The conclusion of Iran’s nuclear deal exhibits a significant shift in United States (US) policy from deterrence to that of containment. Deterrence in simple terms means use of punishment (military, economic and diplomatic) to stop the adversary from taking certain kind of actions.
By Neha Kumar Tiwari
The conclusion
of Iran’s nuclear deal exhibits a significant shift in United States (US)
policy from deterrence to that of containment. Deterrence in simple terms means
use of punishment (military, economic and diplomatic) to stop the adversary
from taking certain kind of actions. On
the other hand, containment means to stop the expansion and influence of the
adversary country. Under the present context, US and Iran Joint Comprehension
Action Plan (JCPOA) represent the example of the containment policy as Iran
agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, to eliminate its low-enriched
uranium by 98 percent and to reduce two-third numbers of centrifuges for at
least fifteen years. Even after 15 years, Iran agrees to not to enrich uranium
over 3.67% and not to build any new uranium enriching or heavy water
facilities.[i]
This clearly shows that US wishes to limit the production capacity of Iran’s
nuclear weapons program rather than to completely eliminate it. The White House
also mentioned that without a deal, Iran could manufacture its nuclear bomb
within 2 to 3 months. However, after the conclusion of a deal, it could not
make its atomic bomb for at least 15-20 years.[ii]
The question which this article address is why there is such change in the US
policy - from deterrence to containment and what aims it desire to achieve.
There is a lot
of debates both inside and outside US about the feasibility and practicality of
JCPOA. However, what has been forgotten is that containment is the only
practical strategy left to the US to deal with Iran. Containment as a strategy
is adopted when it is difficult to set aside the differences with the adversary,
and it is also difficult to carry out the military attacks due to the costs
associated with it. US has been following the policy of deterrence since the last
decade, and it has been unable to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear weapon's ambitions.
Since the discovery of the Iran’s nuclear weapons program in 2005, several countries,
including the EU, P5 and even the UN have imposed sanctions on Iran. As a
result, Iran’s oil exports fell to
700,000 barrels per day having a huge impact on its economy.[iii]
However, this did not deter Iran from pursuing its independent nuclear weapon's
policy. There have been talks about
military actions also, especially by Israel, but it also proved incapable from
deterring Iran from its nuclear pursuits.
In the present
context, the pre-emptive strikes on Iran have been one of the options available
to the US to destroy the nuclear weapons complex of Iran and to bring it under its
own control. However, there are a lot of problems associated with the
possibility of a military strike on Iran by US.
First, the US military attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan have not been
accepted by the public at large in US. This has also created a problem for the
army as it was deployed on foreign soil for a long period of time. Another
attack in the Middle East could bring down the popularity of President Obama
and its party. President Obama has tried to change the policy of Bush
administration by withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, by making
changes in the nuclear postures and by changing its missile-defense programs. Second, it is difficult to estimate the likely
damage which the US could cause on the Iranian facilities as they are built
underground and are specifically guarded against a destructive attack. Third,
any such attacks could draw Russia in and further damage the US-Russian
relations, given the fact that Russia has supported Iran’s nuclear weapons
program.
Therefore, Obama's
administration tried to deal with the Iran’s nuclear questions by using
economic sanctions. It was against the idea of a military strike on Iran, even
when Israel was talking about a military strike similar to Operation Orchard to be carried out in Iran.[iv]
On the other hand, economic sanctions failed to bend Iran’s nuclear programme.
Therefore, US moved towards containment as a main strategy to deal with Iran.
The problem is that US could not completely ignore Iran’s nuclear programme due
to concerns of proliferation and due to likely reactions of allies like Israel
and Saudi Arabia. A nuclear bomb by Saudi Arabia or preemptive strike by Israel
on Iran’s nuclear facility could impact strategic stability in the Middle East.
This deal will help pacify US allies about Iran’s nuclear programme, to some
extent, without forcing Iran to withdraw its nuclear programme completely.
Therefore, US seems to choose a middle way approach to achieve its aims. In
this way, US has bought time from Iran to think and adopt different policies to
deal with the nuclear proliferation issue. For example, soon after the nuclear
deal, the US has offered to increase its military aid to Israel by $1.5 billion
per year, aiming on one hand to to make Israel's defence strong while arresting
the Iran’s nuclear capability.[v] Furthermore, Iran will be receiving economic
benefits from US under the deal. Once Iran becomes economically vibrant,
sanctions having lifted, it will be difficult for it to go nuclear and to find
itself again under the umbrella of economic sanctions.
Now coming to
Iran, it has chosen to adopt the nuclear deal with the US because there has
been a recent change in its government. Hassan Rohuani won the elections in
June 2013, which implies that the public of Iran has been tired of crumbling
economic situations and Iran’s confrontation with the West. Since he had taken
office, he has prioritized the issue of solving the matter of Iran’s nuclear
programme and to end Iran’s isolation.[vi]
This nuclear deal will not only help to ease sanctions and to help Iran
economically, but will also keep open the nuclear option of Iran to deal with the domestic criticism of abandoning
nuclear programme completely under the US pressures. Such a measure should help
Hassan Rohuani gain public
support for his policies.
Therefore, this
results from the change of policy from deterrence to containment. The strategy
of containment offers the middle way to
both the sides without associating much diplomatic and political cost on each side.
Without the deal, the Iran would have remained difficult to deal with as is
manifest in historical experiences. This nuclear deal will surely make Iran a
‘nuclear threshold state’ but not the ‘independent nuclear-weapon state’, it
may have been aiming for, which has much more costs and adverse effects on the
region and also on the non-proliferation regime.
About the Author:
Neha Kumar Tiwari is doing Ph.D in
Disarmament Studies from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her M.Phil
topic was, “Role of Ballistic Missile Defense in the US nuclear deterrence
discourse: Study of post-cold war debates.” She has been associated with Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), New Delhi as Research Officer
from July 2007-March 2008. During this period, She worked on the issues
related to nuclear weapons, missile stability, Ballistic Missile Defence and
the US policies in South Asia. She also worked as a Research Associate in
United Service Institution of India, New Delhi.
References
[i] Iran Nuclear Deal : Full
Text of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2013), URL; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-deal-full-text-of-joint-comprehensive-plan-of-action
[ii] The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from going Nuclear, URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
[iii] The Lengthening List of Iran Sanctions, URL: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-lengthening-list-of-iran-sanctions-2/
[iv] Sanger, David (2007), ‘Israel Stuck Syrian Nuclear Project, Analyst
Said,’ The New York Times, 14 October 2007
[v] Lendman, Stephen (2015), ‘Iran Nuclear Deal Aftermath: Greater
Regional Stablization,’ URL: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/07/21/iran-nuclear-deal-aftermath-greater-regi
[vi] Chubin, Shahram, ‘The Politics of Iran Nuclear Program,’ URL: http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/politics-irans-nuclear-program