Which Path to Persia? Brookings 2009 Options vs Today’s Iran War Reality

Welcome back, team! In this episode of Dave Talks Politics, hi, I’m Dave, and I’ll be talking politics. Today, team, let’s talk about:Which Path to Persia? Brookings 2009 Options vs Today’s Iran War RealityWe’re going to cover: The Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia” report and its nine main options for dealing with Iran, how the current 2026 US-Israel strikes on Iran align with or deviate from those paths, connections to past US presidencies and National Security Strategies, comments from Elbridge Colby and John Mearsheimer on similar strategies, and the mercantilist implications for America’s long-term position in a multipolar world.If you’re new to the channel, hey, take a moment, subscribe to the channel, then hit the bell to be alerted about new episodes when they drop.1. The Brookings “Which Path to Persia” Report – Background and Options* Published in June 2009 by the Saban Center at Brookings, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran” was a comprehensive analysis paper laying out nine distinct policy approaches for the US to handle Iran’s nuclear program and regional behavior.* The authors (Kenneth Pollack as lead editor, plus Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael O’Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel) presented the options objectively without endorsing one — they weighed benefits, drawbacks, risks, and feasibility for each.* The report was written as the Obama administration took office, with the clock ticking on Iran’s nuclear progress — it warned that solving the “Iran puzzle” was urgent and complicated due to Tehran’s opaque politics and determination.* Core theme: No easy solution — every path carried significant downsides, and the US needed to choose or combine options carefully to avoid worse outcomes like regional war or Iranian nuclear breakout.* The nine paths were grouped into diplomatic, military, regime change, and containment categories — a menu for great-power strategy against a determined adversary.2. The Nine Paths Outlined in the Report* Persuasion (Diplomatic): Offer Iran major carrots (sanctions relief, security guarantees, economic integration) combined with credible threats of harsher sanctions if it refuses to curb enrichment — aimed at convincing Tehran that cooperation brings more benefits than defiance.* Engagement (Diplomatic): Long-term outreach to integrate Iran into the global economy and reassure it that the US does not seek regime change, hoping gradual normalization would moderate its behavior over time (similar to US-China engagement post-1970s).* Airstrikes (Military): Limited bombing campaign targeting Iran’s known nuclear sites (Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, etc.) to set back the program by years — low ground troop risk but high chance of Iranian retaliation and regional escalation.* Invasion (Military): Full-scale ground invasion and occupation to dismantle the regime and nuclear program — highest risk and cost, compared to Iraq 2003 but on a larger scale with a more cohesive Iranian society.* Leave It to Bibi (Israeli Strike): Allow or quietly encourage Israel to conduct its own airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — US provides support but avoids direct involvement, letting Israel take the lead and the blame.* Regime Change – Velvet Revolution: Support a popular uprising inside Iran through funding, propaganda, and covert aid to opposition groups, aiming for internal collapse without direct US military action.* Regime Change – Inspiring an Insurgency: Back ethnic minorities and opposition groups (Kurds, Baluch, Arabs) to spark armed rebellion against the regime — high risk of civil war and blowback.* Regime Change – Coup: Support a military coup by elements inside Iran’s armed forces or IRGC to overthrow the clerical leadership — risky and unpredictable.* Containment (Accept the Unacceptable): Accept a nuclear Iran and focus on deterring and containing it through alliances, sanctions, and military posture — similar to Cold War containment of the Soviet Union.3. How Today’s 2026 Iran War Compares to “Which Path to Persia”* The current US-Israel campaign against Iran (strikes starting late February 2026) most closely resembles a combination of airstrikes (targeting nuclear and missile sites) and regime change elements (rhetoric about destabilizing the regime and supporting internal opposition).* It echoes the “Leave It to Bibi” option — Israel has led many strikes, with the US providing support (intelligence, bases, defensive cover) while trying to limit direct involvement.* Unlike pure diplomacy (Persuasion or Engagement), the US largely abandoned the JCPOA path under Trump and moved to maximum pressure plus military action.* Containment is not the current approach — the administration has rejected living with a nuclear Iran and is actively trying to degrade capabilities.* The war has elements of regime change pressure (strikes on leadership compounds, calls for internal change), but no full invasion or ground boots — more “airstrikes plus coercion” than the report’s full regime change scenarios.