for maintaining forces in the Persian Gulf; without sanctions, the GCC and other states would have more difficulty supporting the long-term stationing of U.S. forces in the region.

Iran has an incentive not to challenge seriously U.S. forces operating in the Gulf. Without the constraint of UN-imposed sanctions, limits on Iraqi military operations, and U.S. forces on station in the region, Iraq could quickly resume its WMD programs.⁷⁵ U.S.-led efforts to monitor and eliminate Iraqi NBC weapons programs reduce the near-term threat to Iran of a new Iraqi military confrontation. The efforts also provide leverage for the United States in any discussions with GCC states and Iran about the conduct of a nuclear-armed Iran. Managing Iraq also could provide a common cause for Iran and the United States, should Tehran choose to restore relations with Washington.

Sustaining Nonproliferation Regimes

A nuclear-armed Iran raises serious questions about the efficacy of current nonproliferation regimes and poses numerous problems in sustaining meaningful constraints on WMD proliferation. A nuclear Iran would weaken the NPT by making a Middle East nuclear-weapons-free zone an even less likely prospect.

However, that is not the only, or even the most damaging, effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have on nonproliferation regimes. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and its civilian nuclear energy facilities are subject to monitoring and inspection by the IAEA. The NPT requires a state to commit not to develop nuclear weapons in return for assistance in developing civilian nuclear energy programs. Especially in light of the unanticipated extent of Iraqi nuclear programs discovered after the Gulf War and revelations about the advanced state of North Korean efforts, an Iranian nuclear program that went undetected by the IAEA would injure or totally dash the belief that the NPT had an effective means of evaluating compliance with its obligations.

The norm of nonproliferation associated with the NPT also can suffer from the choices of states not party to it. For example, India, Pakistan, and Israel were not signatories to the NPT; however, their crossing the nuclear threshold has badly shaken the status quo. Thus, proliferation by any state is perceived as a challenge to the Treaty and the norm of nonproliferation, which is tottering even without clear public evidence of an Iranian nuclear program. Iran's abrogating the NPT would destroy the idea that the NPT can establish a norm for state behavior.

Proliferation has a major effect on the Treaty and the norm of nonproliferation, but whether the NPT itself is a decisive factor in the calculations of many states considering developing nuclear weapons is not clear. India and especially Pakistan depend heavily on international assistance programs and therefore have reason to be concerned about the reaction of the international community, yet both judged the international sanctions to be less important than their decisions on nuclear testing.

Although Iran has not depended to a similar degree on funding from international institutions and bilateral assistance, it needs foreign investment to rebuild its energy infrastructure and provide housing and jobs. If the Treaty does not motivate those states subject to sanctions and desirous of acceptance by the international community to abjure nuclear weapons, it has even less chance of constraining the nuclear activities of the states about which the United States would be most concerned developing nuclear weapons.⁷⁶

Both Iraq and North Korea built substantial nuclear programs despite being NPT signatories. Iraq persists in maintaining its diverse programs in the face of sanctions and monitoring efforts and at great political and economic cost. North Korea may provide a useful example for Iran concerning proliferation, given some similarities in their internal economic woes and need for international assistance. Even before evidence came to light about North Korean nuclear programs, the country was subject to some of the most coercive economic and political sanctions in effect anywhere in the world. The Kim regime enforced North Korean isolation until the suffering of the population from famine became a widespread and widely known problem. At this point, the regime appears to have used the threat of further development in its nuclear and ballistic missile programs to extort assistance from the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Iranian security concerns, national pride, and desire for international respectability probably reduce the likelihood that an Iranian leadership would barter its nuclear programs as North Korea appears to have done. But Iran's economic isolation and need for foreign investment may give the international community some leverage over the extent to which Iranian programs are visible or declared.

Whether a sizeable coalition of states would commit to sanctions against Iran, even if it were in clear violation of its NPT obligations, is open to question. Tepid international reaction to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests suggests that punitive measures associated with NPT violation would not be severe or long-lived.⁷⁷ Neither India nor Pakistan were NPT signatories, so sanctions were not automatic. But few states, even among the ardent supporters of nonproliferation norms, had the stomach to cut off assistance to two countries as poor and dependent on international assistance as are India and Pakistan.⁷⁸ The sanctions were removed in less than 6 months.⁷⁹ Moreover, some members of the international community probably will consider it hypocritical to punish Iran when Israel, India, and Pakistan escape censure and while sanctions regimes are eroding against NPT signatories Iraq and North Korea.

Iran might be able to moderate international reaction by referring to the U.S. refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), its initial reluctance to ratify the CWC, or its possible withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Tehran could assert that the United States had destabilized nonproliferation regimes to such a degree that Iran needed to protect itself by becoming a nuclear state. Iran might even justify a more visible military posture and challenges to U.S. forces operating in the Gulf on this basis.

