Economics

The Price of War with Iran

Dec 19, 2012 Geoffrey Kemp and John Allen Gay

Barack Obama has repeatedly avowed that he will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, rather than rely on deterrence, as has been done with other nuclear powers, such as Pakistan. But, although the costs of a containment strategy would be significant, the costs of fighting a war would be higher.

WASHINGTON, DC – One of the greatest challenges that US President Barack Obama will face in his second term is Iran’s pursuit of advanced nuclear technologies. While a nuclear Iran would damage America’s strategic position in the Middle East, action aimed at forestalling Iran’s nuclear progress also carries serious strategic and economic consequences.

Armed with nuclear weapons, Iran would be better able to project influence, intimidate its neighbors, and protect itself. As a result, the United States’ allies in the region would need new security guarantees. But an increased American presence could provoke radical groups, while requiring defense resources that are needed to support US interests in East and Southeast Asia.

Some of Obama’s conservative critics believe that he will allow Iran to develop an advanced nuclear program, provided that it stops short of actually building a bomb. But no American president would want their legacy to include allowing so unfriendly a regime to acquire such a dangerous weapon – even if doing so meant avoiding greater strategic costs.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2023

Our annual fourth-quarter magazine is here, and available only to Digital Plus and Premium subscribers. Subscribe to Digital Plus today, and save $15.

Subscribe Now

Geoffrey Kemp

Writing for PS since 2012
1 Commentary

Geoffrey Kemp, Director of the Regional Security Program at the Center for the National Interest, is co-author, with John Allen Gay, of the forthcoming book War with Iran: Political, Military, and Economic Consequences.

John Allen Gay

Writing for PS since 2012
1 Commentary

John Allen Gay, an assistant editor at The National Interest, is co-author, with Geoffrey Kemp, of the forthcoming book War with Iran: Political, Military, and Economic Consequences.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 Comments on this article

Henrik Ørsted Jan 2, 2013

Iran is certainly a country, which sticks out in a region of chaos and the loss of rule of law as the enlightened civilised world knows it. It is a country, which preserves a balance in the Middle East. It is also a big pretender on what Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claims is "Islamic Awakening". Khamenei is said to be a scholar of Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian Muslim brotherhood. This most interesting issue, however, as to why Sayyid Qutb turned to the Muslim Brotherhood was apparently his rejection of Communism and his stay in the USA. Thus, the Muslim Brotherhood does not advocate as obvious its dislike for the USA as Iran does. The leading clergy in Iran, have a totally different background from the Egyptian brotherhood, and whereas Egypt has a much smaller and obviously more predictable Israel as its neighbour, Iran counts Turkey and Pakistan as its neighbours. Iran was involved in a nearly 10 year long war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Ironically, the leader, who granted asylum to most of the grands, who are currently in power in Iran. But living in asylum in Iraq is a far fetch from living and getting educated in the USA, like Qutb and Professor Morsi. And as to the nuclear ambitions of Iran, Simon Peres clearly said "I accept that Iran has other reasons for developing nuclear bombs, apart from its desire to destroy Israel, but we cannot ignore the risk". There are diplomatic channels between Israel and Iran and both nations can accomodate each others existence for the common good. What I consider as being much more dangerous is, however, the massive armament of the Arabic gulf states, which is reminiscent to the armament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, once the Islamic Republic of Iran was born. My guess is that Iran is a jealous nation. Just across the Gulf, the regimes are as undemocratic as itself and treat the human rights with the same disrespect as itself. These countries, however, get all the weapons they order, get all the high tech gadgets, they want and Iran is being demonised, not because of Nuclear Arms Proliferation, but of it being different from the rest of the Middle East. Well, I reckon with the stick-and-carrot approach, Iran can be a proud nation, without losing its face. However, care has to be taken not to weaken Iran and therefore disturbing the balance in not only the Middle East, but also in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. The world is round after all.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jack lasersohn Dec 22, 2012

Geoffrey,
This excellent column reminds me of your terrific courses at the Fletcher School many decades ago. It is amazing how the fiscal cliff, which will of course be resolved without catastrophe, has pushed this vastly more important issue completely aside. Hopefully, your timely article will correct this.
Two points.
While I agree that rational U.S. strategic considerations might argue for containment over war, Israel may not see it the same way, and Israel will probably control the US decision. It is very hard to imagine that the US will not support Israel if they decide to attack, given domestic political realities.
Second, while the short term negative consequences of an attack (which you discuss) certainly weigh against preemption, in the longer term, the danger of proliferation to an Islamist terrorist organization raises issues that we never had to address before in deterrence theory. We already face this danger with Pakistan, and the increased risk from an even more radical regime in Iran must be factored into the equation. Frankly, I am not sure where I come out on this one. The idea of ten unstable and undemocratic regimes having nuclear weapons is terrifying. We knew this day would come thirty years ago at Fletcher, but it is even more frightening now that it is really happening.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.