Toward a Grand Bargain with Iran

Iran would be at or near the top of a list of countries Americans would least like to see have nuclear weapons, and the reason for apprehension has deepened dramatically in the past year with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran under the mullahs has always been a weird and ominous country, but the weirdness quotient has reached new levels. Iran is now headed by an individual who expresses the hope that Israel be wiped off the map and denies that the Holocaust ever occurred. Those are sentiments not found in civilized circles anywhere in the world.

With the increasingly probable failure of the negotiations led by the three leading powers of the European Union, the United States now hopes that international economic sanctions (imposed either by the United Nations Security Council or by an ad hoc coalition of like-minded nations) will cause Iran to give up its quest for nuclear weapons. That seems unlikely.¹ In any case, US policy makers need to consider the available options if sanctions fail. At that point, three options are the most prominent.²

One possibility is to launch preventive air strikes against Iran's nuclear installations. That is the most unwise strategy. At best, such strikes would delay, not eliminate, Tehran's program. There is also a grave risk that Iran would retaliate with terrorist attacks and perhaps more drastic measures.

Attacking Iran would also further inflame Muslim populations around the world, creating the very real prospect of a war of civilizations.

A second possibility is to reluctantly accept Iran as a member of the global nuclear weapons club and to rely on the deterrent power of America's vast nuclear arsenal. While that strategy is not without risk, the United States has successfully deterred other volatile and unsavory regimes, most notably Maoist China during that country's Cultural Revolution. Even if the United States is able to deter a nuclear Iran, however, there is still the danger of extensive nuclear proliferation in the Middle East region—something the United States would very much like to discourage.

The last option is to try to strike a grand bargain with Iran. Washington would give security assurances to Iran and offer to normalize diplomatic and economic relations in exchange for Tehran's commitment to open its nuclear program to rigorous, on-demand international inspections. Such an arrangement would enable Iran to use nuclear technology for the generation of electric power, but it would prevent any diversion of nuclear material from peaceful purposes to building weapons.

Preventive Air Strikes

Proponents of preventive military action typically cite the successful Israeli strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 as a model for derailing the Iranian nuclear program. Some suggest that the United States undertake that mission on its own; others suggest that Washington encourage Israel to do so—a form of security outsourcing. In terms of the larger geopolitical consequences, it would be a distinction without a difference. Even if Israel undertook the task (either with US encouragement or on its own initiative), the United States would be blamed, given the close political ties between Washington and Tel Aviv. The perception of collusion would be deepened, because to reach targets in Iran, Israeli planes would probably have to overfly US-controlled Iraq.³ Clearly, they could not do that without Washington's approval.

The drumbeat among American hawks for air strikes against Iran has redoubled since war broke out in July 2006 between Israel and the Iranian-supported Hezbollah in Lebanon. Weekly Standard editor William Kristol epitomizes those recommendations. He suggests "countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." And he is in a hurry, asserting that it "would be easier to act sooner than later." Kristol is sanguine about the consequences: "Yes, there would be repercussions—and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."⁴

There are numerous problems with the strategy of preemptive air strikes, whether they are conducted by Israel or the United States.⁵ Osirak was one, easily identified, above-ground...