Even if Iran did not openly cross the nuclear threshold, it could still create serious problems for the NPT and associated regimes. A key issue under discussion at the 2000 NPT Review Conference was treatment of opaque nuclear states such as Israel, which has not tested nuclear weapons or announced ownership but is widely believed to possess them. During the 1995 and 2000 NPT review conferences, Iran, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern states called into question the value of the Treaty, considering that it did not constrain the activities of Israel or reduce the nuclear stockpiles of the declared nuclear weapons states.⁸⁰ The United States spent considerable diplomatic effort quelling support for the Iranian position.⁸¹ If Iran becomes a nuclear state but does not declare, deploy, or test nuclear weapons, the United States will have difficulty building support for sanctioning Iran, considering that it has shielded the opaque status of Israel.

Concern about a hostile Iran armed with WMD and long-range delivery means is one of the central arguments in the United States for developing and deploying national missile defenses (NMD). The greater the likelihood that Iran possesses nuclear weapons, the stronger will be the desire of NMD supporters in the United States to proceed with the program. The United States faces a major challenge in building support among allies and in convincing Russia to modify the 1972 ABM Treaty. Neither America's European allies nor Russia are persuaded that threats from Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are the genuine motivations for a system as expensive (estimated at $60 billion) or potentially destabilizing as a national missile defense.

To deploy NMD by 2010, the United States will need to make three decisions requiring the consent of other states:

• Support of the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Canada to upgrade existing early-warning radars on their territory;
• Agreement of an Asian ally (probably Japan) to construct an early-warning radar on its territory; and
• Agreement of Russia to modify substantially the ABM Treaty.

Without the support of key allies essential to the near-term functioning of an early-warning network, the United States cannot construct the envisioned NMD system. The Nation has the treaty-compliant option of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty if the Russians do not consent to modification. Inability to reach a deal with Moscow over modifying the treaty, however, will greatly aggravate allied support.

Iran openly crossing the nuclear threshold might facilitate agreement with Russia and with European allies on deployment of an NMD system. Europeans would be gravely concerned about Iran abrogating the NPT, especially as Western European publics became aware that the ranges of Iranian ballistic missiles already in the inventory are capable of reaching them. Although Russia does not figure prominently in Iranian rhetoric, Russia's military campaign against Chechnya could bring Moscow into the sphere of Iranian extended deterrence.

Russia has numerous incentives to underplay Iran's nuclear programs and apparently has a leadership willing to play tough with the United States. President Putin's orchestration of a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) II ratification foreclosed an easy package deal with the United States to modify the ABM Treaty, to further reduce strategic nuclear forces to 1,500-2,000 warheads, and to limit later stages of NMD capability. Putin further raised the stakes in the ABM debate by threatening to withdraw from the entire framework of bilateral and multilateral arms control treaties. These agreements include the CTBT, which prohibits any nuclear tests, the NPT, which commits the nuclear states to work toward disarmament, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which eliminates missiles in the 500-5,000 kilometer range for the United States and Russia, the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, which limits several categories of military equipment, the CFE 1-A Treaty, which sets manpower limits for military forces in Europe, the CWC, which eliminates all chemical weapons stockpiles by 2007, and START II, which reduces Russian nuclear forces to 3,500 warheads. This shrewd tactic will complicate the U.S. ability to choose a unilateral course on NMD while simultaneously increasing European concerns about the United States upsetting a strategic equilibrium that minimizes demands on Europeans.

European allies also have numerous incentives to underplay the status and potential effect of a nuclear-armed Iran. All major European governments are committed to a policy of arms control to manage the threat of proliferation. Europeans do not perceive that the nonproliferation regime is unraveling or believe that means in addition to arms control will be necessary to address the regime's growing weakness.⁸² French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin recently stated:

The deployment of ballistic arsenals, potential vehicles of weapons of mass destruction, and of the antimissile defense systems designed to counter them aren't without repercussions for international stability . . . it is also important to assess the consequences of a resumption of the arms race encouraged by a project which would in fact switch the emphasis from efforts to promote non-proliferation. . . . ⁸³

French President Jacques Chirac has been even more definitive, saying, "We must avoid any questioning of the ABM Treaty that could upset strategic equilibria and lead to a new nuclear arms race." ⁸⁴

The Shahab-4 missile, when it is tested successfully, will put most European cities in range of Iranian ballistic missiles. If European governments begin acknowledging a vulnerability to Iran that they do not now see, they will incur an obligation to protect themselves. European governments are struggling to find the money by 2003 to fund the relatively modest goal of producing a 60,000-troop EU reaction force. Center-left governments in Germany, France, Britain, and Italy are unlikely to spend more on defense, especially as they struggle to restructure social welfare programs. Redirecting existing defense spending toward rapid construction of ballistic missile defenses would alarm publics that have not been conditioned over time to the growing threat, as Americans have been. It also would likely require sacrificing the EU Helsinki Headline Goal and other cherished programs closer to home for Europeans. As long as Iran does not test and does not declare itself a nuclear state, European countries are unlikely to press for unwanted revelations from it.

Building Coalitions

A nuclear-armed Iran could revive debates about extended deterrence because GCC states have fewer claims of affection and linkage to the United States than did the European states in the NATO alliance when the Soviet Union gained the ability to strike the United States with nuclear weapons. In the late 1950s, Europeans questioned whether the United States would "trade New York for Paris," a phrase that portrayed the stakes for Americans of extending deterrence across the Atlantic. More than 10 years into the Cold War and with 300,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe, a treaty obligation to consider an attack on any NATO state to be an attack on all, an integrated military command primed to conduct a common defense multinationally, and the experience of several crises with the Soviet Union in which the West was willing to risk war, European allies continued to question whether the United States would really defend them.

