Paper

Military Elements in a Strategy to Deal with Iran's Nuclear Program

| June 2008

Introduction

Iran: U.S. Strategic Options

Dealing with Iran will be a key challenge for the United States in the coming years. The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is therefore hosting a series of four discussions on alternative strategies for dealing with Iran's nuclear program called Iran: U.S. Strategic Options.

CNAS convened about 30 high-level national security, foreign policy, Iran, and Middle East experts, as well as select members of the press and representatives from Capitol Hill and the presidential campaigns, to launch this program on January 31, 2008, with an event focused on intensified diplomacy. Other discussions in the Iran: U.S. Strategic Options series will focus on military strike options and their ramifications, a U.S. policy of living with a nuclear Iran, and possible Iranian reactions to a U.S. diplomatic strategy. For the final event, the group of experts will also discuss proposed findings and outreach recommendations.

CNAS commissioned experts to draft short reports and guide the dialogues for each of these topics, including Dennis Ross, Vali Nasr, Ashton Carter, Richard Haass, and Suzanne Maloney. At the conclusion of this series, CNAS scholars will recommend a path forward for the United States on Iran.

In the third paper for the CNAS series on Iran, Carter notes that "Military action must be viewed as a component of a comprehensive strategy rather than a stand-alone option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. But it is an element of any true option. A true option is a complete strategy integrating political, economic, and military elements and seeing the matter through to a defined and achievable end. For any military element, the sequel to action must be part of the strategy because the military action by itself will not finish the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions once and for all. Airstrikes on the Iranian nuclear program or other targets could conceivably reset the diplomatic table in pursuit of a negotiated end to the nuclear program, but they could also easily overturn the diplomatic table. The alternative to the diplomatic table, broadly speaking, is a strategy of containment and punishment of an Iran that ultimately proceeds with its nuclear program. A variety of military measures - air assault, blockade, encirclement, deterrence - could be elements of such a containment strategy."

Read more about the CNAS paper series here.

The full text of Dr. Carter's paper is available through the attached document and link below.

Downloads

Want to Read More?

The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
Read Full Article
For more information on this publication: Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation: Carter, Ashton B.. “Military Elements in a Strategy to Deal with Iran's Nuclear Program.” Paper, June 2008.

The Author

Ash Carter

Ash Carter

  • Former Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
  • Former Belfer Professor of Technology and Global Affairs
  • Former Faculty Director, Technology and Public Purpose Project
  • Former Member of the Board, Belfer Center
  • Former Faculty Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom
  • Former United States Secretary of Defense (2015-2017)
Expertise:
Recommended
In the Spotlight
RSS
A detailed look at China’s development of a hydrogen bomb in fewer than three years, quicker than all other initial nuclear weapons states.
'New Cold Wars' are “more complex, more dangerous than the old one, because China and Russia are teaming up together.”
While U.S. media reports blame Iran and its drone attacks for “pouring gasoline on a region that is already in flames,” there's a lot more to the story, and “most of it reflects poorly on the United States.”
Most Viewed

Tags