Navigating Iran's nuclear dilemma: diplomacy vs. military strikes Neither offers a lasting solution

In a city overwhelmed by political chaos, Washington's foreign-policy community remains fixated on the same age-old debate regarding Iran’s nuclear program. A decade after the Obama administration's historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the discussion remains strikingly similar, with one key issue: how to deal with the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions. Despite new players in Washington’s political landscape, the two primary options still dominate: diplomacy or military strikes. But as a recent article from Foreign Policy contends, both paths come with significant downsides, with neither promising to resolve the underlying issue of Iran's regime.

At the core of the issue is not simply the nuclear program itself, but the nature of the Iranian regime. As the article emphasizes, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are intrinsically linked to a government that is both repressive at home and aggressively destabilizing abroad. Since the 1979 revolution, the Islamic Republic has fostered a national security doctrine grounded in chaos and repression, making any solution to the nuclear issue inherently complex. The debate continues to revolve around whether diplomatic engagement or military action offers the best chance for addressing these challenges.

On the diplomatic front, the article suggests that any new deal—be it a JCPOA 2.0 or a Trump-era version—would likely offer Iran temporary nuclear restrictions in exchange for sanctions relief. However, this dynamic has risks: the regime, which always perceives time as on its side, would likely use this window of opportunity to continue advancing its nuclear program under more favorable conditions. With the added benefit of a rejuvenated economy from lifted sanctions, the Iranian government could consolidate its power while maintaining its long-term nuclear aspirations.

In contrast, military action, particularly by the United States, is also fraught with complications. Although a strike could disrupt Iran’s nuclear program in the short term, it may inadvertently rally domestic support for the regime. Such an action could embolden Iranian leaders, leading to a more aggressive nuclear pursuit and a rally-around-the-flag effect that strengthens the regime’s grip on power. Additionally, the article warns that the unpredictable political landscape in Iran, where opposition movements exist but are constrained, means that military action could also alienate key opposition forces, preventing them from effectively challenging the regime.

Given these challenges, the article proposes a more nuanced approach: continue to apply maximum pressure on Iran through sanctions, support regional deterrence efforts, and back Iranian opposition groups. This strategy seeks to weaken the regime from within, capitalizing on the current vulnerabilities of a regime that is economically strained and politically unstable. It argues that the Iranian government’s weaknesses, including its deteriorating economy and internal unrest, offer the best opportunity for long-term change, rather than a temporary fix through negotiations or airstrikes.

Ultimately, the article challenges Washington to reconsider its binary thinking on Iran and recognize that both diplomacy and military force may only serve to prolong the life of a regime that is inherently dangerous. By focusing on undermining the regime’s internal stability and supporting opposition forces, the U.S. might better secure its interests and, ideally, help foster a future where Iran’s nuclear program is less of a threat.

In conclusion, the article underscores the need for a policy shift that recognizes Iran's nuclear program as a symptom of a deeper, more enduring problem—the nature of the regime itself. By taking a longer-term view, Washington may be able to chart a more effective course for addressing both the nuclear issue and the broader threat posed by the Islamic Republic.

By Vugar Khalilov