Foreign Policy > Iran

Iran — Time for a Zero-Bullet Doctrine

Containment has failed, which is why a new strategy is paramount.

Arik Arad | March 7, 2026

For more than forty years, the world has tried to manage the Iranian regime. Sanctions have been imposed, negotiations launched, agreements signed, and red lines repeatedly drawn. Yet with every passing year Iran’s missiles grow more advanced, its proxy militias more entrenched, and its nuclear program closer to the threshold of weaponization.

Recent attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz remind us that the risks posed by Iran’s strategy are not theoretical. They threaten global trade, energy markets, and the stability of entire regions.

This uncomfortable reality forces a difficult conclusion: containment has failed.

If the international community wants genuine stability in the Middle East—and if it wants to protect the global economy from recurring energy and security shocks—it must move beyond temporary agreements and adopt a new strategic objective: the permanent removal of the military capabilities that allow the Iranian regime to threaten the region and the world.

I call this strategy the Zero-Bullet Doctrine.

The doctrine rests on a simple principle: a regime that repeatedly weaponizes every military capability it possesses cannot be trusted to retain those capabilities in reduced form. Durable peace requires removing the tools that make aggression possible.

This would not be the first time the international community has taken such a step. After World War II, Germany underwent full demilitarization under Allied supervision. Japan adopted a constitution renouncing war and significantly limiting its military posture. Panama abolished its army entirely and replaced it with civilian security forces.

These cases differed in circumstance, but they reflected a common recognition: when militarization itself becomes the source of instability, structural limits on........

© American Thinker