Because the Nation has less in common with GCC states than it did with European states during the Cold War, a nuclear-armed Iran will probably establish an even higher premium on U.S. credibility with GCC states. The United States will need to exercise steady and careful leadership to bring GCC states along with U.S. threat assessments, military strategy, and force planning for the region. GCC states and other potential allies are likely to worry about U.S. tolerance for casualties on their behalf, and those worries will be difficult to assuage.

The divergence in warfighting capabilities between the United States and its friends in the Gulf region probably will accentuate the division of labor. The United States could undertake high-intensity combat tasks at increasingly distant ranges while other countries are assigned marginal, but possibly casualty-intensive, roles. Depending on the nature of the crisis, Gulf regimes may not want to press the United States into roles that would increase U.S. force presence and possibly casualties, as that pressure could raise both antigovernment and anti-American protests. Geoffrey Kemp argues the divergence in capabilities also could precipitate less commitment by the United States.⁸⁵ However, the Gulf States are likely to be more anxious about participating in operations that inflict more civilian casualties and take more military casualties while this Nation gets the credit for success.

Introducing nuclear weapons into the equation in the Gulf will make warfighting, and therefore war planning, uglier. The military will need to develop operational plans involving the first use and response to nuclear weapons on the battlefield and in the theater, and political leaders will need to engage allies on the terms of U.S. nuclear use.

All these factors will make building coalitions and sustaining consensus in crises an arduous task for the United States when there is a nuclear-armed Iran. The Gulf will require more sustained political attention from the United States to reassure friends and allies and to send consistent signals to potential enemies. It will require more interaction between U.S. and friendly forces to ensure allied participation across the full spectrum of potential combat operations. It may even require, beginning with GCC states, some of the standing planning and operational integration that the United States has in Europe to convince friendly states of the U.S. commitment and to ensure their support.

Current U.S. Policy

Current U.S. policy toward Iran has three central elements: isolating Iran politically and economically; delaying, if not preventing, its acquisition of NBC weapons technology; and, more recently, attempting to engage the new government in open and official discourse.

Sanctioning Iran

The United States embargoed weapons and advanced technology sales to Iran after its 1979 revolution. U.S. sanctions encompassing all financial investment or import of Iranian products were established in the early 1990s and largely remain in force.⁸⁶ In 1999 the Clinton administration permitted exports of food and medicine to Iran; in March 2000, an additional marginal exception was made for U.S. import of some luxury goods (carpets, pistachios, and caviar).⁸⁷ However, Iran and those who would invest in it remain subject to wide-ranging sanctions, including a ban on investment in energy development, which is a crucial sector of the Iranian economy.

Although U.S. officials have voiced their interest in exploring renewed relations with Tehran, the Clinton administration offered only modest proposals. The U.S. policy of containing Iran was intended to encourage it to change its behavior and stop supporting international terrorism, opposing the Middle East peace process, and acquiring NBC weapons systems. In a press briefing in March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright noted that the United States "will not remove the embargo until Iran abandons its pursuit of nuclear weapons and ends its support for terrorist groups opposed to the Middle East peace process." ⁸⁸

As part of its efforts to isolate Iran, the United States opposed Iranian requests for loans with IMF and the World Bank in 1999 and 2000 and continued to oppose proposals for construction of an oil and gas pipeline from the Caucasus through Iran. An Iranian route would provide the shortest, most economical path for energy resources transiting from Central Asia to the Far East and would benefit both Iran and China. Despite occasional hints that it would support an Iranian route, the Clinton administration advocated a pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey that would skirt Iranian territory.⁸⁹ Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson called the Baku-Cehan route "a strategic framework that advances America's national security interests. It is a strategic vision for the future of the Caspian region." ⁹⁰

The United States is practically alone in sanctioning Iran economically. America's European allies have long advocated a policy of critical dialogue or constructive engagement, which encourages investment and dialogue as the primary tools in changing Iranian international behavior. The ILSA legislation sought to enforce compliance with sanctions by U.S. allies and foreign companies by extending punishment extraterritorially to any company doing business in Iran. Regardless of ILSA, Germany is Iran's largest trading partner, and the French oil firm Total has the jubilant support of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin in violating ILSA and investing in Iran.

Despite U.S. sanctions, Iran's political isolation also has broken down. The European Union restored ties to Tehran that were broken in 1998 over the Mykonos trial, which had accused Iranian leaders of supporting international terrorism.⁹¹ President Khatami visited France and Italy in 1999 and Germany in July 2000. Foreign Ministers from the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and France have visited Tehran, and EU consuls have returned. Belgium is the only European state engaged in diplomatic or judicial confrontation with Iran.

