The Consequences of Another U.S. Attack on Iran

If the U.S. attacked again less than a year later, it would show that our government likes to commit criminal aggression against other states.

Hal Brands makes a bizarre comment in a bad column about a possible attack on Iran:

Helping Iranian protesters prevail would show that the pursuit of nuclear weapons endangers rather than strengthens rogue regimes.

Bombing Iran in response to a crackdown on protesters shows nothing of the kind. The Iranian government isn’t pursuing nuclear weapons and hasn’t been pursuing them for more than twenty years. That has been confirmed many times by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the findings of our government’s own intelligence agencies. The U.S. and Israel attacked them anyway. If the U.S. attacked again less than a year later, it would show that our government likes to commit criminal aggression against other states. The lesson that the Iranian government would have to draw from more attacks is that keeping their nuclear program peaceful has been an error that needs to be corrected as quickly as possible.

Ten years ago, Iran negotiated with the U.S. and fully complied with the terms of a major nonproliferation agreement. Their reward for refusing to build nuclear weapons has been relentless sanctions and bombing. Bombing them again would amount to rubbing salt in the fresh wound.

The U.S. and Israel attacked Iran at the same time that the Iranian government was seeking a negotiated compromise. If Iranian government has learned anything from the U.S., it is that offers to talk are ploys to provide cover for impending military action. Iran hawks have done everything they can to make the idea of diplomatic engagement with the U.S. abhorrent to the other side.

The lesson that the U.S. has taught the world more than once is that it will gladly attack other countries when they don’t have nuclear weapons, but it will hold its fire when the other side has the ability to strike back with its own arsenal. Our government has instructed potential proliferators that their best bet is to build up an arsenal as quickly as possible if they want to be secure. Other governments foolish enough to reach agreements with the U.S. on this issue can expect to be betrayed and attacked just a few years after making their concessions.

Iran and North Korea chose two very different paths two decades ago. One chose to remain in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and kept its nuclear program peaceful. The other withdrew from the treaty and began testing nuclear devices. Only one of them has come under outside attack. The country whose government opted for respecting international law has been punished more harshly than the one whose government took the path of the lawless rogue.

Every time that the U.S. threatens or bombs the non-nuclear weapons state Iran, it vindicates North Korea’s decision to build its own deterrent. If there are any other would-be proliferators contemplating their next steps, they would have strong incentives to imitate North Korea and avoid making the same mistakes as Iran. That is one enduring legacy of our government’s incredibly awful Iran policy. The other is that our government’s policy has given the Iranian government every reason to acquire nuclear weapons despite its many formal commitments to reject that option.

In addition to playing into their hands in other ways, a new round of attacks would give hardliners in the Iranian government one more argument in favor of building nuclear weapons.