This essay examines the debate over U.S. policy toward Iran's nuclear program in the early 2000s, specifically whether preemptive military force — as applied in Iraq — would be justified or effective. Drawing on IAEA inspection reports and Stephen Walt's critique of preemptive doctrine, the paper argues that the historical record, weak public support, and diplomatic risks make containment a far more prudent strategy than military action. The essay also considers comparative cases such as North Korea, India, and Pakistan to challenge the selective application of preemptive force, ultimately concluding that the Bush Administration would better serve U.S. interests through vigilant containment rather than another military intervention.
Iran's nuclear program began during the era of the Shah and blossomed into a plan that included the construction of 20 nuclear reactors. During the Iran-Iraq conflict, two of these unfinished reactors were bombed at Bushehr. Through the upheaval of the 1979 revolution, the Iranian nuclear program went through repeated stops and starts. Its current guidelines appear to include the construction of 15 power reactors and two research facilities. Since 1992, Iran has complied with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has allowed routine inspections of its facilities and progress.
The Bush administration implemented a corresponding policy framework called "forward deterrence" — its stated answer to any country or situation deemed a potential threat to U.S. national security. Unlike Iraq, many Americans know very little about Iran or Iranian politics, and public opinion would likely turn against the use of military operations similar to those recently conducted in Iraq. For these reasons, it is argued here that it would not be in the best interest of the Bush Administration to use preemptive force to control Iran's nuclear proliferation.
According to an IAEA report, "the Director General was informed by Iran of its uranium enrichment programme, which was described as including two new facilities located at Natanz, namely a pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP) nearing completion of construction, and a large commercial-scale fuel enrichment plant (FEP) also under construction" (IAEA, June 2003). This was the first time the Director General had been made aware of these plants.
It has been argued — most notably by Israel — that such developments within an Islamic fundamentalist state's nuclear program should be brought to an end by any means necessary. Israel has expressed its disapproval of Iran's nuclear program on numerous occasions. While Iraq was previously considered the greater regional threat, the apparent success of preemptive force there led many observers to speculate that Iran could be next on the list.
Public support for preemptive military action was already diminished, as many Americans were still waiting for evidence of Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — the primary justification offered for the Iraq War. The use of preemptive force in Iraq came only after years of UN inspections and countless efforts by Saddam Hussein to obstruct those inspections, accompanied by a media circus of innuendo and speculation that led much of the world to doubt whether Saddam possessed any real WMDs or active nuclear programs at all.
U.S. intelligence maintained otherwise, and with the Bush Administration in office it became clear that returning to the Gulf to resolve unfinished business was a top priority. According to Stephen Walt, "the deeper root of the conflict is the U.S. position that Saddam must be toppled because he cannot be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" (Foreign Policy, Jan–Feb 2003). Walt goes on to note that while many agree "deterrence will not work in Iraq," the "belief that Saddam's past behavior shows he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and faulty logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively — even if Saddam has nuclear weapons — just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War" (Foreign Policy, para. 5).
In assessing whether preemptive force against Iran would be justified, one must compare what Iran actually possesses relative to Iraq. History has shown that the Ayatollah regime in Iran is not only a dictatorship but also a fundamentalist government, one that is inclined to support fundamentalist groups that employ terrorism and suicide bombings to advance their aims. Yet this alone does not make the case for military intervention, particularly when the broader diplomatic and regional consequences are taken into account.
"Iran compared to North Korea, India, and Pakistan"
"Diplomatic and political fallout from military action in Iran"
"Argument for vigilant containment over preemptive force"
As far as using preemptive force in Iran to quell its nuclear proliferation, it would not be in the best interest of the United States to do so. Despite efforts from its strongest regional ally, Israel, to put an end to the perceived nuclear threat posed by Iran, there is not enough historical or physical evidence to justify a U.S.-led strike, let alone confidence that it would be well received by the international community.
You’re 57% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.