Delaying Proliferation

U.S. efforts to forestall a nuclear-armed Iran have been relatively successful in delaying if not denying the program. The U.S arms embargo imposed on Iran after the revolution and sustained even during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war constrained the ability of states and companies to transfer technology and key weapons components to Iran. In addition, economic sanctions may have limited the amount the Iranian Government could spend on nuclear and other WMD programs.⁹² However, Russia is the major supplier of weapon systems and nuclear technology to Iran, and despite making such transfers one of the top priorities in U.S.-Russian relations, Washington has not succeeded in convincing Moscow to desist from the practice.

Engaging Reformists

U.S. efforts to engage Iranian leaders have been less successful. After Khatami's election in 1997 raised the prospect of a less hostile leadership, the Clinton administration began floating suggestions of improved relations.⁹³ In June 1998, responding to a remarkable interview on CNN in which Khatami called for a "dialogue of civilizations," Secretary of State Albright called on Iran to work with the United States to develop a "road map leading to normal relations." ⁹⁴ President Clinton stated, "What we want is a genuine reconciliation with Iran." ⁹⁵ In March 2000, in the same speech in which she spoke of constraints on U.S. relations with Iran, Secretary Albright called for "bringing down the wall of mistrust that has existed between our two countries." ⁹⁶ In these overtures, the United States has insisted that the contacts be public and official. President Clinton, who reportedly was eager to meet President Khatami for a symbolic healing of U.S.-Iranian relations, remained at a special conference held at the UN General Assembly in September 2000 to hear Khatami's speech; Khatami, in turn, stayed to hear Clinton.

Iran has responded to these U.S. overtures cautiously, acknowledging them but not engaging at high levels of the government. Khatami's advisors have rejected several offers of official talks between the U.S. and Iranian governments, calling the U.S. suggestion "unrealistic." ⁹⁷ Although Iran resists high-level government talks, Iranian leaders continue to encourage nongovernmental dialogue.⁹⁸

Overall, the U.S. approach has had some success. Sanctions largely remain in place, with strong political support in the United States for sanctions against Iran itself and those companies doing business in Iran. Countries doing business in Iran (principally Germany and Russia) are at pains to verify that their trade is legal and not contributing to nuclear weapon programs. Iran is making no overt moves toward violating the NPT, which suggests a willingness to temper the political value of possessing nuclear weapons with a careful evaluation of the costs in terms of further political and economic isolation and regional support for continuing close ties to the United States.

Despite these apparent successes, both isolation and delaying proliferation will be difficult to sustain. The EU states increasingly have accepted Iran as a political partner. The United States itself is proposing greater political interaction with Iran, and U.S. ability to dictate the terms of other states' engagement continues to diminish. However, CIA Director George Tenet told senior Clinton administration officials in January 2000 that he could no longer certify that Iran did not have nuclear weapons.⁹⁹ Odds are against sustaining either the isolation or the nonnuclear status of Iran. The United States thus faces a choice of attempting the increasingly difficult task of unilaterally sustaining the current course of policy--isolation relaxed on U.S. terms as Iran develops in positive directions--or of charting a new course.¹⁰⁰

U.S. Strategy

We believe that a new course would best protect and advance U.S. interests against a nuclear-armed Iran. The extent to which a nuclear-armed Iran challenges U.S. interests depends principally on how Iran perceives U.S. and regional reactions. The challenge for the United States is to craft a strategy that maximizes the cost to Iran for openly crossing the nuclear threshold and minimizes the value to them of acquiring nuclear weapons.

The best outcome for the United States would be for Iran to cease its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. This hope, however, is an unrealistic basis for national strategy, given the incentives Iran likely perceives for crossing the nuclear threshold. The United States realistically could assume that Iran might reserve its nuclear weapons as a tool for state survival, without challenging the sanctity of U.S. territory, freedom of operation for U.S. forces, or U.S. relations in the Gulf, and without proliferating its nuclear and ballistic capabilities to other parties.

Yet the potential for several other, possibly more likely, outcomes exists in the behavior of a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran could attempt to capitalize on becoming a nuclear state by adopting an aggressive foreign policy that overtly threatened neighbors and the United States. It could challenge U.S. forces operating in the Gulf, creating incidents and potential conflict. It could behave erratically, vacillating between aggression and accommodation with radical departures from expected behavior.¹⁰¹

The United States needs a strategy that addresses the impact of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons on the political dynamics of Southwest Asia and the Middle East and on U.S. ability to operate military forces in the Gulf region. The strategy also should exploit potential openings to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. In crafting a new strategy, the United States should not seek to make an enemy of Iran. Iranian domestic politics have shown indications of positive developments, and Iran may prove to be more assertive without being a destabilizing or aggressive power, even when nuclear-armed.

However, considering Iranian assiduity in working to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles with intercontinental ranges and the degree of uncertainty about its political direction, the United States needs to take judicious diplomatic and military steps to reassure friends in the region. The Nation also needs to ensure that its defense capabilities are postured to deter a nuclear Iran from threatening U.S. interests. The strategic task can be framed as follows: how can the United States encourage positive developments while hedging against potentially threatening behavior?

