Nuclear Deterrence in Iran: Examining the Divide

Deterrent: A Mixed Perspective

In recent discussions and analyses, Iranian experts, pundits, and journalists have been actively deliberating the strategic implications of nuclear and military deterrence. There is a growing discourse on the potential benefits and risks associated with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons to enhance its deterrence capabilities. However, concerns persist that such a move might provoke further threats and does not guarantee absolute security, as evidenced by Israel’s experiences with adversaries despite its nuclear capabilities. Additionally, Iran’s military actions, such as Operation True Promise, and its support for proxy groups like Hamas are viewed as efforts to extend its deterrence strategy. These actions aim to project power and instill a psychological deterrent effect, though they also attract criticism and debate over their effectiveness and repercussions. Furthermore, Iran’s economic strategies and internal challenges, including economic hardships and social divisions, are significant factors that influence its overall deterrence strategy and national resilience against external threats.

Nuclear Deterrence:

• Iranian experts, pundits, and journalists are discussing the costs and benefits of acquiring nuclear weapons for deterrence in increasing numbers (Daily Summary 10MAY24).
• There is an underlying understanding that while acquiring nuclear weapons might enhance Iran’s deterrence, it could also invite more threats. (Daily Summary 07MAY24).
• Analysts argue that nuclear weapons do not guarantee absolute deterrence, pointing to instances where Israel, an unacknowledged nuclear power, was attacked by Hamas and other adversaries (Daily Summary 07MAY24).
• Hardline outlets in Iran often interpret advancements in military technology, such as hypersonic missiles, as steps towards achieving ultimate deterrence (Daily Summary 10MAY24, Daily Summary 19NOV23).

 

Military Deterrence:

• Iran’s recent military actions, such as Operation True Promise, are often framed as a message of deterrence, showcasing Iran’s military capabilities and signaling its readiness for a forceful response if provoked (Daily Summary 10MAY24).
• Analysts note that Iran might be trying to instill fear and anticipation within Israel, suggesting that the psychological aspect of deterrence is also a part of their strategy (Daily Summary 08APR24).
• However, following attacks by Israel on Iranian targets, there are intense debates within Iran about the IRGC’s security vulnerabilities and calls for clarity on the regime’s red lines against such aggression (Daily Summary 08APR24).
• Iranian officials sometimes attempt to project deterrence by issuing threats and promising forceful responses to Israeli actions (Daily Summary 08MAY24).

 

Proxy Deterrence:

• Some view Iran’s support for resistance groups in the region, such as Hamas, as a form of deterrence by proxy, extending Iran’s reach and influence while imposing costs on its adversaries (Daily Summary 11DEC23).
• Hardliners see these resistance forces as crucial for advancing Iran’s anti-US and anti-Israel agenda, framing their actions as a form of deterrence against these powers (Daily Summary 07FEB24).
• Discussions surround the strategic depth that these proxy groups offer, portraying them as a fundamental aspect of Iran’s defense doctrine (Daily Summary 10DEC23).
• However, questions arise about the effectiveness and potential downsides of relying on these proxy groups, especially as regional tensions escalate and Iran faces criticism for their actions (Daily Summary 05FEB24., Daily Summary 11JAN24, Daily Summary 18JAN24).
• The costs associated with supporting these groups, both financially and diplomatically, are also a recurring point of debate, especially as Iran faces economic challenges and seeks to improve relations with its neighbors (Daily Summary 05FEB24, Daily Summary 10DEC23).

 

Deterrence Through Strength:

• Discussions often focus on the perceived decline in Iran’s deterrent power. Some hardline think tanks analyze the imbalances and shortcomings in Iran’s capacity to respond proportionally to Israel, arguing that its predictable stances have made it more vulnerable (Daily Summary 11JAN24).

 

Economic Deterrence:

• Iran’s engagement in strategic economic agreements, such as those concerning natural resources, is sometimes presented as a form of deterrence, aiming to secure essential resources and counterbalance the West’s influence (Daily Summary 20DEC23).

 

Internal Challenges to Deterrence:

• Reformist commentators highlight the internal challenges that undermine Iran’s deterrence strategy, emphasizing the need to address public discontent, economic hardship, and social divisions to strengthen the country’s resilience against external threats (Daily Summary 11APR24).
• Some argue that Iran’s efforts to project strength abroad, such as through military operations, may be aimed at distracting attention from internal problems and rallying public support behind the regime (Daily Summary 04APR24).

