Not if. When.
As things stand, there seems little doubt that Iran will at some point manage to obtain nuclear weapons capability. Even an ostensibly civilian nuclear programme can be geared towards weapons given time and determination.
Iran may not be an international favourite, but the Ayatollahs and President Ahmedijinad have been apt students of global politics. And the lesson has been well learnt.
They have noted that another pariah state – North Korea – is a nuclear power, and has avoided the ignominy of direct invasion. The leadership scored a private visit from ex-President Bill Clinton as he sought the release of two journalists – elixir to a regime craving legitimacy.
Iraq, despite all the hype to the contrary, was devoid of anything remotely resembling a WMD, and duly suffered assault. It continues to stagger around, a failed dunce of the international classroom. Another lesson has come from Syria, who may or may not have had nuclear ambitions. The Syrians put all their eggs in a single installation, and Israeli jets flying a clandestine mission duly made omelette du fromage of the reactor, and Syria’s aspirations. To avoid similar egg on collective faces, Iran has facilities scattered around the country, ensconced safely underground in reinforced concrete to render aerial strikes relatively useless.
Can Iran be stopped from obtaining nuclear technology? Possibly, but not probably.
Sanctions have been touted. But here, China, Russia and Turkey are blocking America’s attempts to define the economic agenda vis a vis Iran. Russia and China both hold veto rights at the U.N. Security Council, and have declined to let America have its way with the Ayatollahs. Any ring of sanctions America may care to throw can be undermined by the Iranians obtaining supplies from these countries, and other back channels. Factor in the fact that China is quite dependent on Iranian oil, and chances of a blockade seem slim.
A direct ground invasion to neutralize the county is simply unrealistic, with America already tied up in two theatres of war, and supporting an impoverished Pakistan in its battle against home-grown Taliban. Israel too will be wary, because the 2006 Lebanon invasion aptly demonstrated what a determined guerrilla force can achieve against conventional armed might.
Air strikes are another possible option. Israel, threatened by Iran’s injudicious threats of extermination, and perchance a desire to remain the only nuclear bully in the playground of Middle East land grabs, has been priming its planes for long distance strikes. But Iran is not Syria. Even if Israel manages to resolve to its satisfaction the problem of flying thousands of miles without being noticed and refuelling in potentially hostile airspaces, the action may have more cons than pros.
Not only is there little chance of air strikes causing irreversible setbacks to Iran’s nuclear assets due to the scattered nature of Iran’s installations, but direct aggression on part of either Israel or the United States will give Iran due justification to redouble its nuclear efforts. A semi-successful strike would also have fairly dire repercussions. A reactor hit could release radioactive clouds that, given the usual prevailing wind conditions in the Persian Gulf, would float towards the United Arab Emirates and neighbouring countries. The Gulf States would be none too happy to have their cities and economies buried under radioactive dust.
Besides, Iran is hardly powerless. While hesitant to take on Israel or America head to head, the country’s leaders can always call on their proxy trifecta of power – money, mullahs and munitions. Iran has been closely linked with Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is the same nationalist militia that gave the IDF a run for its money in the last Lebanon invasion. Hezbollah is influenced by Iran’s regional agenda, and a bombed Iran’s regional agenda is unlikely to involve peace overtures or happy thoughts. Furthermore, Iran happens to have influence with Iraq’s Shiite majority, and could easily dispatch in arms and funds for uprisings and attacks on US troops stationed there. Iraq is hardly a bastion of stability to begin with, and an escalation of violence there is the last thing America needs.
House on Haunted Hill movie Hence, an impasse is reached, punctuated by American reproach, Israeli angst and Saudi disapproval. But would the Middle East really become very different to the simmering cauldron it now is were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?
The basic doctrine of deterrence holds that, in a rational world, beneficial war cannot occur between two nuclear powers. The collateral damage would be devastating. Iran knows it would not survive five minutes if it launched against Israel – as Israel publically assumes it might. Not only is Israel purported to have an undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons in the vicinity of 200 warheads with which to retaliate, but naked nuclear aggression would also paint a bull’s eye on Tehran for American intercontinental missiles.
The doctrine of deterrence kept the Cold War cold. It has ensured that those traditional rivals, India and Pakistan, have abstained from all-out fisticuffs. It is probably the reason why North Korea hasn’t been bombed into submission. In fact, Japan, the only country in history to have suffered pernicious nuclear attacks, was probably targeted with impunity because it had no nuclear deterrent of its own at the time.
Get Smart psp
But rationality is a key assumption for the doctrine to work. And Israel and America both insist Iran is not rational. They point as evidence to Ahmedinajad’s public rants on how Israel should be wiped from the map.
Yet make no mistake about it – Iran is a large, diverse country with a plurality of opinion. Even the leadership, despite sometimes seeming to have a occasionally dysfunctional relationship with sanity, is rational enough to not seek self-destruction.
Ahmedinajad’s rants were in self-interest. It was the Machiavellian ploy of an astute politician pandering to Iran’s ultra-right in an attempt to prevaricate away from the dire state of the country’s economy. It was the act of a beleaguered man preaching to a very specific choir for political gain. Responsible, no; but rational, yes.
There is currently a sole nuclear power in the Middle East. One that has not declared its arsenal to avoid pesky sanctions, and has not demonstrated much responsibility, or even regard for human life. A counterbalance may have the positive effect of making Israel more amicable to finding peaceful solutions in neighbourly disputes.
On the flip side, it could mean that a threatened Israel retreats further into its shell, and asks for international protection. With Iran a nuclear state, the United States would be forced to roll back any pressure on Israel to behave, giving its expansionist agenda in Palestine carte blanche. The other Arab states, with mostly Sunni populations, have been historically wary of Iran’s Shiite majority. They would either start working on their own nuclear programmes or submit to hosting US missiles. Either way, an arms race is on the cards.
Prince of Darkness buy The status quo is the Middle East is not working very well, particularly when it comes to resolving disputes or answering the Palestinian question. But a nuclear Iran would not change anything for the better. Quite conversely, the Middle East would become a more dangerous place.
While the possibility of all-out war may reduce, courtesy the doctrine of deterrence, other risks abound. More nuclear weapons sprouting from the Middle Eastern undergrowth would statistically improve the chances of the technology winding up in the hands of Al Qaeda and its Taliban brethren. These Islamist extremists, unlike Iran, treat rationality as a comedy of the absurd, and human life as utterly dispensable.
Depressing though it may be, the Middle East should start planning for a future involving a nuclear Iran. Despite bluster from Israel and fits of pique from current US Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Iran seems intent on following its agenda. And there is no international consensus on whether, and how, to stop it.
I do not believe what the west invents about Iran . So so sorry , this is just another lie like WMD in Iraq .
@ Aron:
You may just be right – check out what El Baradei has to say about Iran’s nuke programme here : http://tinyurl.com/klz4za
Thanks for commenting!