A strategy making effective use of the full range of political, economic, and military means is needed to serve U.S. interests. Such a strategy would have five critical components:

• Reassuring regional allies;
• Improving defenses of U.S. territory;
• Normalizing relations with Iran before it becomes a nuclear power;
• Adapting U.S. military operations in the Gulf; and
• Sending unequivocal signals.

Reassuring Regional Allies

Even if rapprochement occurs between the United States and Iran, neither is it likely to be sufficiently broad nor will Iranian domestic politics be sufficiently clear to protect and advance U.S. interests in the coming decade. The United States is likely to continue to have conflicting interests with Iran, as are regional friends and U.S. allies.

Although dismissing concern about Iran would be injudicious, the greater risk in U.S. policy is that of making Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile advances the main factor shaping U.S. policy in the region. Focusing predominantly on Iran's possession of nuclear weapons may cause the United States to enhance the value to Iran of acquiring nuclear weapons and miss the larger goal of managing security in the Gulf. Maintaining GCC support should be considered the paramount regional objective of U.S. policy.

The GCC governments will be particularly sensitive to the U.S. reaction to Iran crossing the threshold. They also will make contradictory demands on the United States: concurrently wanting more protection from and less visible linkages to it. This argues for the United States not to overreact if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold. A strategy that would reduce U.S.-GCC cohesion or commitment needs to be avoided. The United States needs to consult fully with regional friends when strong stands on Iran or other regional issues are under consideration.

To minimize the negative effects on GCC states of a nuclear-armed Iran, the United States needs to outline a vision for Iran that is compatible with U.S. and GCC interests and around which the United States could build support. The United States should advocate an Iran that is powerful, prosperous, governed by law, and engaged in the Middle East and Central Asia. The United States, Iran, and several other states in the region have mutual interests in managing Iraq, moderating Taleban rule in Afghanistan, and reducing drug trafficking. These issues provide an agenda for eventual government relations.

Such a U.S.-outlined vision could give Iran the prospect of a future in which it is both strong and cooperative. It would allow Iran the political status and economic interaction it is seeking but would set the agenda and terms of international engagement on the basis of Iran's behavior rather than on its demands because of its nuclear status. It would justify GCC involvement with Iran that is occurring and increasing but would deny Iran the linkage to its nuclear programs that would provide a political payoff for crossing the nuclear threshold.

In addition to a positive vision, the United States needs to find more convincing ways of sharing intelligence information and assessments with GCC states to inform them of the basis for U.S. judgments about Iran. Only with a common understanding of Iranian capabilities can the United States build support for its strategy for managing a nuclear-armed Iran. The routine sharing of information through NATO staffs informed European allies about the Soviet threat during the Cold War and also reassured them that the United States planned to carry out its commitments to allies. Defense Secretary Cohen's recent initiative to create an early-warning network among GCC states is a very positive step toward common assessments but one that should be expanded to incorporate greater information sharing on technology transfers, WMD programs, military operations, and funding of terrorism.

The United States is unlikely to consider constructing with GCC states the extensive integrated military command that exists in NATO. However, finding visible and structural ways for military and intelligence officers to exchange information frequently and to work together on common approaches toward Iran and regional security would bring U.S. and GCC threat assessments into closer alignment. It also would reassure GCC states about the U.S. course of action in various contingencies.

Improving Defenses

The current state of U.S.-Iranian relations makes Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems a new and serious threat to the United States. The very damaging political consequences of Iran's ability to hold U.S. territory at risk argues for reestablishing if possible the fire wall between the security of that territory and the engagement of the Armed Forces in regional wars. The ability to protect the homeland may become necessary to maintain public support for assertive uses of the U.S. military as proliferation regimes weaken. The ability to protect friendly territory probably will be a requirement for open GCC support of U.S. policies. Finally, better protection of the United States would greatly strengthen its defense commitments.

The United States should make a priority of developing the capability to destroy incoming missiles and warheads, whether they are targeted against U.S. territory, allied territory, or U.S. forces operating in the Gulf region. Ensuring public willingness to continue engagement in the Gulf and maintaining GCC support argue for designing missile defense systems with a high degree of confidence in their performance. To maximize confidence of intercept, systems should be developed with multiple engagement options--both boost-phase and ballistic-phase interception. Multiple engagement opportunities will be especially important if Iran develops systems capable of fractionating payloads or incorporating decoys or other countermeasures.¹⁰²

Missiles are interdicted most effectively in the boost phase. The ABM Treaty limits on space-based weapons prohibit such deployments, however. Recent advances in sea-based interceptors and airborne laser programs may provide the ability to interdict missiles in boost phase from forward-deployed positions without violating treaty restrictions. Because of their relative scarcity, theater defenses currently are not routinely forward-deployed in the Gulf. Deploying TMDs in crises could be difficult politically because of concerns about precipitating further instability. In addition, during crises, lift assets would be taxed heavily to move forces into the region quickly. Although theater missile defense would be a priority item for deployment, we believe these constraints argue for permanently forward-deploying TMDs in the Gulf region.

Ballistic missile defenses alone will not, of course, be sufficient to protect U.S. territory. Although ballistic missiles are a dramatic delivery system, WMD can be delivered to U.S. territory in numerous other ways. The United States also should enhance Coast Guard monitoring and interception assets, give priority to R&D of cruise missile defenses, and improve screening at ports of entry to the United States.

