In this Q&A, Brown University political scientist and nuclear security expert Reid Pauly shares insights and context on the expanding conflict in the Middle East.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] - Conflict in the Middle East has accelerated rapidly following recent strikes by the United States and Israel that killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, leaving many wondering about potential long- and short-term implications of the military actions.
Reid Pauly, an assistant professor of political science, nuclear security and policy affiliated with the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, is an expert on nuclear proliferation who has written widely on international affairs, nuclear weapons proliferation, and nuclear strategy and deterrence.
.jpg)
In his new book, "The Art of Coercion: Credible Threats and the Assurance Dilemma," he examined coercive diplomacy in counterproliferation efforts in Iran and elsewhere. As fighting spreads through the Middle East amid Iran's retaliation against the U.S.-Israeli military campaign, Pauly shared insights and context.
Q: What is the essential background needed for people to understand what is currently unfolding?
This war must be understood as part of a nuclear crisis with Iran that dates back to at least 2002, when there was the first public revelation of a secret uranium enrichment facility in Iran. Since then, there have been episodic ebbs and flows in the diplomatic engagement between Iran and various coalitions - often including the United States - to try to restrict Iranian nuclear capabilities. Primarily, the question has been: Can we trust Iran with the capacity to enrich uranium, which they say is for peaceful uses? The United States and others are worried that Iran will use it for military purposes to build nuclear weapons. We know that the Iranians had a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003 but that they halted that effort in favor of hedging - developing their nuclear know-how and leaving open the option of pursuing nuclear weapons in the future. Since then, there's been no indication in public through International Atomic Energy Agency inspections or leaks from the intelligence community to suggest that the weapons program ever started up again after 2003, but the hedging continued.
Q: What were some key developments in the last decade?
In 2015, there was a deal struck between Iran and the Obama administration and its coalition of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany. It allowed Iran to have a limited uranium enrichment capacity under tight monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it required Iran to ship out of the country most of the enriched uranium it had already made, among other measures. As part of that deal, the Obama administration agreed to lift nuclear-related sanctions on Iran.
Three years later, President Trump decided to withdraw from that deal and reimposed sanctions. The Trump administration argued that they could reimpose sanctions and increase pressure on Iran to get a better deal. Iranians then gradually restarted nuclear research and building up their centrifuge capabilities in the way that the deal had restricted. With the U.S. withdrawal from the deal, Iran also limited access for the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that its program was for peaceful uses and not military uses.
Q: How do this week's military actions differ from prior strikes on Iran?
Last June, Israel and the U.S. conducted air strikes in Iran. Israel struck first, then pulled the U.S. in, and the U.S. conducted limited airstrikes, specifically against nuclear infrastructure in Iran to set back the nuclear program. That was a limited, 12-day war that targeted the nuclear capabilities of Iran. The Israelis also concentrated on destroying missiles on the ground to minimize Iranian retaliation.
The difference this week is that this is a much larger war. It's still just an air and naval operation, but the aims of the military force that has been used this week are much broader than just destroying Iran's nuclear program. This looks like a regime change operation from the air that started with the assassination of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. So, different from last June, it seems like the United States and Israel, having now decided to go to war together, have in mind a complete change in who governs Iran, in the hopes that maybe the next government will pose less of a threat - nuclear or otherwise - to the security interests of Israel or the United States.
Q: Based on history and your political science research, how do you see this unfolding?
The history of foreign-imposed regime change through military force is pessimistic in general. It often doesn't go well, or the costs are much higher than leaders anticipated when they started it. Rarely does it end up in a democratic government taking over. We can draw even less optimism from the history and political science research on the use of air power alone. Regime change tends to require ground forces. And it's impossible to bomb politics away. People tend to despise those who bomb them.
I think there are a few things that could happen with this air campaign to try to create a new government in Iran. The most likely outcome is that it doesn't work. You can kill the Ayatollah and the next several potential leaders, but there's still going to be a leader who takes over to preserve the existing government who is still going to be supported by the military in Iran. That new leader would sit atop a significantly weakened state, but they may be more repressive in an effort to exert internal political control and establish their authority, and they may be even more interested in nuclear weapons to prevent foreign military interventions like this in the future. They may identify the failures of the past strategy of nuclear hedging and conclude that the problem was that they didn't go for the bomb soon enough.
In the second scenario, the government collapses and creates a power vacuum that leads to a civil war. If you actually do manage to kill enough leaders and destroy enough governing infrastructure and military power such that they can no longer maintain control of the country, then you've opened the door for anybody who claims to be a new legitimate ruler of the country to enter into conflict with each other to try to come out on top: a civil war.
