Strategic restraint is the wisest course in confronting Iran’s nuclear program

With Iran’s nuclear ambitions advancing and regional tensions on the rise, Israel’s recent targeted strikes against Iranian air defenses and ballistic missile production facilities have underscored that Tehran’s vulnerabilities are real, and that a well-calibrated approach of restraint, supplemented by limited military action, can effectively contain Iran’s ambitions.

For Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat, and defensive and preemptive measures against Tehran’s expanding capabilities are necessary. The U.S. shares Israel’s concern, but is also wary of becoming mired in another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict. Recent Israeli strikes offer an instructive model that aligns with American strategic interests: precise, restrained actions that effectively disrupt Iran’s activities without escalating to broader hostilities.

The risks of an all-out confrontation with Iran are well-known. A full-scale strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure could provoke Iran’s extensive network of regional proxies — including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen — leading to widespread retaliatory actions against both Israeli and American interests. Such an escalation would not only destabilize the Middle East but also embolden Iranian hardliners, potentially accelerating the very nuclear program Israel and the U.S. are working to contain. A policy of strategic restraint avoids these risks while still allowing for limited actions to reinforce red lines.

Israel’s recent operations provide a blueprint for this approach: highly targeted strikes that signal Israel’s red lines without provoking all-out warfare. By focusing on specific military assets, Israel is sending a clear message about the boundaries it is prepared to enforce.

For the U.S., supporting Israel’s limited actions while expanding regional partnerships for missile defense and intelligence sharing provides a robust framework for deterrence. In this context, restraint does not imply passivity but a disciplined strategy that maximizes impact and minimizes escalation.

Economic pressure, too, is central to this strategy. Targeted sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and nuclear sector continue to drain resources that could otherwise fund Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. This approach of “pressure without provocation” is particularly effective when the U.S. coordinates with European allies to enforce sanctions rigorously. Enhanced enforcement, coupled with Israel’s occasional military actions, compounds the pressure on Iran, signaling that its nuclear development will face resistance on multiple fronts.

Israel’s recent strikes also underscore the critical role of intelligence operations, which enable both Israel and the U.S. to monitor and respond to Iranian activities with precision. This capability supports a restrained posture by allowing timely, calculated responses that degrade Iran’s strategic assets without risking a broader conflict. In this way, intelligence becomes a key enabler of strategic restraint, ensuring that actions are informed and impactful, yet limited in scope.

Diplomatic efforts must also play a role. Although past negotiations, such as the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran, have fallen short, a unified stance with European allies and regional players like Turkey can continue to isolate Tehran.

Such coordination bolsters containment efforts, making it clear to Iran that, while diplomatic avenues may remain open, its ambitions will be constrained by a cohesive international front.

At the same time, Israel and the U.S. must make their red lines clear without inviting unnecessary escalation. Both countries should emphasize that their commitment to defense is firm, but it is not an invitation to conflict. By clearly defining that defensive actions will only be taken in response to Iranian provocations, Israel and the U.S. can maintain a strong deterrent posture without risking misunderstandings.

Iran’s nuclear program remains one of the greatest threats to Middle Eastern stability, but an all-out rush to war is neither necessary nor wise. Israel’s recent targeted strikes show that Tehran’s ambitions can be effectively constrained through a measured, balanced approach. By combining strategic restraint with the occasional limited military action to reinforce red lines, the Iranian threat can be managed without plunging the region into war.

This path of strategic restraint, supplemented by carefully chosen actions, is not a sign of weakness but a sophisticated, sustainable response that maximizes pressure on Iran while preserving regional stability. In today’s complex geopolitical environment, restraint, when backed by limited military action, is not only prudent but essential — a disciplined strategy that allows Israel and the U.S. to meet the nuclear threat posed by Iran with resolve and precision.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.