Iran and the Bomb

Vice President Joe Biden recently said this about his boss’s threats not to allow Iran develop a nuclear weapon: “The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing.” New Secretary of State John Kerry said:

Lines have been drawn before and they've been passed. That's why the president has been so definitive this time. This is a very challenging moment with great risks and stakes for everybody because the region will be far less stable and far more threatened if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon.  

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said of the possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon:

The danger is that we could be reaching a point where nuclear weapons would become almost conventional, and there will be the possibility of a nuclear conflict at some point... that would be a turning point in human history,

The subject of Iran developing a nuclear weapon has been a hot button issue for years. Who could forget the image of a demented Senator John McCain singing about bombing Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys’ classic “Barbara Ann?” Who could forget the neoconservative 2012 Republican Presidential hopefuls competing to see which of them could warmonger the hardest against Iran while Congressman Paul watched them in disbelief? Most seem to assume that it goes without saying that Iran should not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. But why? Below is an analysis of the arguments set forth by the Anti-Defamation League in support of the proposition that Iran’s nuclear program is a grave threat to the United States and American interests.

1. A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden Iran's aggressive foreign policy, resulting in greater confrontations with the international community. Iran already has a conventional weapons capability to hit U.S. and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and parts of Europe. If Tehran were allowed to develop nuclear weapons, this threat would increase dramatically.

The premise that Iran has had an aggressive foreign policy is false. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been involved with only one war – a war with Iraq that it did not begin. Contrast this with the neoconservative foreign policy of the United States which has led to aggressive military action in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya since 1979. The mere fact that Iran has the military capacity to hit U.S. and allied troops in the Middle East means next to nothing. They have not done so. There is also no reason to believe that they would use nuclear weapons or conventional weapons against the United States and its allies. Iran is not Iraq.  

2. Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to the United States and the West.

Iran has undeniably been a state sponsor of terrorism. However, this is not that different than the American Cold War policy of setting up and propping up friendly right wing governments around the globe. There is no reason to believe that Iran would be inclined to share nuclear technology with terrorists. If terrorists were to use nuclear weapons, CIA intelligence would inevitably trace it to the Iranian regime. This would result in “regime change” if not the nuclear destruction of Iran. Furthermore, secure in the belief that it is safe from invasion, Iran would have less of a reason to wage asymmetrical terrorist “proxy wars.”

3. While Iranian missiles can't yet reach America, Iran having a nuclear weapons capability can potentially directly threaten the United States and its inhabitants. The U.S. Department of Defense reported in April 2012: “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.” Many analysts are also concerned about the possibility of a nuclear weapon arriving in a cargo container at a major US port. Furthermore, a federally mandated commission to study electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks noted the vast damage that could be wrought by a single missile with a nuclear warhead, launched from a ship off the US coast, and detonated a couple of hundred miles in the air, high above America.

The United States faced the specter of nuclear destruction at the hands of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Why should the United States fear a poor and weak nation in the Middle East just because they acquire a small number of nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States? Assuming that the oppressive regime in Iran is so irrational that it would risk its own destruction is bigoted. Why should radical Muslim leaders be considered more suicidal than devout Christian leaders in nations around the world? Like any dictatorial regime – religious or secular – the Iranian regime’s first goal is to keep power over its people. Any aggression on the part of Iran against the United States would lead to its destruction. If anything, possessing nuclear weapons would make Iran feel that it is not at risk of having “regime change” forced upon it in an American invasion. This would likely make Iran less aggressive. The central question is why Iran should not possess the same right to self defense through nuclear weapons that the United States, Israel, and the other nations in the “nuclear club” enjoy. If there is an individual right to bear arms for self defense, why is there not also a natural right for nations to possess nuclear weapons for self defense?

4. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat to America's closest allies in the Middle East. Israel is most at risk as Iran's leaders have repeatedly declared that Israel should “be wiped from the map.” America's moderate Arab allies, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and others are already alarmed at Iran's aggressive regional policy and would feel increasingly threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.

The idea that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that he wants Israel “wiped off the map” is essentially an urban legend. It is based in a mistranslation. What Ahmadinejad actually said was that “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” While the distinction between wishing a nation to disappear and wishing for that nation’s government to disappear may be a matter of semantics, it is important to realize that world leaders often engage in “tough guy talk” to energize their base. Did Khrushev actually follow through with his threat to “bury” the West? Isael is estimated to have a nuclear arsenal of anywhere from 70 to 400 warheads. It is unclear how one or even a small arsenal of Iranian nuclear weapons would pose any major threat to Israel. The Soviet Union had hundreds of nuclear missiles aimed at the United States during the Cold War, yet no nuclear exchange ever occurred. One could even argue that “mutually assured destruction” provided a balance that prevented a conventional World War III from breaking out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations. A similar balance of power has also likely prevented large scale wars between India and Pakistan. The sense of security that comes from possessing nuclear weapons for national defense could also prompt Iran and other Islamic nations in the region to be more willing to seek peaceful solutions to its problems with Israel. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain are oil producing nations that are more than capable of defending themselves against Iranian aggression. Furthermore, Iran has never shown a desire for fascistic expansion.  

5. The Middle East remains an essential source of energy for the United States and the world. Iran's military posture has led to increases in arms purchases by its neighbors. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would further destabilize this volatile and vital region.

While a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would not be desirable, there are clearly positive consequences that could result. Just as a balance of nuclear power might stabilize relations between Iran and Israel, such a balance could provide a balance between Sunni and Shiite nations. Nuclear armed nations in the Middle East would also not be good targets for neoconservative American wars of occupation which seek “regime change.” This situation could encourage a more noninterventionist American foreign policy in the Middle East. This would help the American economy and would decrease the possibility of future blowback caused by American military intervention in the region. With war in the Middle East less of a possibility, the United States and petroleum producing nations in the region could concentrate on trade instead of war.