The Blueprint on Iran Was Written in 2009 And It Still Shapes U.S. Policy
by Jaffa Levy
·
A conflict coming into focus as deadlines, military buildup, and diplomatic ultimatums follow a strategy mapped years ago.
As tensions rise between the United States and Iran, the current sequence of pressure, negotiation, and military positioning closely mirrors a framework outlined in a 2009 Brookings Institution policy paper, suggesting continuity in doctrine rather than sudden crisis.
A Conflict Coming Into Focus
The United States is again moving toward confrontation with Iran. Deadlines are tightening. Military assets are being positioned across the Middle East. Diplomacy is described as a final opportunity. The possibility of strikes no longer feels remote.
For many readers, this may appear abrupt. Yet the pattern now visible reflects a recurring strategic method rather than an improvised reaction.
The 2009 Options Paper
In 2009, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution published Which Path to Persia, a detailed assessment of how Washington might respond if tensions with Iran escalated.
The document was presented as an options paper, not a war script. It examined diplomatic engagement, economic pressure, military strikes, regime leverage, and containment. Its relevance today lies in the structure it described.
In its chapter on persuasion, the authors argued that Washington should combine inducements with escalating pressure while ensuring threats remained credible if Tehran refused. Military positioning was treated as integral to that credibility.
Coercive Diplomacy
The sequence described in 2009 now appears familiar.
Increase sanctions and economic pressure. Negotiate under visible leverage. Impose deadlines. Position forces to make escalation credible. If refusal persists, escalate.
This method is known as coercive diplomacy. It seeks compliance without immediate war by fusing negotiation with the shadow of force.
What Is the Iran Nuclear Dispute?
The dispute centres on uranium enrichment. Iran states that its nuclear program is peaceful. The United States and several European powers fear enrichment provides weapons capability.
In 2015, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, agreeing to strict enrichment limits and inspections in exchange for sanctions relief. In 2018, the United States withdrew and reinstated sanctions. Iran later resumed enrichment beyond previous limits.
The present standoff concerns whether diplomacy can restrain Iran before military options are triggered.
Legitimacy Before Force
The Brookings authors acknowledged that airstrikes launched without clear Iranian provocation would struggle for broad international support.
If Tehran rejected diplomatic overtures or escalated tensions, however, the political environment would shift. Legitimacy had to be shaped before force could be justified.
The Israeli Contingency
The study also analysed the possibility of an Israeli initiated strike as a contingency. Such an action could alter diplomatic attribution while still risking retaliation and regional instability.
The authors warned that strikes might delay Iran’s program but would likely provoke response and only buy time rather than eliminate capability entirely.
From Paper to Practice
The continuity is visible across events. The 2015 nuclear agreement reflected the persuasion track. The 2018 withdrawal marked renewed escalation. Iran’s enrichment increases shortened breakout time. Reported strikes in 2025 echoed the warning that military action might delay rather than resolve the issue. The 2026 ultimatum and military buildup follow the same pattern of pressure and conditional escalation.
Timeline
2015 JCPOA signed.
2018 United States withdraws and reinstates sanctions.
2019 to 2023 Iran increases enrichment.
2025 Reported strikes on nuclear facilities.
2026 Renewed ultimatum and military buildup.
Continuity Not Conspiracy
The architecture now visible was documented openly in 2009. Pressure calibrated. Deadlines imposed. Legitimacy shaped. Force prepared before justification.
This reflects institutional continuity rather than sudden crisis. Whether the sequence ends in strikes or produces a negotiated settlement, the framework remains consistent.
Source and Institutional Context
Kenneth M Pollack et al, Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran, Brookings Institution, June 2009 (published by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the time).
The Saban Center was established at the Brookings Institution in 2002 with funding from philanthropist Haim Saban, who has publicly described himself as a strong supporter of Israel. The center was later renamed the Center for Middle East Policy. Brookings is a Washington based policy research institution funded by a mixture of private donors, foundations, corporations, and governments.
