The Iran Test: Peace Through Strength in the Second Nuclear Age

The ongoing Israeli operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities and proxy network are more than a regional conflict — they constitute a defining test case for how the democratic world confronts nuclear-ambitious authoritarian powers in what Prof. Paul Bracken famously termed the “second nuclear age.”

Recently, I discussed with Bracken how we should examine the Iran case within the context of how to deal with potentially new nuclear authoritarian powers. We discussed how one might consider the nature of the Iranian case study within a second nuclear age context.

Iran exemplifies the challenges of this new era: an expansionist, religiously motivated power that has spent decades building a regional empire through proxy forces, missile networks, and drone warfare, all while pursuing nuclear weapons to legitimize and amplify its influence. Since 1979, Iran has remained fundamentally anti-American, viewing the United States as its primary adversary while using anti-Semitism as a secondary but powerful motivating force.

Two Fundamentally Different Approaches

American policy toward Iran has oscillated between two starkly different philosophies, reflecting deeper disagreements about how to manage threats in the second nuclear age.

• The negotiation approach, pursued by the Obama and Biden administrations, rested on the belief that diplomatic engagement and international agreements could modify Iranian behavior. This strategy culminated in the Iran nuclear deal, supported by European allies, and was accompanied by significant sanctions relief — including the Biden administration’s decision to provide Iran with billions in unfrozen assets while in effect dismantling the Abraham Accords which had been crafted by the Trump Administration with the Gulf Cooperation states.
• The peace through strength approach, embodied by the Trump administration’s Iran policy, operates from the premise that Iran’s fundamental hostility cannot be negotiated away and must be confronted with credible force. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s early declaration that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” signals a return to this philosophy, backed by full support for Israeli operations and the revival of the Abraham Accords.

Strategic Coherence Behind the Chaos

Despite President Trump’s often chaotic public persona, his Iran strategy reveals remarkable consistency and strategic logic. The approach recognizes several key realities that the negotiation camp has struggled to address:

• Iran’s Regional Network Must Be Dismantled Comprehensively. The October 7 attacks demonstrated that dealing with individual Iranian proxies—whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iraq—is insufficient. The entire network, including the Iranian regime itself, must be degraded to achieve lasting security.
• Technology Matters. The F-35 fighter jet has proven crucial to Israeli success, providing the stealth and precision capabilities necessary to penetrate Iranian defenses. This technological edge, largely unrecognized in mainstream analysis, represents a force multiplier that changes the strategic calculus.
• Multipolar Authoritarian Challenges Are Interconnected. Taking down Iran’s regional empire doesn’t just serve Middle Eastern stability — it undermines the broader coalition of authoritarian powers including Russia and China. Success in Iran sends a message about American resolve and capability that resonates far beyond the region.

The Truman Parallel

The current moment echoes Harry Truman’s strategic decisions in 1948, when he chose to stand firm in Berlin while declining to escalate in China. Trump appears to be making similar calculations: full support for confronting Iran while avoiding escalation with Russia in Ukraine unless Putin forces the issue.

This selective application of American power reflects an understanding of which battles can be won and which carry unacceptable risks — a hallmark of strategic thinking often obscured by the focus on Trump’s rhetorical style.

Beyond Rhetoric to Reality

The Iran case reveals the poverty of the current foreign policy establishment’s approach to the second nuclear age. Years of conferences, summits, and diplomatic initiatives have failed to modify Iranian behavior or prevent its march toward nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the combination of Israeli military action backed by American intelligence and technology has achieved more in months than decades of negotiations.

This success rests on several factors often overlooked by traditional analysis:

• Clear Messaging. Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have communicated their intentions clearly and concisely, avoiding the “word salad” that characterizes much diplomatic discourse.
• Technological Integration. The seamless integration of American intelligence, missile defense systems, and Israeli operational capabilities demonstrates how military partnerships can achieve strategic objectives.
• Understanding Combined Arms Operations. Iran’s reliance on drones and missiles, while innovative, proved insufficient without proper air defenses, command and control systems, and integrated military doctrine.

Implications for the Second Nuclear Age

The Iran test case offers several lessons for managing nuclear-ambitious authoritarian powers:

• Negotiations Without Leverage Are Futile. Diplomatic engagement divorced from credible military pressure simply provides authoritarian regimes time to advance their nuclear programs while maintaining destabilizing behavior.
• Technology Can Shift Strategic Balances. Advanced military systems like the F-35, combined with sophisticated intelligence capabilities, can neutralize advantages that authoritarian powers believe they possess.
• Regional Partnerships Multiply American Power. The U.S.-Israel partnership in confronting Iran demonstrates how close military cooperation with capable allies can achieve strategic objectives without direct American military engagement.
• Success Requires Institutional Support. The extensive intelligence sharing and targeting support provided by the United States enabled Israeli operations, showing how American military and intelligence institutions can project power effectively when given clear political direction.

The Broader Stakes

The outcome of the Iran confrontation will likely influence how other nuclear-ambitious powers calculate their own strategic choices. Success in preventing Iranian nuclear weapons through strength could establish a new template for second nuclear age diplomacy. Failure could accelerate nuclear proliferation and embolden other authoritarian challenges.

The current approach also tests whether American power can be effectively projected through partnerships rather than direct military intervention — a model that could prove crucial as the United States faces multiple global challenges simultaneously.

The choice between endless negotiations and peace through strength is not merely about Iran —it’s about establishing the rules of engagement for a world where multiple powers possess or seek nuclear weapons.

The Israeli operations, backed by American support, suggest that technological superiority, clear objectives, and credible military partnerships can successfully confront even well-established authoritarian networks. Whether this success can be sustained and replicated elsewhere will largely determine the shape of international order in the coming decades.

The Iran test is far from over, but early results suggest that peace through strength — properly applied with technological advantages and reliable allies — can offer a more effective path forward than the negotiation strategies that have dominated Western policy for the past two decades. The second nuclear age demands new approaches to old problems, and Iran is providing the first real-world laboratory for testing them.