Invite Iran to Join NATO

I just retired from the US military, after 23 years as a Persian linguist, focused on Iran. I think the US Government (USG) fails to understand Iran and our policy for the last 41 years has not helped the US. With a new administration, let’s find some ways to get out of this rut.

For decades, Iran was a strong partner with the US. The Iranian people embrace western values more than many other countries in the region, even more than our current allies. Women have a higher place in Iranian society than other neighboring countries. The population is more modern, technocratic and forward-leaning than most in the region. Despite the severe persecutions after the Islamic Revolution, Iran has remained a unified country with many ethnic and religious minorities. They’ve been horrible for minorities, but at least their minorities still exist, unlike the former Jewish populations of other Persian Gulf states.

If you ask an Iranian about the greatest strength of Iranians, they will say “planning”. Iranians believe that they are excellent planners, considering all aspects of a situation and deciding the best course of action. We have numerous examples of both restraint and action from Iran, both strategically considered. When the US shot down a civilian Iranian aircraft and killed 290 people, they did not respond violently, as they calculated that such a reaction was not likely to yield more that short-term propaganda gains. When we occupied both flanks of Iran, in the Afghan and Iraq wars, they did not respond directly, but though cut-outs, surrogates, maintaining plausible deniability. Yes, they supplied bombs that killed US troops in Iraq, but they did so in a measured, rational (from the viewpoint of their best interests) way. We are foolish if we don’t assume that the Iranian government is making decisions based on its appraisal of the best outcome for Iran.

Any American policy maker focused on Iran, which considers itself to be the descendent of a 3,000 year-old empire, needs to focus on the rationality of the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. In the US press, Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is presented as some quasi-terrorist venture. But we need to imagine that we are the Ministry of Defense (MOD) chief in Iran- what would we rationally do to preserve our 3,000 year-old civilization?

Thirty years ago, Iran was bordered by four nuclear powers. Pakistan has nukes. Shiites are routinely targeted in terrorist attacks in Pakistan with no repercussions. Iran is the largest Shiite nation. If you were the chief of Iran’s defense force, would you not feel the need for a comparable nuclear deterrent for any future Pakistani aggression? Iraq launched an eight-year war against Iran and pursued nuclear weapons. Would you not demand nuclear weapons to counter any future Iraqi aggression? Granted, the US invasion of Iraq lead to a government better suited to Iranian needs, but, especially after the ISIS gains, there is no guarantee that Iraq will remain aligned with Iran. Until 1991, the Soviet Union bordered Iran to the north- an atheist government which suppressed Muslim minorities. The Soviets had nuclear weapons. If you were an Iranian MOD chief, would you not prepare to counter a future nuclear threat on your northern border? Americans consider 30 years ago to be ancient history, but Iranians, with a 3,000 year scale, do not. Turkey borders Iran and open-source reporting states that US nuclear weapons are based in Turkey.

In addition to the nuclear-armed border countries, both the US and Israel, adversaries, have nuclear weapons capable of hitting Iran. Although India is not overtly hostile to Iran, it is capable of striking it, and has a fundamentalist Hindu government with an anti-Muslim agenda. Rich Persian Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qattar and Oman could easily purchase nuclear weapons if they so desired.

So, imagine that you are an Iranian, a planner, in charge of defending Iran- would you decide that Iran, too, should acquire nuclear weapons? Of course you would. The Iranian pursuit of such weapons is rational and necessary for their defense. Any US policy that would aim to prevent the Iranian acquisition of these weapons needs to begin with this acknowledgement. The Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons is 100% justified and rational. We may not want them to get nukes, but we need to acknowledge that Iran has rational reasons for wanting them for their own security.

If Iran, based on rational considerations, should pursue these weapons, how can the US prevent their acquisition?

Attempts to thwart Iranian development will eventually fail. We can only kill, bomb or sabotage a limited number of actors/facilities. Direct actions don’t address the rationale behind the Iranian pursuit. If we want Iran to stop pursuing these weapons, we need to eliminate their need for them. Numerous Iranian scientists have been assassinated over the last few decades. Sites have been hacked and sabotaged. None of these direct actions address the rational need for Iran to acquire the weapons.

Prior to the Trump presidency, I always thought that a US-Iran mutual defense pact might be the answer. In other words, despite the fact that our countries have been adversaries for decades, a concrete, confirmable pledge by the US to protect Iran from nuclear attack, might have been sufficient to convince Iran to stop the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

However, after we left the Iran nuclear accord, despite Iran’s adherence to it, we have lost all credibility as a partner. So, how can the US convince Iran that they have a force willing to deter any nuclear attack on Iran if Iran can’t trust the US?

NATO. The US should offer Iran full NATO membership. The vast majority of Iranians would rejoice at this offer and the Iranian government would be backed into the scariest corner in the last 40 years if it rejected such an offer. If Iran became a member, all of the Iranian government’s bogeymen would instantly disappear. Iran has maintained decent relationships with enough NATO members that they could not pretend that the offer is worthless. Many NATO members have good relations with Iran. The Iranian people would demand membership, once offered, and the government would not be able to justify refusing. NATO protection would eliminate the need for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. They would have nuclear protection from their partners.

The Iranian government would instantly lose many of the strawman enemies it uses to justify its existence. Any Israeli threat would be nullified. Pakistan, which probably never considered attacking Iran, would now definitely refrain. India and China, which never had any specific casus belli, would not dare attack. Any Arab state considering attacking Iran would instantly lose heart. The Iranian government would be forced to address internal issues or risk replacement.

The last 40 years of US policy toward Iran have accomplished nothing. Invite Iran to NATO and we can shake up the Middle East, reduce proxy wars, reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and, I suspect, end up with a liberal Iran which would be a true ally for the west.