It’s Time to Consider Military Action to Prevent a Nuclear Iran | Opinion

As Iran approaches the point of no return—becoming a nuclear-armed state—it is time for the West to weigh military action. There remains only a brief window for action.
Iran is a more than worthy target. That’s because Iran’s 45-year-old theocracy is loathed by the majority of its people, actively foments terrorism and aggression in its region, and destabilizes the world by insisting on a nuclear weapons program. The past days’ killing by its proxy Hamas of six hostages, including a U.S. citizen, provides stark illustration of the murderous nature of this cabal.
There is extreme reluctance in the West toward further misadventures with Islam, but the risk aversion must be weighed against the risks of doing nothing, given the extreme nature of Iran’s skullduggeries.
Iran is the only non-nuclear country that is enriching uranium at non-civilian levels believed to be in excess of 60 percent—which it resumed after former President Donald Trump dragged the U.S. out of the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018. It is widely believed to now be a nuclear threshold state, and once it’s clear it has a bomb this would trigger a regional nuclear race and allow the regime a maximal level of deterrence, approaching impunity.
In recent decades, U.S. policy toward Iran has taken two forms: one, associated with former President Barack Obama, has been to “realign” the region, drawing the Islamic Republic into a less aggressive position by negotiation and compromise; the other, perhaps best associated with Trump, has relied on sanctions and isolation. Neither sought confrontation—Obama because of faith in engagement, Trump due to a transactional form of isolationism.
Neither has worked well. Even under the nuclear deal Iran continued spread revolution and terrorism, and to build long-range rockets. And the West was cowed into not doing very much during periods when the population seemed close to revolt—as in 2009’s “Green Revolution,” which was brutally suppressed.
We should at least consider a third way, in which the criminal rulers of Iran are offered a short-term ultimatum—at first covertly and then, if need be, publicly—allowing them to stay in power for a time, rather than being pushed out immediately.
To get this temporary reprieve, the regime would need to end nuclear enrichment and again hand over its enriched material, but also curtail its long-range missile program and end support for the militias and Russia’s criminal war in Ukraine. Leaving Iran’s people to the fate of their rulers may seem unpalatable, because it is. But it’s the only deal that avoids war.
Iran’s leadership should understand that the West is prepared to act—because it cannot afford to let Iran go nuclear, and the current level of mischief-making has pushed the envelope too far. So, if Iran refuses, it will no longer be left alone.
Such a strategy could include:
In any such conflict scenario, the West should deepen cooperation with regional allies including Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE. But Israel, which is an emotional trigger in the Muslim world, would need to keep its distance, even if Iran tries to draw it in with a direct attack. In exchange, the West and the moderate Arab nations would have to cooperate maximally to thwart such an attack—as occurred in mid-April.
Western powers, particularly the United States, still bear the burden of preserving international peace and security. The essential choice is whether to step up pressure on Iran, including considering limited military action as described above, or to risk being drawn into a much wider, bloodier war with far less predictable consequences.
Despite the fatigue caused by previous military engagements, the international system hinges on their willingness to intervene when rogue states threaten global economic and political stability. The current regime in Iran, now backed by Russia and China, is a monumental threat to this order.
Colonel (Ret.) Robert Hamilton heads Eurasia Research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, has been a professor at the U.S. Army War College and served in a variety of overseas posts, including in the Middle East. Dan Perry is the former chief editor of the Associated Press in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books about Israel. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.