Iran And The Bomb
Iran announced it was resuming uranium conversion this week. The International Atomic Energy Agency has given a September 3 deadline for Iran to stop doing this or face possible Security Council sanctions. The United States is also keeping military options open, with or without UN authority. Yet despite President Bush's warning that "all options are on the table" for dealing with Iran, the reverse is actually true. Iran will become a nuclear power and there is virtually nothing that the United States and the European Union can do about it.
Why is this? For one, Iran is playing its cards well. It can claim that its uranium processing is for peaceful nuclear power plants. All signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty have the right to develop atomic energy for their energy needs. This requires enriching uranium. Unless Iran announces publicly that it is doing so for nuclear warheads, it is hard for the West to make a clear case. Iran will do nothing of the kind, of course, and will be happy to keep the West talking.
Also the very unfairness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty can be used by Iranian leaders to manipulate Third World opinion in their favor. The NPT says that only five states can have nuclear weapons (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France). Any country locked out of the Nuclear Club can reasonably ask: "If nuclear weapons are truly to be used as a defensive deterrent, shouldn't any state that CAN make them have them? Why should these five nations be granted a monopoly?" India, Pakistan, and Israel have already made their choice, opting out of the NPT, and wield nuclear arsenals. All three are in Iran's neighborhood, of course.
Then there is the religion angle. Without incontrovertible evidence, an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States would be a PR bonanza for Islamic extremists: "The United States has attacked three Muslim nations in five years! Can anyone doubt America is at war with Islam?" The entire Middle East would explode with anti-American hatred and violence.
The military option is just not credible. Iran has many nuclear facilities spread out over its territory (it is four times bigger than Iraq). It has a strong military that has not been starved for equipment like Iraq's was. Although the US would quickly achieve air superiority, that would not be enough to ensure Iran's nuclear weapons program was destroyed. How many "boots on the ground" can America commit? Over 138,000 troops are tied up in Iraq, plus commitments in Afghanistan and South Korea. The United States troop strength is at its breaking point. Would Bush be willing to start another Middle East conflict while popular support for the Iraq War is at new lows? Good luck selling that plan.
Iran can also fight back with asymmetrical warfare. Iran is the main benefactor of Hezbollah, the grimly effective terrorist organization responsible for the Beirut Marine barracks bombings, two US Embassy bombings, and the kidnappings that led to the Iran-Contra fiasco. If Hezbollah bomb-makers aren't already aiding the Iraqi insurgency, they would be after the US attack on Iran!
Even economic sanctions against Iran are doubtful. Security Council sanctions would not survive a Chinese veto. Last year, China signed a $70 billion oil agreement, and a $20 billion natural gas agreement, with you-know-who.
All of this makes me think Iran will develop nuclear weapons. This inevitability does not have to be viewed as a global crisis. Iran is slowly evolving, in fits and starts, from a theocracy to a democratic Islamic state. Not an open society, especially for women, but not the jihadist bogeyman Americans have hated since 1979 either. Many will try to demonize the Iranian regime as "crazy" and unpredictably dangerous but like the Soviet Union before it and North Korea right now, even "evil" nation-states seek their own survival. An Iranian state would follow the rules of Mutually Assured Destruction just like everyone else.
Why is this? For one, Iran is playing its cards well. It can claim that its uranium processing is for peaceful nuclear power plants. All signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty have the right to develop atomic energy for their energy needs. This requires enriching uranium. Unless Iran announces publicly that it is doing so for nuclear warheads, it is hard for the West to make a clear case. Iran will do nothing of the kind, of course, and will be happy to keep the West talking.
Also the very unfairness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty can be used by Iranian leaders to manipulate Third World opinion in their favor. The NPT says that only five states can have nuclear weapons (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France). Any country locked out of the Nuclear Club can reasonably ask: "If nuclear weapons are truly to be used as a defensive deterrent, shouldn't any state that CAN make them have them? Why should these five nations be granted a monopoly?" India, Pakistan, and Israel have already made their choice, opting out of the NPT, and wield nuclear arsenals. All three are in Iran's neighborhood, of course.
Then there is the religion angle. Without incontrovertible evidence, an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States would be a PR bonanza for Islamic extremists: "The United States has attacked three Muslim nations in five years! Can anyone doubt America is at war with Islam?" The entire Middle East would explode with anti-American hatred and violence.
The military option is just not credible. Iran has many nuclear facilities spread out over its territory (it is four times bigger than Iraq). It has a strong military that has not been starved for equipment like Iraq's was. Although the US would quickly achieve air superiority, that would not be enough to ensure Iran's nuclear weapons program was destroyed. How many "boots on the ground" can America commit? Over 138,000 troops are tied up in Iraq, plus commitments in Afghanistan and South Korea. The United States troop strength is at its breaking point. Would Bush be willing to start another Middle East conflict while popular support for the Iraq War is at new lows? Good luck selling that plan.
Iran can also fight back with asymmetrical warfare. Iran is the main benefactor of Hezbollah, the grimly effective terrorist organization responsible for the Beirut Marine barracks bombings, two US Embassy bombings, and the kidnappings that led to the Iran-Contra fiasco. If Hezbollah bomb-makers aren't already aiding the Iraqi insurgency, they would be after the US attack on Iran!
Even economic sanctions against Iran are doubtful. Security Council sanctions would not survive a Chinese veto. Last year, China signed a $70 billion oil agreement, and a $20 billion natural gas agreement, with you-know-who.
All of this makes me think Iran will develop nuclear weapons. This inevitability does not have to be viewed as a global crisis. Iran is slowly evolving, in fits and starts, from a theocracy to a democratic Islamic state. Not an open society, especially for women, but not the jihadist bogeyman Americans have hated since 1979 either. Many will try to demonize the Iranian regime as "crazy" and unpredictably dangerous but like the Soviet Union before it and North Korea right now, even "evil" nation-states seek their own survival. An Iranian state would follow the rules of Mutually Assured Destruction just like everyone else.
posted by David Bowden at 9:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home