As President Trump renews talks with Iran over its nuclear program, confusion has emerged over what kind of deal the administration wants.
The president’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, has given mixed messages on how hardline the U.S. negotiating position will be, stating in an April 14 interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity that capping Iran’s uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent was an option (90 percent is required for a nuclear weapon). Yet the following day, Witkoff announced on X that “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”
Which position the administration takes may determine whether the talks succeed or fail.
Hawks are salivating at the prospects of the latter.
One reason the failure of these talks seems not to bother the foreign policy hawks in Washington is because they believe there is a relatively easy and low-cost alternative to forestall Iran’s nuclear ambitions: bombing. In January, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham dismissed the idea of restraining Iran through diplomacy, giving it a “one in trillion chance” of succeeding. Military action, he said, had a “90 percent chance.”
Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton recently downplayed concerns over the risks of a conflict as “hysteria.” Even Pennsylvania's Democratic Sen. John Fetterman said he would support a bombing campaign against Iran.
All of these statements share a common thread — the assumption that striking Iran to stop its nuclear program is a viable option. But it isn’t.
The presupposition that the U.S., with its imposing military power, can easily pummel a middling state like Iran is an understandable one. In many respects it is true. Iran’s military relies on outdated equipment — especially its air force, which operates many Cold War-era U.S. aircraft, the replacement parts for which are obviously not forthcoming from their country of origin. Against the power of the U.S. military, one could reasonably conclude Iran has no chance.
However, the victory Trump would be pursuing in such a war would be strategic, not just operational. An Iranian battlefield defeat means nothing unless its nuclear program is permanently dismantled. Is that possible to do from the air? Likely not, and most policymakers don’t seem to appreciate what this would involve.
Iran’s nuclear program relies on a variety of facilities scattered across a country with a land area of 640,000 square miles. A U.S. or joint U.S.-Israeli campaign would require nationwide, sustained and round-the-clock sorties to hit not only nuclear sites but first air defense systems, radar installations, airfields, command and control nodes, and other key targets to hamper the regime’s response. Israel hit some of Iran’s S-300 air defense systems in its October strikes, leading some to conclude Iran had been defanged. However, the extent of the damage is unknown and it’s not clear how Iran is reconstituting its losses.
In addition to this challenge, the nuclear sites themselves are not nearly as easily neutralized as one would think. The most important are hardened, subterranean enrichment sites that may be invulnerable even to the GBU-57 bunker buster, the U.S. weapon designed to destroy such targets. It could require several sorties to disable just one site. The priority targets for such a campaign would likely be the Fordow and Natanz enrichment facilities and the Isfahan reactor, all located within the heart of Iran’s air defense coverage.
Even if these sites and their accompanying defenses are neutralized, that isn’t the end of the matter. The likelihood of Iran rushing to rebuild and weaponize its nuclear program if attacked is high. A sustained air campaign would likely be required to keep Iran’s nuclear program down, with periodic bombing whenever sites are reconstituted.
The impermanence of this solution could naturally lead some to conclude that only a U.S. ground presence will do the job. Such an effort would be titanic in a country almost thrice as populous as 2003 Iraq, with one estimate putting the necessary U.S. force to occupy the country at 1.6 million — nearly triple that at the height of the Vietnam War.
Attempts to launch a limited war to neuter Iran’s nuclear program could easily morph into a quagmire that would overshadow Iraq, which is why the president’s apparent skepticism of the idea is a positive sign.
Still, Trump and his Cabinet should understand how catastrophic the military option is. A deal is the best alternative, but even muddling around in the uncertain status quo is infinitely preferable to inflicting on Americans another disastrous war in the Gulf. When it comes to war with Iran, the cure would be worse than the disease.
Scott Strgacich is a research associate at Defense Priorities.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( War with Iran isn’t an option — Trump must make a deal )
Also on site :
- Miss Manners: His driving was terrifying. Was I wrong to ask him to slow down?
- The Implications of GLP-1s on Women’s Healthcare
- Woman kicked out of Magic Circle for ‘amusing’ male disguise trick gets back in