Time to get serious about the crimes of Iran
Iran’s 45-year-old Islamic Republic ticks every one of the boxes that might justify intervention, and it's about to achieve nuclear weapons capability
By Robert Hamilton and Dan Perry
It is one of the major questions of geopolitics: When is it defensible, or even necessary and wise, for large powers to intervene in the affairs of other countries? For anyone not answering “never” – anyone who would not have been an isolationist in the leadup to World War II – it is time to start thinking seriously about Iran.
That’s because Iran’s 45-year-old theocracy, the Islamic Republic, ticks every one of the boxes that might apply when addressing the question — cautiously, strategically, and with no illusions about the risks either way.
It is a despotism loathed by the majority of its people, whom it has impoverished and abused (check out the Amnesty International update). It threatens its region by fomenting terrorism, chaos and aggression (a recent US State Dept. report makes for grisly reading). And it threatens the world by insisting on a nuclear weapons program which will exacerbate an arms race and destabilize the world order – while also severely impeding global maritime commerce vis its Yemen proxy.
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 (see our story from earlier this week).
Of course, there is extreme reluctance in the West toward further misadventures with Islam, and even a form of normally healthy humility begat by the difficulties and failures of nation-building efforts in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan (whose new-old Taliban regime has almost fully reverted to pre-2001 form in its oppression of girls and women especially). And we in no way take the risks of a more aggressive posture lightly.
But the risk aversion, and the understandable popular inclination to let the Middle East stew in its own juices, must be weighed against the risks of doing nothing.
In recent days it has been reported that Iran is feverishly trying to smuggle weapons to Hamas in the West Bank, in hopes of spreading the war to that territory.
Stepping back, here’s what else Iran has been up to.
Nuclear weapons: Iran is the only non-nuclear country that is enriching uranium at non-civilian levels believed to be in excess of 60% - which it resumed after President Trump dragged the US out of the 2015 nuclear deal in 2017. It is widely believed to be at this point a nuclear threshold state, and given the absence of serious international supervision may be very close to a bomb. Experts believe its “breakout time” to a bomb is weeks or days. Once it achieves that status, this will compel regional rivals like Saudi Arabia and Egypt – neither one a democracy – to seek nuclear capacity as well, and allow the regime in Tehran a maximal level of deterrence, approaching impunity.
Lebanon: Iran’s funding and arming of Hezbollah have deeply destabilized Lebanon. Since its inception in the 1980s, Hezbollah has been a proxy for Iran's regional ambitions, receiving massive financial support (up to $700 million/year, it is estimated; see the Wilson Center report); Hezbollah is believed to be the world’s largest non-state military force and its weaponry, including advanced missile systems, drones, and anti-tank missiles, is almost entirely supplied by Iran. It has dragged Lebanon into conflicts with Israel, has become deeply embroiled in the civil war in Syria, and prevented the country from attracting foreign investment. It is essentially holding the country hostage and is widely detested by most of the population.
Yemen: Iran's backing of the Houthi rebels has plunged Yemen into a catastrophically prolonged civil war. The Houthis have received training and advanced weapons from Iran, including ballistic missiles and drones, which have long been used to target Saudi Arabia and over the past 11 months have been directed at commercial sea traffic headed toward the Suez Canal, badly harming the already brittle economy of Egypt (Suez Canal traffic has been reduced by at least 30% and costs have spiked all over the world). Domestically the Houthis have caused one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, with hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced.
Iraq: Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iran has exercised increasing influence in Iraq through its support of Shiite militias. These groups have become powerful actors in Iraq’s politics and military landscape, often acting as proxies for Iranian interests. Iran provides funding, weapons, and training to these militias, which have been involved in attacks on US forces and Iraqi civilians. These militias have undermined Iraq’s sovereignty, deepened sectarian violence, and hindered efforts to stabilize the country.
Syria: Iran has been one of Bashar Assad's staunchest allies throughout the Syrian civil war, providing financial, military, and logistical support. This intervention has helped keep Assad in power at the cost of over 500,000 lives and the displacement of millions – including a crisis of migrants headed to Europe which has boosted far-right parties on the continent.
Hamas: Last but not least, Iran has been a key backer of Hamas, providing the group with critical financial aid, weapons, and training. Hamas has for over 30 years been trying to scuttle efforts to reach Israeli-Palestinian peace and in 2007 seized control of the Gaza Strip. It has used the territory to systematically fire missiles at Israel and on Oct. 7 sparked the current war by invading Israel and massacring 1,200 people. Iran has in recent times been feverishly trying to smuggle weapons to Hamas in the West Bank, in hopes of spreading the war to that territory to further inflame the Middle East.
The Gaza conflict now threatens to spread into a regional war. From the beginning, Hezbollah has been bombarding Israel to support Hamas, and even the Houthis have been firing missiles and drones at Israel from over 1,000 miles away. Israel is losing patience – and it is led by a very problematic far-right government that has sometimes shown little regard for the laws of war in its response to the October Hamas attack. Such a war could easily draw in the US, given its security guarantees to Israel, myriad oil installations in the region and military bases in the Gulf. And make no mistake, such a war would be marked by brutality on all sides, causing immense suffering and further eroding the reputation of the US as a defender of just conduct in war.
