To force Iran to abandon its ambition to become the region’s nuclear hegemonic power, a new regional order must be created without the use of force or the imposition of additional sanctions, resting on four interrelated pillars: a regional security pact under American auspices, normalization of Israeli-Saudi and Israeli-Arab relations, de-escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, economic incentives for Iran, and assurances that the United States will not seek regime change.
The war between Israel and Hamas and the conflict between Israel and Iran seem to prevent such a regional order. However, I argue that the Gaza war and the increased tensions between Iran and Israel are the catalysts that make it possible.
First, it is important to understand the psychological makeup of the Iranian clergy: their self-image, their place in the region, their sense of vulnerability, and their motivation to become the nuclear hegemonic power in the region.
Historical heritage
Iran is the largest country in the Middle East. Its population is predominantly Shiite, almost 90 million people. In contrast, 80 million Sunnis live in the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Iran is also the country with the most natural resources, especially oil. It lies on one of the most strategically important bottlenecks: the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran is proud of its glorious past and believes it has the right to assume the hegemonic role in the region. Moreover, as the largest Shiite state, it sees itself as the guardian of Shiite Islam, although it is in constant rivalry with the Sunni world led by Saudi Arabia.
Politics and ideology
Iran’s nuclear ambitions are motivated by the fact that the Middle East is an unstable region. Tehran wants to assert its dominance, shift the regional balance of power, deter other nuclear powers, and ensure the longevity of the regime. For the Islamic Republic, acquiring nuclear weapons would strengthen its regional position and make it an unchallenged power; therefore, the West and its Sunni neighbors should pay special attention to this endeavor.
National pride
Iran aspires to be on par with Sunni Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, and wants to use its nuclear program as a symbol of scientific and technological progress to boost national pride, helping to gain domestic support while distracting the public from internal economic and social challenges.
deterrence
Iran is determined to neutralize Israel’s nuclear advantage through mutual deterrence, thereby ensuring the regime’s survival. Moreover, the presence of US forces in the Persian Gulf further increases its sense of vulnerability. With nuclear weapons, Iran would prevent any adversary from attacking it or interfering in its internal affairs, which could bring about regime change.
Tehran has seen countries like Libya and Iraq face severe consequences after abandoning their nuclear programs, as has Ukraine, which gave up its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Conversely, nuclear powers like North Korea have secured their regimes against foreign intervention.
Strategic calculations
There has been only one instance of two nuclear powers being involved in direct military conflict: the Kargil War between India and Pakistan in 1999, in which both countries reacted quickly to contain the war and neither side resorted to nuclear weapons. New Delhi and Islamabad fought three conventional wars, but once they had nuclear weapons, the conflict between them was largely reduced to skirmishes. The threat of nuclear escalation acted as a deterrent and prevented all-out wars between them – knowing full well, as Ronald Reagan once said, that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Negotiation levers
Iran’s nuclear program also serves as a bargaining chip for future negotiations. By stockpiling weapons-grade uranium and developing its nuclear capabilities, Tehran is in a stronger position to force concessions and negotiate better terms in new deals, as it has done in the past.
The Iranian nuclear program cannot be stopped
Successive Netanyahu administrations have portrayed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel. For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, publicly addressing this ominous narrative served to present himself as “Mr. Security.” While it is troubling that Iran has nuclear weapons, the assumption that it would use such weapons against Israel is misleading and dangerous. Tehran knows that Israel has the capability of a second strike, and attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon would be tantamount to suicide.
To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Netanyahu used every means possible to sabotage its nuclear program, including assassinating leading nuclear scientists, tampering with computer data, and seizing thousands of nuclear-related documents. At the same time, he waged a relentless campaign to derail the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the United States and Iran negotiated by former President Barack Obama. After Donald Trump’s election, the prime minister persuaded him to pull out of the agreement.
Netanyahu, who made it his life’s work to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, achieved exactly the opposite result. Iran has merely accelerated its uranium enrichment and has effectively become a nuclear threshold state, capable of producing enough purified uranium for a bomb in a few months and a nuclear warhead and delivery system in 18 months.
Neutralization of the Iranian program
A freeze on Iran’s nuclear program, whereby Tehran would agree to be a nuclear threshold state without producing a nuclear weapon, would be consistent with Iran’s public position that it does not seek to become a nuclear power. To this end, the United States should pursue an interrelated four-pronged strategy:
Regional Security Pact
Washington should build a security crescent from the Gulf to the Mediterranean, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and Egypt. This coalition would best serve the interests of America and its allies and keep Iran in check without violence.
This alliance will be guided by the US defense pact proposed by Saudi Arabia as a prerequisite for normalizing relations with Israel. This pact includes a) US guarantees for Saudi Arabia’s national security, b) fewer restrictions on US arms sales, c) US assistance in developing a civilian nuclear program, and d) significant progress in the creation of a Palestinian state.
Normalization of Israeli-Saudi relations
Once the Gaza war is over, the US should resume negotiations with Saudi Arabia on normalizing relations with Israel. This would be a clear signal that Washington intends to push forward with a defense pact with Saudi Arabia. This would be expanded to mitigate any Iranian threats against the countries included in the agreement and would also significantly consolidate America’s military dominance in the region.
Defusing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
The United States should ensure that any future ceasefire between Israel and Hamas paves a path to a permanent Israeli-Palestinian solution. The Hamas attack and the war that followed have created a new paradigm. The U.S. administration, whether under Kamala Harris or Trump, must speak out and take all necessary measures to force Israel to come to terms with the unmitigated reality facing the Palestinians.
The US remains Israel’s main backer and has inadvertently harmed the Jewish state by unconditionally committing itself to safeguarding its national security while offering it extensive political protection. To save Israel from itself, the next US administration should condition its support of Israel on Jerusalem’s willingness to make significant concessions in the creation of a Palestinian state. Even an interim solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would usurp the cause that Tehran has long exploited to its own advantage.
Incentives for Iran
Offering Iran a host of economic incentives to freeze its nuclear weapons program and stop its threats against Israel will go a long way, but it must also ensure that the United States does not seek or support regime change.
In addition, Washington should promise Tehran that it will deter Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities as long as Iran adheres to restrictions and transparency regarding nuclear energy.
Diploma
I acknowledge that this proposed strategy is a major challenge and may seem unworkable given the history and intractability of these intertwined conflicts. But how many more wars, deaths and destruction will it take for the United States to say, “Enough!” and adopt this strategy to bring peace and stability to a turbulent region?
The author is professor emeritus of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU, where he has taught courses on international negotiations and Middle Eastern studies.