 

Factors Influencing Iran’s Nuclear Deterrence Decisions

A complex interplay of internal pressures, regional dynamics, and international relations influences Iran’s decision-making process regarding nuclear deterrence.

Internal Pressures:

• Hardliners’ Influence: Hardline groups within Iran consistently push for a more aggressive nuclear stance, advocating outright nuclear weapon development as a deterrent, especially against perceived threats from Israel. They argue that Iran should match Israel’s nuclear capabilities to ensure its security and regional influence.
• Public Opinion: Iranian public opinion is divided on nuclear deterrence. Some see it as crucial for national security against external threats, while others, particularly those impacted by economic hardship, question the cost of such programs and prioritize economic stability. Reformist voices often champion public sentiment, urging the government to prioritize domestic well-being over confrontational foreign policies.

 

Regional Dynamics:

• Israeli Aggression: Israeli military actions, including attacks on Iranian facilities and perceived threats against Iran’s nuclear program, are significant drivers of Iran’s nuclear deterrence calculations. Iran’s leadership views these actions as existential threats, compelling them to consider matching Israel’s nuclear capabilities.
• Proxy Conflicts: Iran’s involvement in regional conflicts through proxy forces, such as in Syria and Yemen, contributes to a climate of tension and increases pressure on Iran to demonstrate its military capabilities, including its nuclear potential, as a deterrent.
• Relations with Neighboring Countries: Iran’s relations with neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Pakistan are often volatile, with territorial disputes, political differences, and security concerns contributing to regional instability. These strained relationships further incentivize Iran to strengthen its deterrence posture, including the potential for nuclear armament.

 

International Relations:

• Sanctions Pressure: International sanctions, primarily imposed by Western countries, significantly impact Iran’s economy and limit its access to global markets. This pressure has historically motivated Iran to negotiate limits on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, but it also fuels arguments for developing nuclear weapons as leverage against these pressures.
• IAEA Scrutiny: The International Atomic Energy Agency’s monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, often perceived by Iran as politically motivated and biased towards Western interests, creates tension and fuels a sense of distrust. Iran’s leaders often view IAEA reports and potential resolutions as threats, further motivating them to advance their nuclear capabilities.
• Shifting Global Order: The emergence of a multipolar world order, with the rise of powers like China and Russia, encourages Iran to diversify its international partnerships and reduce its reliance on the West. This shift, however, also presents uncertainties, as Russia’s actions sometimes contradict Iranian interests, and China’s growing influence may lead to pressure on Iran to moderate its regional policies.

 

Evolution of Iranian Rhetoric on Nuclear Deterrence

Iran’s rhetoric on nuclear deterrence has shifted from a stance of absolute opposition to nuclear weapons to a more ambiguous position, suggesting that the country could develop a nuclear bomb in response to perceived threats to its existence. This evolution can be observed through statements made by Iranian officials and analysts, particularly in the context of regional tensions and stalled nuclear negotiations.

Initial Opposition to Nuclear Weapons: Historically, Iran maintained a firm stance against the development of nuclear weapons, often citing a fatwa issued by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iranian officials frequently reiterated this position, central to the country’s defense policy.

Shifting Rhetoric Amidst Regional Tensions: In recent years, Iranian rhetoric has become more ambiguous, particularly in response to heightened tensions with Israel and stalled negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA).

• For instance, in May 2024, Kamal Kharrazi, the head of the Strategic Council of Foreign Relations and a close advisor to the supreme leader, stated that an “existential threat” to the Islamic Republic could lead Iran to change its nuclear doctrine. This statement was made after the IAEA chief left Iran without a breakthrough on Iran’s uranium enrichment levels.
• In April 2024, after Israel targeted Iranian assets in Syria, there was a noticeable rise in official statements regarding Iran’s capability to produce a nuclear bomb. This was accompanied by denials of any intent to do so in light of the supreme leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons. Analysts have suggested that this could be Iran’s way of signaling that “all options are on the table,” indicating a readiness for negotiations or a more assertive stance.
• Other Iranian officials and analysts have echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing the potential for a shift in Iran’s nuclear posture should the country face significant threats to its security.