Normalizing Relations

The United States will not have the luxury of a clumsy reaction should Iran cross the nuclear threshold. The Clinton administration erred by doing too little to dissuade India and Pakistan from becoming overt nuclear states and also by focusing inordinate attention on India and Pakistan after their nuclear tests. The administration's actions served to reward proliferating states with the attention of major powers. Such a mistake would have greater consequences in the case of Iran, given the continuing fragility--if no longer outright hostility--in relations between the two governments, the greater damage to nonproliferation regimes of having an NPT signatory become a nuclear state, and the great anxiety a nuclear-armed Iran would create in other states in South Asia and the Middle East.¹⁰³

Therefore, the United States should ensure as far as possible in advance that Iran will discern no advantages to crossing the nuclear threshold. The United States has and will maintain an important interest in responding to positive change inside Iran and encouraging a more moderate Iranian foreign policy. This argues for normalizing relations with Iran before it becomes a nuclear state.¹⁰⁴

The first element of normalization is ending the vilification of Iran as a rogue state, or a state of concern. For at least the past 6 years, U.S. foreign policy has operated on the assumption that there exists a particular category of states that neither accepts the norms of international behavior nor responds to usual means of suasion. In 1993, dual containment became U.S. policy toward Iran and Iraq, part of a broader administration approach to dealing with rogue states. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake noted that U.S. foreign policy "must face the reality of recalcitrant and outlaw states that not only choose to remain outside the family but also assault its basic values," and for which the United States has "a special responsibility for developing a strategy to neutralize, contain, and, through selective pressure, perhaps eventually transform these backlash states into constructive members of the international community." ¹⁰⁵ These states--Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Iran--were to be punished by isolation and sanctions until they came into compliance with international norms of behavior.

Stigmatizing Iran reduces U.S. ability to engage it when doing so would be conducive to U.S. interests and also undercuts international support for U.S. efforts to confront Iran. America's closest allies in Europe or in the Middle East (with the exception of Israel) have never shared the U.S. categorization of Iran as a rogue state, and U.S. efforts to engage Iran belie the term.

The second element of normalizing relations is ending the broad economic sanctions against Iran. Sanctions may have been intended to isolate and undermine the authority of the hard-line clerics who urged and supported export of the revolution, but their real impact is difficult to gauge. Economic sanctions and a dismal economy caused by low oil prices, no economic diversification, and a 20-year absence of investment in housing, job creation, or oil industry infrastructure reduced Iran's financial resources and may have limited the amount of money the state could spend on nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.¹⁰⁶ Ending sanctions would relax that constraint, possibly increasing Iran's ability to afford nuclear weapons. However, money does not appear to dominate Iran's calculations about its nuclear programs. The EU policy of political and economic engagement is already eroding sanctions. Washington has begun easing Iran's economic isolation in allowing trade in luxury goods. It should now free up the kinds of trade and investment that would benefit ordinary Iranians. Ending broad sanctions is the best chance the United States has to influence the kinds of positive change that would make a nuclear-armed Iran less threatening to U.S. interests.

An end to broad sanctions should not occasion the cessation of all trade restrictions with Iran. Targeted sanctions that restrict technologies and materials essential to nuclear weapon development are important to keep in place.¹⁰⁷ The United States should sustain sanctions against firms, both in Iran and elsewhere, that are suspected of involvement in nuclear work. Iranian citizens suspected of terrorist activity should remain barred from receiving visas, and information about that prohibition should be widely disseminated. To the extent possible, Iranians associated with nuclear programs also should be publicly identified to assist in monitoring their individual activities and building understanding of Iran's nuclear activities.

Sanctions need not be against Tehran alone, since control of fissile material remains the surest way to prevent proliferation. The United States should seek to establish complete transparency of supply in nuclear materials to Iran and negotiate bilaterally with the Russians to reward their compliance and gain their agreement to punish the transfer of fissile material to Iran.

The third aspect of normalization is building diverse societal linkages with Iran. The U.S. military carries too large a burden of signaling U.S. intentions to Iran. Although the existence of limited channels of communication is understandable because the United States and Iran have no diplomatic relations, the United States should develop supplemental routes of exchanging information so that U.S. military action is not burdened with delivering too many, and in some cases conflicting, messages. Force is a blunt instrument, and the United States should not expect it to be capable of signaling complicated messages.

The U.S. Government restricts official contact with Iran to high-level and public engagements. This limitation is potentially counterproductive because high-level government contacts make more vulnerable those Iranians in power who advocate links with the West. The United States should encourage closer association between Iranians and counterparts in and out of government to lessen the prospect of those in contact being delegitimized as potential leaders or loyal Iranians. High-level interaction should be the eventual result of abundant avenues for building Iranian-American contacts. Instead of focusing on government involvement, the United States should foster numerous paths of interaction:

• Transparency in U.S. military operations in the Gulf, Iraq, and Central Asia;
• Exchanges of disaster relief experts from around the United States and Iran;
• International meetings for scholars, newspaper editors, and journalists;
• High school and university exchange programs;
• Scholarships for research on scientific subjects such as archaeology, geology, and immunology to build relationships among experts across different fields;
• Funding American research in Iran in a variety of cultural areas that would build American understanding of Iran, with reciprocal projects for Iranians in the United States;
• Small business development by the Iranian community from America; and
• Sister city programs.

These kinds of activities would diminish Iranian isolation, create greater understanding and awareness between Iran and the United States, and diversify the portfolio of messengers. Any high-level government engagement that takes place should occur in lower-risk venues rather than bilateral meetings and in casual public interactions at international meetings--such as handshakes and brief words recorded by international media at the annual UN General Assembly, which Khatami has attended. Iranian opponents of improving relations with the United States would be less able to exploit the meetings for domestic political purposes.

Adapting Military Operations

A nuclear-capable Iran would require the United States to rethink conventional operations in the Persian Gulf region. Aircraft carriers and surface fleets would become vulnerable and valuable targets for attack. Key bottlenecks, such as the Strait of Hormuz, further increase the risks to naval forces operating in the Gulf. These vulnerabilities might argue for reconfiguring operations in several ways: using smaller, more independently operating surface vessels, operating further away from Iranian territory, relying more on subsurface vessels for patrols of the Gulf, and quickly equipping all U.S. vessels operating in the Gulf with ship-based cruise and ballistic missile defenses.

The United States will need to adapt the operations of its forces in the Gulf region to reduce their vulnerability to attack by Iranian nuclear weapons while sustaining deterrent and warfighting capabilities. But U.S. influence with GCC governments depends heavily on the military commitments the United States makes and the power it exerts in the region. Any real or perceived reduction in or restrictions on U.S. operations will increase the value to Iran of acquiring nuclear weapons and will encourage other potential proliferators. Therefore, the Nation will need to balance a growing need for force protection with the political importance of a visible and active military presence. The more predictable and consistent the United States is in its operations before and after Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, the less value there will be to Iran for acquiring nuclear weapons.

Because its regional friends have contradictory expectations that the United States can increase commitments to their security while reducing the means in theater of ensuring that security, maintaining current operations if Iran increases the pressure on U.S. forces operating in the Gulf carries substantial risks. Gulf Cooperation Council states would be unlikely to agree to U.S. operational freedom in the absence of clear and significant provocation from Iran, especially if U.S. actions were not coupled with political initiatives to engage Iran. Gulf Cooperation Council states would not view Iranian threats to or harassment of U.S. ships in the Gulf as sufficient cause for U.S. retaliation. Enforcing operational freedom of action could risk creating a perception that the United States, rather than Iran, is challenging regional stability. Under such circumstances, enforcement of U.S. military freedom of action could precipitate a rise in oil prices and could play into allegations by Iranian conservatives of aggressive U.S. intentions.

U.S. objectives of maintaining regional support and freedom of military operations are likely to come into conflict. If these goals clash, the United States should press regional friends privately about the importance of U.S. freedom of action but downplay disagreement in public and ultimately accede to allied concerns. The United States cannot defend friends more assertively than they are willing to be defended without sacrificing the political purpose of its military operations.

In the wake of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, and at Saudi insistence, the United States consolidated its forces in the Gulf region and lowered their visibility. This concentration could make U.S. forces more vulnerable to Iranian nuclear attack and with less risk of civilian casualties among the Saudi population. Technological improvements in the coming decade also will increase pressure for a less visible presence in the region. Advances will allow U.S. forces to further reduce their reliance on stationing in GCC states and instead operate at greater distances from the Gulf.

Force planners should identify critical tasks that can be accomplished at standoff ranges, but the desire to reduce vulnerability of U.S. forces operating in the Gulf region needs to be balanced against the political value of their visible stationing and operation. If friends and enemies alike no longer see U.S. forces and operations, they may conclude that the United States is less likely to defend its interests and honor its security assurances to friends in the region. Pulling back U.S. forces as Iran becomes a nuclear power would add to the incentives for proliferation by suggesting that the United States would reduce the profile of its presence in response to states acquiring nuclear weapons.

The United States should place a premium on weapon systems that could create a virtual encirclement of Iran and prevent missiles from leaving Iranian airspace. Crucial activities would include dedicating intelligence assets to monitor Iranian territory, providing clear and permissive guidance to U.S. commanders about rules of engagement of presumed Iranian missiles launches, expanding the window of time for U.S. commanders to decide whether to engage threats, developing airborne laser and other boost-phase intercept systems, and improving defenses for U.S. forces operating in the Gulf.

If Iran were suspected of having a small number of nuclear weapons, measures to complicate Iranian targeting would be particularly valuable. Such measures might include diversifying logistics nodes in theater to complicate targeting by reducing the value of individual airfields and ports; increasing the number of and reducing the holdings of military equipment in prepositioned sites; dispersing U.S. forces into smaller units as they arrive in theater; and deceiving targeters by using dummy sites and mobile basing.

