Iran cannot achieve first-strike capability versus U.S. or Israel, will be stuck in defensive deterrent posture
On the other hand, it is virtually impossible for Iran to achieve a first-strike capability versus the United States. Any risks that Iran took in its basing mode and alert posture to get ready for a first strike against Israel could easily make it more vulnerable to a first strike from the United States. Spending its nuclear forces on Israel would leave Iran politically and militarily vulnerable to a huge U.S. retaliation. By striking first, it would have legitimated a U.S. nuclear attack, while simultaneously weakening its own deterrent with the weapons it had expended. The United States is the greater threat to Iran because it is much more powerful than Israel, and has actual strategic objectives in the Gulf. It is strategically reasonable for Iran to focus its deterrent energies on the United States, which it can only influence with a secure retaliatory force, capable of threatening U.S. forces and interests in the region.
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
-
Although unconventional, we should consider the option of not trying to stop Iran's inevitable rise to become a nuclear power and focus instead on managing the eventual fallout through deterrence and proliferation assistance.
Related Quotes:- Deterrence with Iran is, on-balance, a Preferrable Option to Preventive War
- Experience in Iran-Iraq War shows Iran is rational and capable of being deterred
- Iran cannot achieve first-strike capability versus U.S. or Israel, will be stuck in defensive deterrent posture
- Iran has always Acted Rationally, Should Expect Deterrence will Work
- ... and 20 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments:Counter Argument: