When A Weak Iran Goes Nuclear | Interview: Michael Singh
Feb 3, 2025
auto_awesome
Michael Singh, managing director at The Washington Institute, draws on his extensive expertise in Middle East policy. He discusses the precarious situation of a weakened Iran potentially going nuclear. Topics include Iran's military challenges, the significance of its proxy operations, and the strategies needed to prevent a nuclear threat. Singh emphasizes the necessity of a maximum pressure campaign and the complexities of U.S.-Iran relations. He also predicts Iran's nuclear capabilities by 2029 and the need for a collaborative approach from the U.S. and Israel.
Iran's proximity to achieving nuclear capabilities amidst its weakened military state presents a precarious threat to regional stability.
The proposed U.S. strategy combines economic pressure and support for internal opposition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Deep dives
Iran's Current Nuclear Threat
Iran is now closer than ever to developing a nuclear weapon, with a breakout time reduced to just a few days. This means that if Iran decides to pursue nuclear armament, it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon within a week. The current Iranian regime is more vulnerable than it has been since 1979, having suffered significant military setbacks against Israeli forces. Yet, this paradox of being both exposed and close to nuclear capability presents a dangerously volatile situation for the region.
The Impact of Regional Conflicts on Iran
Recent conflicts in the Middle East have severely weakened Iran's position, particularly through Israel's strategic strikes against Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. Iran's defense capabilities have been significantly degraded, leading to a weaker retaliatory stance against potential U.S. or Israeli attacks on its nuclear program. While Iran still possesses some missile capabilities and proxies in the region, its effectiveness in a large-scale retaliation has been compromised. Thus, any U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could provoke a restrained and calculated response instead of an all-out attack.
Recommendations for U.S. Policy Towards Iran
The proposed strategy for addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions includes a maximum pressure campaign to induce Iran to negotiate a tougher nuclear deal, while simultaneously preparing for possible military action if these negotiations fail. It emphasizes the necessity of sustaining economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, aiming to ensure it does not acquire nuclear weapons. Support for Iranian opposition movements within the country is also encouraged to facilitate potential political reforms from within. This multifaceted approach seeks to resolve the nuclear issue without resorting to immediate military intervention.
The Consequences of a Military Strike
Any military strike on Iran's nuclear program would likely elicit a multi-faceted response from Tehran, using its remaining missile capabilities, proxies, and terrorist networks. Iran could retaliate not only against Israel but also target U.S. interests in the Gulf region and potentially execute global terrorist operations. However, the extent of Iran's military response would be constrained by its significantly reduced defense capabilities following recent conflicts. Thus, while Iran may strike back, its ability to do so effectively against a well-prepared adversary would be limited.
Jamie Weinstein is joined Michael Singh, the managing director and Lane-Swig senior fellow at The Washington Institute, to explain how the Trump administration can take on a weakened—but potentially nuclear—Iranian regime.