Iran’s Nuclear Program: Deterrence and the Limits of Military Action

The recent US-Israeli military campaign against Iran has raised questions about the long-term effectiveness of such actions in dismantling Iran’s nuclear program. Experts increasingly suggest that while military force may temporarily disrupt the program, it is unlikely to extinguish it entirely, necessitating a shift towards strategies of deterrence and diplomacy to manage the ongoing nuclear threat.

The Limits of Military Force

Despite the stated goals of Operation Epic Fury – to resolve the 24-year standoff over Iran’s nuclear program – arms control experts are skeptical that military action can provide a lasting solution. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Non-Proliferation Project at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and founder of Arms Control Wonk, argues that deterrence has historically been the default mechanism for managing nuclear adversaries, citing examples like the Soviet Union and North Korea. The Guardian

Lewis contends that even an Iranian nuclear weapon is a “manageable problem,” as the international community has successfully navigated similar situations in the past. He highlights the limitations of military solutions, noting that while above-ground sites can be destroyed, underground facilities – including storage for approximately 440 kg of highly enriched uranium and facilities like Pickaxe Mountain near Natanz – remain largely inaccessible to conventional weaponry. The Guardian

Deterrence as a Strategy

The concept of deterrence, developed during the Cold War, centers on discouraging an adversary from taking an action by threatening a significant response. Applying this to Iran, Lewis suggests that the focus should shift to establishing a credible deterrent, similar to the approach taken with North Korea. This involves demonstrating the willingness and capability to retaliate in the event of Iranian nuclear aggression.

However, Lewis also acknowledges the potential limitations of Cold War-era deterrence theories in a world with a growing number of nuclear powers and varying strategic temperaments. He emphasizes the importance of limiting complexity in the nuclear landscape to ensure that potential problems remain manageable. The Guardian

The Evolving Nuclear Landscape

The technological barriers to developing nuclear weapons have decreased significantly over time. Lewis points out that nuclear weapons technology is over 80 years ancient – comparable in age to the microwave oven. The knowledge required to build a nuclear weapon is becoming increasingly accessible, even to non-state actors. The Guardian, Scientific American

This accessibility underscores the demand to manage vulnerability and accept that the spread of nuclear capabilities is a reality. The most realistic approach, involves a combination of diplomatic efforts and military deterrence. The Guardian

Recent Developments and Expert Assessments

As of March 11, 2026, experts, including Jeffrey Lewis, maintain that Iran was not close to possessing a nuclear weapon. While Iran had produced a stockpile of approximately 441 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium by June 2025 – enough for over 10 weapons if further enriched to 90% – achieving weapons-grade status requires additional steps. Scientific American

Despite claims from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in early March 2026 that Iran was no longer able to enrich uranium, details and evidence supporting this assertion remain limited. The Guardian

Key Takeaways

• Military action against Iran’s nuclear program is unlikely to be a definitive solution.
• Deterrence, modeled on strategies used with North Korea, is a viable approach to managing the threat.
• The proliferation of nuclear technology is increasing, making containment more challenging.
• A combination of diplomacy and deterrence is the most realistic path forward.