During the Iowa Democratic Presidential Debate, candidates were asked if they would “allow” Iran to have the bomb. This line of questioning resulted in the expected answers of “No” across the board. Not only did the candidates say “no,” they were emphatic they would absolutely deny Iranian nuclear ambitions. Yet, every candidate had just previously stated that we should not go to war with Iran and how we should be looking to pull back our troops from Middle East engagements. While “no” was the only politically palatable answer to that question, I ask you to think, how exactly does the US deny Iran the bomb? How is it within our ability to either deny or allow their activities? We can raise the cost to Iran. But we cannot choose. The choice is theirs alone. Obviously, we can try to create incentives for Iran to persuade them not to seek such. This is what Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was about and it was working. A President can try to reach a similar deal again, though here we run into a potential problem. With increased skepticism, Iran may decide not to take the deal.
In this debate question we run into the hubris of believing in American omnipotence. We think America through our President can accomplish anything abroad. While ironic, as many Americans believe the government is inept at doing anything at home, this misguided philosophy creates trouble. Quite simply, “allowing” Iran the bomb isn’t something we get to decide. It is Iran’s choice whether or not they pursue such capability. All we can do is change the price tag. The only way we could try to deny is through combat. This would be the sort of combat every candidate just condemned only moments before. I realize some think we could merely bomb the nuclear sites. This might create short term delay of Iranian effort though will likely drastically enhance Iranian resolve in acquiring the capability while driving their efforts into distributed locations all well underground, hence survivable and unobservable. It would also push Iran to lash out heavily thus we’d immediately be in the chastised conflict and no longer merely conducting air strikes. We could go the route of punishing Iran with bombing till they acquiesce. This won’t work. Strategic bombing efforts have proven worthless as seen through the London Blitz, in Germany and Japan, and in Vietnam. Like bombing the nuclear sites, it will drastically enhance Iranian resolve as they gain the weapons and would undercut divisions between their people and the government. The only way we could stop Iran from the bomb is invasion and occupation. Even this would likely fail. Such would require a WWII level mobilization and whole of nation effort. Iran in size stretches a distance comparable to that from the Black Sea to the Bay of Biscay while having a width similar as that from Italy to Denmark. For a US size comparison, take the Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Iran’s terrain is entirely mountainous whereas Europe is mixed mountain and flatlands. Iran can find logistical support from the north and east. (In WWII, Germany was surrounded.) Our supply lines would be from the far side of the planet. Unlike the European theater, we would have no allied support. Forget about technological advantages. Iran has robust air defenses and superb anti-area and area denial capabilities with robust capacity. Iran would be fighting against an existential threat and therefore would be willing to bear any cost to win. For us, this is a losing prospect. On Victory Europe Day, we had 3 million US troops in Europe whom were boosted by Canadian, British, and massive Russian numbers with most areas having friendly populations (Iranians won’t be). For Iraq, we never had more than 200,000.
Quite simply, the choice is not ours to make whether or not the Iranians get to have the bomb. We don’t have a power to allow or deny. Answering “no” to the debate question is false promise. So, ask your candidates, how far are they willing to go to cajole and entice? What would they permit or give? Could they coordinate a worldwide isolation and containment effort? Realize that this cost may be a lot more after our previous rejection of and threats against JCPOA compliant Iran. If these efforts fail, are the candidates really willing to commit to efforts larger than Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined? We shouldn’t have simplistic questions aimed at falsely making us feel safe. We deserve honest discussion with a sense to practicality. We should learn what candidates consider feasible. We should know what do they prioritize when the two policy positions, no Asian wars and no nuclear Iran, rise in conflict of each other. What constitutes determination criteria? What’s our price break point?
Perhaps better questioning would be how do they intend to deal with or work around a nuclear Iran? How would they work in and try to shape the rest of the region should Iran go nuclear? You want real discriminators to best choose your candidate, you need their weighted priorities on issues giving a sense of their trade space, not just sound good / feel good positions.
As to the debate question, the only honest answer is “If Iran decides it wants the bomb, there is not a damn thing we can do about it.” Translated into political speech, this reads “It is not within the power of the American Presidency to determine such.”