 

Internal Debates on Nuclear Deterrence: There are intense debates within Iran regarding the costs and benefits of nuclear weapons for deterrence. Some advocate for acquiring nuclear weapons, while others argue that they do not guarantee absolute deterrence, citing examples like Israel, which has come under attack despite possessing nuclear weapons.

Factors Influencing the Shift: The evolving rhetoric on nuclear deterrence appears to be influenced by several factors:

• The perceived ineffectiveness of the JCPOA: The stalemate over the JCPOA and the continued imposition of sanctions have led some in Iran to question the benefits of adhering to the agreement.
• The belief that Iran’s restraint has not been reciprocated: Some Iranian officials and analysts believe that the country’s adherence to the JCPOA and its restraint in the region have not been met with corresponding concessions from the West.
• Regional Instability: Heightened tensions with Israel, the ongoing conflict in Gaza, and the activities of Iran-backed groups in the region have created a sense of insecurity for Iran.

 

In conclusion, Iran’s rhetoric on nuclear deterrence has undergone a significant evolution, moving from a position of absolute opposition to nuclear weapons to a more ambiguous stance that suggests the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb under certain circumstances. This shift reflects the country’s evolving security concerns and frustrations with the international community.

Advocates for Nuclear Deterrence in Iran

The sources depict a complex and evolving debate within Iran regarding nuclear deterrence.

Hardline MPs and Analysts: A prominent advocate is Ahmad Bakhshayesh-Ardestani, an incoming MP, who believes that Iran must already possess a nuclear bomb without having publicly announced it. He sees recent statements about Iran’s nuclear capabilities as part of a calculated strategy to gradually prepare the world for the news of Iran’s nuclear status. His arguments for nuclear armament emphasize the following:

• Countering Israel’s Threat: He points to Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the threat it poses to Iran as justification for acquiring a matching capability.
• Enduring Existing Sanctions: Bakhshayesh-Ardestani downplays potential consequences such as increased sanctions, arguing that Iran has endured them for decades.
• Projecting Strength: He believes nuclear armament would give the Iranian public a sense of achievement and demonstrate Iran’s global importance.

 

IRGC Officials: While Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s stance on nuclear weapons has softened since his original fatwa against them, IRGC and security officials have begun to make increasingly open statements about a potential shift in Iran’s nuclear doctrine.

• Kamal Kharrazi, head of the Strategic Council of Foreign Relations and a close advisor to the Supreme Leader, suggests that an “existential threat” to Iran, such as an attack on its nuclear facilities by Israel, could prompt Iran to pursue a nuclear bomb.
• Ahmad Haqtalab, an IRGC officer responsible for protecting Iran’s nuclear sites, echoes this sentiment, signaling that attacks, or even the threat of attacks, on nuclear facilities could lead to a change in Iran’s nuclear policy.

 

Hardline Media Outlets: Publications aligned with the IRGC interpret recent legislative moves, such as expanding the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND), as steps towards nuclear armament. They highlight the organization’s focus on acquiring “alternative, emerging, disruptive, high-risk, and superior technologies” as crucial for achieving “ultimate deterrence.”

Counterarguments and Alternative Strategies

The sources also highlight:

• Doubts about Absolute Deterrence: Analysts point to Israel’s experience of being attacked by Hamas, despite being an unacknowledged nuclear power, as evidence that nuclear weapons do not guarantee absolute deterrence.
• Potential Negative Consequences: Concerns exist about possible reactions from allies like Russia and China, as well as regional countries, should Iran pursue nuclear weapons. Some commentators advocate for a peaceful and pragmatic revision of policies, prioritizing geoeconomic considerations over ideological and geopolitical ones.
• Importance of Internal Stability: Many, including former Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif, argue that internal stability, fostered through economic growth and a more inclusive political system, is more crucial for Iran’s security than nuclear weapons. They emphasize that it was popular support, not the nuclear program, that has protected Iran.

 

This analysis of the Iranian official and semi-official media landscape is provided from a selection of Iran Daily Summary coverage produced by PersuMedia’s Media Research Team and its AI-powered OSINT platform, SOTOS.