A U.S. military strike under current conditions would be very costly. It could result in an attack on the homeland, friends, and interests of the United States. Even successful attacks on selected key facilities would delay but not prevent its eventual attainment of nuclear capability. Such attacks could well cost the United States its political influence in the Middle East and its ability to ensure the free flow of oil, reduce the likelihood of more reasonable leaders coming to power in Iran, outrage Russia, China, and America's European allies, and increase the possibility that GCC states would be unwilling or unable to maintain close political and military relations with the United States. A counterproliferation attack also could precipitate a rise in oil prices out of concern about availability of supplies from the Gulf. Such an attack could reinforce nonproliferation regimes by demonstrating that the United States would not permit successful proliferation, but it could also make nations less willing to participate in and support them. However, not hedging against the most extreme circumstances of a nuclear-armed Iran implacably hostile to U.S. interests and intent on attacking the United States would be irresponsible. Under those conditions, U.S. military attacks aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities might merit the serious political costs of such action.

The superiority of its conventional forces allows the United States to view nuclear weapons as weapons of last resort, but U.S. policy also preserves the option of using them in retaliation for a nonnuclear WMD attack. Having potential enemies believe they are vulnerable to the use of all military means by the United States if they threaten or attack its territory, friends, interests, or military forces is very much in U.S. interests. Not only should the United States preserve the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons if an adversary uses them, but also it should dedicate more resources to addressing other circumstances in which the catechism of nuclear deterrence in the U.S.-Soviet context may not be adequate. Working through the doctrine of nuclear use under conditions of greater numbers of nuclear states and circumstances of use also would strengthen U.S. credibility.

Sending Unequivocal Signals

A nuclear-armed Iran is likely to test U.S. willingness to run risks to maintain its current political and military posture in the Middle East. The responses of key states will depend on the U.S. reaction to a nuclear Iran. The United States must give Iran a predictable and firm response to any political or military challenges and clearly define the red lines that would trigger a response should Iran cross them. The United States should not become more assertive but should repeatedly and directly communicate its intention to maintain a military presence in the Gulf and honor its commitments to regional friends. Washington will gain by making this signal to Tehran before Iran becomes a nuclear power because it will create a pattern of expectations on the part of Iran and other states that Iranian nuclear acquisition will not alter.

This recommendation for a consistent and coherent policy should not be read as support for an aggressive posture toward Iran. That approach would undermine the possibility of improved relations and damage broader U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. Our emphasis is on firm and clear measures begun prior to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons to make clear that the United States intends to:

• Defend its territory and citizens;
• Honor its security assurances to friends;
• Maintain its freedom of military operations;
• Avoid where possible military incidents that could lead to conflict; and
• Improve relations with Iran as circumstances merit.

Conclusion

Unquestionably, the United States would prefer that Iran did not become a nuclear state. National interests would benefit most from Iran remaining unable to threaten U.S. territory, friends, and forces with nuclear weapons. However, apparent widespread support for nuclear weapons capability across the political spectrum in Iran makes that outcome unlikely. In addition to domestic scientific and technological assets, Iran may have obtained assistance from several sources in acquiring fissile material and other critical resources needed for a nuclear program. If Iran wants such weapons, it is likely to have them soon. The diversity and maturity of the Iranian program also suggest that although military attacks could delay the acquisition of nuclear weapons, they could not prevent it.

The issue of central importance to U.S. national interests is how to diminish the utility of nuclear weapons to Iran without undermining the current positive trends occurring in the country. Our recommended course of action seeks to reduce the value to Iran of the nuclear weapons while taking advantage of opportunities to improve relations when practicable. The policies advocated in this essay are intended to reassure America's friends in the region, preserve and in some vital areas improve U.S. defense capabilities, and end Iran's political and economic isolation while retaining some key sanctions related to nonproliferation. If enacted, such policies would stabilize relations during the current period of uncertainty about Iranian domestic politics and nuclear programs, and minimize damage to American interests once Iran becomes a nuclear state.

Endnotes

⁷⁰Kemp makes a similar assessment of the likelihood of preventing an Iranian nuclear program in "The Persian Gulf Remains the Strategic Prize," 46-47, although he believes the negative consequences of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty will prevent Iran from crossing the threshold. [BACK]

⁷¹For an excellent analysis of the uncertainty of Iranian internal politics and their effect on foreign policy, see Sick, "Iran: The Adolescent Revolution." [BACK]

⁷²Gary Sick, "Iran's Quest for Superpower Status," Foreign Affairs 65, no. 4 (Spring 1987): 697. [BACK]

⁷³Although other oil reserves exist, particularly in the Caspian basin, they would be insufficient to replace current supplies from the Gulf in the long term; in addition, they lie in areas equally politically and geographically challenging. British Petroleum, Statistical Review of World Energy, June 1998, 4; Babus and Yaphe, U.S.-Central Asian Security: Balancing Opportunities and Challenges, 1-4. [BACK]

⁷⁴For example, Sick argues that while Iranian policies may have been ideological in the 1980s, by the 1990s they had come to be "more cautious, more calculated and more susceptible to conventional methods of calculation of state interests." Sick, "Iran: The Adolescent Revolution." [BACK]

⁷⁵Michael Eisenstadt, "Still Not Bomb Proof," The Washington Post, February 26, 1996, A19. [BACK]