To force Iran to change its ambition to become the region’s nuclear hegemon without using force or levying additional sanctions, a new regional order must be created and anchored on four interconnected pillars: a regional security pact under a US umbrella, normalization of Israeli-Saudi and Israeli-Arab relations, mitigating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and offering Iran economic incentives and assurances that the US will not pursue regime change.
The Israel-Hamas war and the Israel-Iran conflict may appear to prevent such a regional order; I submit that the Gaza war and the heightened Iranian-Israeli tensions are the catalysts which makes that possible.
It is essential first to understand the Iranian clergy’s psychological disposition – the way they see themselves, their place in the region, sense of vulnerability, and their motivations to become a regional nuclear hegemon.
Historical legacy
Iran is the largest Middle Eastern country, with a predominantly Shi’ite population of nearly 90 million, compared to the 80 million Sunnis across the Gulf states, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. Iran is also the richest in natural resources, especially oil. It occupies the most strategic choke point, the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran takes great pride in its glorious past, and feels it has the right to become the region’s hegemon. Moreover, as the largest Shi’ite Muslim state, it sees itself as the guardian of Shiite Islam, in a constant rivalry with the Saudi-led Sunni Muslim world.
Politics and ideology
Iran’s nuclear ambition is motivated by the fact that the Mideast is a volatile region. Tehran desires to assert its dominance, shift the regional balance of power, deter other nuclear powers, and protect the regime’s longevity. To the Islamic Republic, acquiring atomic weapons would bolster its regional stature and make it an uncontested power, and should therefore be accorded special consideration by the West and its Sunni neighbors.
National pride
Iran seeks to be on par with nuclear-armed Sunni Pakistan, and wants to use its nuclear program to boost national pride, as a symbol of scientific and technological progress. This helps to engender domestic support while distracting the public from internal economic and social challenges.
Deterrence
Iran is determined to neutralize Israel’s nuclear advantage by creating mutual deterrence to ensure the regime’s survival. In addition, the presence of US military forces in the Persian Gulf further heightens its sense of vulnerability. With nuclear weapons, it would prevent any adversary from attacking it or intervening in its domestic affairs, which could precipitate a regime change.
Tehran has watched countries like Libya and Iraq face severe consequences after abandoning their nuclear programs, as well as Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear weapons following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Conversely, nuclear nations like North Korea have secured their regimes against foreign intervention.
Strategic calculations
There has been only one instance where two nuclear-armed states have engaged in direct military conflict: the Kargil War between India and Pakistan in 1999, where both countries acted quickly to contain it, and neither side resorted to using nuclear weapons. New Delhi and Islamabad fought three conventional wars but once they acquired nuclear weapons, the conflict between them was largely reduced to skirmishes. The threat of nuclear escalation acted as a deterrent, preventing full-scale wars between them – knowing, as Ronald Reagan once said, that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Negotiation leverage
Iran’s nuclear program also serves as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. Stockpiling weapons-grade uranium and advancing its nuclear capabilities puts Tehran in a stronger position to extract concessions and negotiate better terms in reaching new agreements as it has done in the past.
Failure to stop Iran’s nuclear program
Successive Netanyahu-led governments have portrayed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel. For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, engaging the public in such an ominous narrative served to present himself as “Mr. Security.” Though Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is unsettling, to suggest that it would use such weapons against Israel is misleading and dangerous. Tehran knows that Israel has a second-strike nuclear capability, and attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon is tantamount to suicide.
To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Netanyahu employed every tool to sabotage its nuclear program, including the assassination of top nuclear scientists, corrupting its computer data, and confiscating thousands of nuclear-related documents while waging a relentless campaign to kill the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the US and Iran, negotiated by former president Barack Obama. Following the election of Donald Trump, the prime minister persuaded him to withdraw from the agreement.
Netanyahu, who made it his life’s mission to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, produced precisely the opposite result. Iran has only accelerated the enrichment of uranium and has become a de facto nuclear threshold state with the ability to produce enough purified uranium for one bomb in a few months and a nuclear warhead and delivery system within 18 months.
Neutralizing Iran’s program
Freezing Iran’s nuclear program, whereby Tehran would settle on being a nuclear threshold state without producing a nuclear weapon, would be in line with Iran’s public position that it does not seek to become a nuclear power. To that end, the US should pursue an interlinked four-track strategy:
Regional security pact
Washington should establish a security crescent extending from the Gulf to the Mediterranean that would include Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and Egypt. This coalition would best serve America’s and its allies’ interests and put Iran in check without force.
This alliance will be fashioned along the Saudi-proposed US Defense Pact as a precondition to normalization of relations with Israel, which includes a) US guarantees of Saudi national security, b) fewer restrictions on US arms sales, c) US assistance to develop a civilian nuclear program, and d) significant progress toward the creation of a Palestinian state.
Normalization of Israeli-Saudi relations
Once the Gaza war ends, the US should resume negotiations with Saudi Arabia about normalizing relations with Israel. This will send a clear message that Washington intends to move forward with a defense pact with Saudi Arabia, which will be expanded to blunt any Iranian threats against countries included in the agreement and would also significantly solidify America’s military regional dominance.
Mitigating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The US ought to ensure that any future Israeli-Hamas ceasefire establishes a path toward a permanent Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Hamas’s attack and the subsequent war have created a new paradigm. The US administration, be that under Kamala Harris or Trump, must put its foot down and take whatever measures are necessary to compel Israel to come to terms with the Palestinians’ unmitigated reality.
The US continues to be the chief enabler of Israel and has inadvertently harmed the Jewish state by committing to safeguard its national security unconditionally while providing it with a blanket political cover. To save Israel from itself, the next US administration ought to make its support of Israel conditional upon Jerusalem’s willingness to make significant concessions toward the creation of a Palestinian state. Even an interim solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will usurp the cause Tehran has long-exploited for its own benefit.
Offering Iran incentives
Offering Iran a plethora of economic incentives for freezing its nuclear weapons program and ending its threats against Israel will go a long way, as long as it is also assured that the US will not seek or support regime change.
Additionally, Washington should promise Tehran that it will prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities as long as Iran adheres to nuclear restrictions and transparency.
Conclusion
I admit that this proposed strategy is a tall order and may seem unfeasible given the history and intractability of these intertwined conflicts. But then, how many more wars, deaths, and destruction will it take for the US to say “enough is enough” and adopt this strategy to bring peace and stability to a turbulent region?
The writer is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.