Such a distraction could easily compel further aggressions from Russia in its near abroad and China with Taiwan. Indeed, the emergence of an “axis of resistance” in which Iran is joined by Russia and China is a development that could spark a modern version of a world war against the liberal, democratic West and its allies. And it’s the brainchild of Iran. None of it is a coincidence – all the way back to the “Death to America” slogan popularized by the regime during the 1980 hostage crisis.
In recent decades, US policy toward Iran has taken one of two forms: one, which has become 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 been to rely on sanctions and isolation. Neither sought confrontation – Obama because of faith in engagement, Trump due to a transactional form of isolationism.
And, obviously, neither has worked well. Even under the nuclear deal Iran continued spread revolution and terrorism, and also to build long-range rockets; throughout the West was cowed into not doing very much at all during periods when the population seemed close to revolt – as during the 2009 “Green Revolution,” which was brutally suppressed.
Despite the risks, it appears essential to at least consider a third way, in which the criminal rulers of Iran are offered another type of deal – at first covertly and then, if need be, publicly.
The deal would be that it is left alone, for at least a certain period of time, to continue to oppress its long-suffering 90 million citizens – and also will receive a degree of economic relief. In return, it ends its nuclear enrichment, hands over once more its enriched material, curtails its long-range missile program, and ends 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 is a tradeoff that might prevent a far more devastating outcome.
Iran’s leadership needs to understand that the West is prepared to act if necessary – because it cannot afford to let Iran go nuclear, and the current level of mischief-making has essentially pushed the envelope too far. So if Iran refuses, it will no longer be left alone. Such a strategy could include:
· Nuclear facilities: Key nuclear sites like Natanz and Fordow, both central to Iran’s enrichment activities, should be high-priority targets. A direct strike on these facilities with bunker-busting munitions could set back Iran’s nuclear program significantly.
· Oil facilities and ports: Iran's economy is highly dependent on oil exports, despite US sanctions (it sells to China, Venezuela, and other countries through intermediaries). Strikes on oil fields and refineries would cripple Iran’s revenue streams, limiting its ability to fund proxies. The West could also threaten to destroy (or blockade) key ports used for oil and other exports like Kharg Island, Bandar Abbas and Jask.
· Cyber attacks: Cyber warfare could be deployed to disrupt Iran’s command-and-control capabilities. Past operations like Stuxnet have shown the potential for this approach in sabotaging Iranian nuclear facilities.
· Key infrastructure: The West could destroy missile launch sites and defense systems, particularly those provided by Russia. Strikes on Iranian state-controlled television stations and government buildings would disrupt the regime’s internal propaganda and signal to the population that a revolt this time might be successful.
· Supporting dissent: Supporting opposition movements within Iran could weaken the regime's grip on power, particularly as it faces economic collapse. This would need to be carefully managed, as past attempts to incite regime change in the region have led to unintended consequences, including tainting those assisted.
In any such conflict scenario, the West should deepen cooperation with regional allies such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE to form a coalition working to contain Iranian aggression. 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.
None of this would be easy or risk-free – but neither is inaction. The essential choice facing the United States now 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. Western powers, particularly the United States, still bear the burden of preserving international peace and security. 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 US 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, the author of two books about Israel and the publisher of Ask Questions Later.
It's easy to recall scores of examples of the current US government pulling the hand brake on Israel over the last 11 months. It's difficult to recall the same current US administration doing anything tangible at all to hinder Iran in that time; indeed, it's easier to recall quite a few examples where the US has actually helped finance and accelerate the spread of Iran's expansion.
Great article and video interview on i24 NEWS. Your suggestion of giving options to Iran was thoughtful and strategic.
I found the Hans Blix interview below, and along with your POV - I'm stuck on how much our American voters are risking the Heritage Foundation's 'Project 2025 / Agenda 47 ' oligarchy with our complex weapons, AI, and polarized parties which are divided between holding one of the two competing worldviews. I cannot imagine Trump in a second term.
Our elections are costing us a fortune (of wasted resources and dollars) and our military costs are tremendously expensive. I'm an environmental activist first of all, and I got sucked into volunteering for political canvassing - but then where will we find the money for fixing our polluted planet?
...Swedish diplomat Hans Blix published a book, “A Farewell to Wars: The Growing Restraints on the Interstate Use of Force,” that argues that a number of factors, including fear of nuclear war, growing public aversion to armed conflict, and increased economic interdependence, greatly decrease the possibility of large interstate wars in the future".
Last month, RS interviewed Blix, now 96, about how he developed the book’s thesis and whether the events in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the months since its publication have affected his analysis in any way...
"In my view, diplomacy is dangerously underused today, and efforts to seek accommodation and détente seem often unfairly scorned. We should be more aware of the costs and risks of military deterrence and properly weigh them against costs and risks of restraint and accommodation. Even staunch advocates of red lines and deterrence sometimes favor limiting the role of weapons by accepting specific areas as demilitarized or free from nuclear weapons or from the stationing of foreign forces. Indeed, the nuclear weapons-free zones that cover the larger parts of the world are measures of restraint preferred to measures of deterrence."
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/hans-blix/
My house has cooled down from our midweek heatwave, so I'll say THANK YOU for your great article and bid you a pleasant good evening Mr Dan Perry.