Hedging the Iran Nuclear Bet: Reinvigorate Supply-Side Nonproliferation

What is it about?

This policy analysis article argues that the next U.S. president will need to live with what amounts to a deeply flawed Iran nuclear deal, simply because walking away now would leave Iran with most of its gains and saddle Washington with most of the blame. In this context the piece suggests that the new administration should pursue a hedging strategy that includes strengthening nonproliferation within the terms allowed by the deal. This can be accomplished through a package of supply-side proposals outside of the deal's framework that would impede Iran from improving its nuclear and missile capabilities from within that framework. Such an initiative would complement a wider hedging strategy that includes nuclear deterrence, missile defenses, and countering Iranian adventurism.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This piece looks beyond the rhetoric of the heated presidential campaign season in order to take a balanced look at the challenges that the next president will face by inheriting President Obama's audacious and high stakes gamble on an imperfect nuclear bargain with Iran. Regardless of who wins the election, the incoming Administration will need to move beyond merely cheerleading for or railing against the Iran nuclear deal. Just as a President Hillary Clinton will have to grapple with the very real and dire risks posed by the deal's deep and inherent flaws, a President Trump will need to come to grips with the reality that there is simply no good option for walking away as things now stand. The answer is either case may be a hedging strategy to mitigate the deal's severe risks while playing out this unfinished hand to see if it yields the benefits that President Obama has promised.