* Key difference: The 2009 report warned airstrikes or regime change could trigger Iranian retaliation, regional war, and higher oil prices — exactly what we see today with oil over $110 and Strait of Hormuz disruption.4. Connections to Past Presidencies and US National Security Strategies* Carter (1979–1981): Hostage crisis showed early limits of US power post-revolution — diplomacy failed, rescue attempt collapsed — set the tone for decades of hostility.* Reagan/Bush Sr.: Dual containment of Iran and Iraq — sanctions and proxy support, but no direct war.* Clinton: Dual containment continued — missile strikes on Iraq, sanctions on Iran.* Bush Jr. (2001–2009): Post-9/11 “Axis of Evil” rhetoric, Iraq invasion (2003) removed Iran’s main regional rival — inadvertently strengthened Tehran — NSS 2002 emphasized preemption, which influenced later Iran thinking.* Obama: JCPOA engagement (2015) — closest to the report’s Persuasion/Engagement paths — but Trump withdrew in 2018, shifting back to pressure.* Trump (2017–2021 and 2025–): Maximum pressure campaign (sanctions, Soleimani strike) — NSS 2017 and 2025 emphasize great-power competition and avoiding forever wars in the Middle East, prioritizing Western Hemisphere (Donroe Doctrine) and China.* Biden: Attempted JCPOA revival — failed, leading to current escalation under Trump 2.0.* Today’s strikes align with the report’s military options but contradict Trump’s own NSS emphasis on restraint in the Middle East and focus on China — creating tension between campaign rhetoric and current actions.5. Views from Elbridge Colby and John Mearsheimer* Elbridge Colby (former Pentagon official, key architect of 2018 National Defense Strategy focused on China): Has publicly defended the Iran strikes as necessary to degrade threats but emphasized they should not become a forever war or distract from the primary China challenge — he has warned against open-ended ME commitments that drain resources needed for Indo-Pacific deterrence.* Colby has not endorsed full regime change or invasion — his focus is “decent peace” through strength and avoiding secondary theaters that weaken the main effort against peer competitors like China.* John Mearsheimer (offensive realist scholar): Has been highly critical of the current Iran war — argues the US has already “lost” in the sense that it cannot achieve decisive victory without massive costs, and the conflict plays into China’s hands by distracting America and driving Russia and China closer together.* Mearsheimer sees the strikes as strategic error — no clear off-ramp, high risk of quagmire, and unnecessary when containment or diplomacy could have sufficed — he has long advocated offshore balancing and avoiding land wars in the Middle East.* Both Colby and Mearsheimer highlight the same risk: ME entanglement undermines the ability to focus on China — the Brookings report’s warnings about escalation and regional blowback are playing out in real time.6. Mercantilist Implications and Lessons for Today* The Brookings report warned that military options (airstrikes, invasion) could trigger Iranian retaliation, close Hormuz, spike oil prices, and benefit rivals like China — exactly what we see with oil over $110 and Gulf disruption.* Trump’s NSS (2017 and 2025) explicitly calls for avoiding forever wars in the Middle East and prioritizing competition with China and Hemisphere dominance (Donroe Doctrine) — the current strikes risk contradicting that by draining resources and attention.* Past presidencies show a pattern: Engagement (Obama) or pressure (Trump 1.0, Bush) both failed to resolve the Iran puzzle — military action now escalates costs without clear victory.* Colby and Mearsheimer’s warnings align: Secondary ME wars weaken the primary China focus — China benefits from US distraction, higher energy prices, and strengthened Russia ties.* Urgency for the US: Deregulate domestic energy (shale, Venezuela), secure supply chains, and avoid open-ended commitments — mercantilist realism demands focusing strength where it matters most.* Forward realism: Iran’s cornered position makes it dangerous, but prolonged war plays into rivals’ hands — learn from Brookings 2009 and past failures — restraint and innovation beat escalation.BOTTOM LINE The 2009 Brookings “Which Path to Persia” laid out nine options for dealing with Iran — today’s US-Israel strikes most closely resemble airstrikes plus regime change pressure, contradicting Trump’s own NSS emphasis on avoiding Middle East quagmires and focusing on China — Elbridge Colby warns against distraction from the primary peer threat, while John Mearsheimer calls the war a strategic error with no clear off-ramp — past presidencies from Carter to Obama show engagement and pressure both failed, and the current path risks repeating the high costs of endless entanglement while China gains from US distraction.I hope you enjoyed this show today team. The main show, and snack sized supercuts are available on yt, plus apple and Spotify as a podcast and show notes on substack; come join the team it’s free and gets you instantly connected to what’s happening. Help me grow with a like and subscribe and wherever you are team in this wonderful world of ours, I hope, you have, a wonderful day.Talk soon! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wgowbrics.substack.com