Debate Desk
Can Iran Be Contained With Deals and Sanctions Relief Alone?
Agreements that delay but do not end enrichment, while funding proxies, have not changed Iran's course; conservatives favor pressure and deterrence.
The claim
Supporters of engagement say that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action limited Iran's nuclear program, that sanctions hurt ordinary people and that diplomacy is better than the alternative of war.
The answer in three points
- The 2015 deal was a limited agreement. It placed temporary caps on enrichment and had provisions that expire over time, and it did not address Iran's missiles or its support for militias and terrorist groups across the region. Sanctions relief supplied the regime with funds while its hostile behavior continued.
- The record of the regime is clear. Iran has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, and its proxies have attacked American forces, from the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 to militias in Iraq. A government that chants death to America has stated its intentions.
- A stronger approach combines pressure, verification and credible deterrence. That means tough sanctions, close inspections, defenses for allies and a clear message that the use of force is possible. Diplomacy is not ruled out, and it works best from strength.
Agreements are not bad in themselves. They are as good as the leverage behind them and the verification that accompanies them. Pressure and a credible alternative bring a rival to the table.
The numbers
- The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was concluded in July 2015, and the United States withdrew from it in May 2018, according to the State Department.
- The Beirut barracks bombing of October 23, 1983 killed 241 American service members, and the Department of Defense later linked it to Iranian-backed Hezbollah.
- The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran enriched uranium beyond the limits of the 2015 agreement after the American withdrawal, according to its board reports.
What they will say next
"The deal was working until we left." Inspectors found compliance with its terms, and critics argue the terms were too weak and the sunsets too near. Both claims were debated.
"Sanctions hurt ordinary Iranians." They do, and the regime bears the responsibility for the choices that bring them. Targeted measures and support for the Iranian people can lessen the harm.
"War is the only alternative." It is not. A mix of sanctions, covert pressure, deterrence and negotiation exists between appeasement and war.
"Iran is a rational actor." It may be, and rational actors respond to costs. The task is to make the costs of a nuclear program higher than its benefits.
A policy toward Iran should rest on its actions, and the record shows what they are.
"Containment worked against the Soviet Union." It did, backed by alliances, forward defenses and a large military. The Soviets also did not have a doctrine of martyrdom or a record of funding militias across a region. Containment of Iran requires the same sort of strength and allies, and deals are one tool within it, not a substitute.