Living with a Nuclear Iran
Posted July 17, 2009
Brian Doyle
CNI Staff Writer
brian@cnionline.org
Debate over how to respond to Iran’s nuclear program was intensified by a German magazine’s recent report in which unnamed German intelligence officials alleged Iran is only six months from a nuclear bomb. While some on the right in both the US and Israel will seize this shrinking time horizon as a chance to promote a strike on Iran, the time horizon may not be so important. It is virtually impossible to prevent Iran from obtaining a bomb, even with a military strike. And despite the clamoring both in Washington and Tel Aviv, it would not be impossible to live with a nuclear Iran.
Short of an invasion and occupation of Iran, most experts believe any military action would only disrupt and delay an Iranian nuclear program, not eliminate it. The lesson of North Korea and Pakistan should be that if countries as poor and dysfunctional as those two can develop nuclear weapons, almost any one can. Better technology security in the West and stepped up interdiction efforts (including sanctions) will help slow the process, but the only way to stop the weapons program will be to convince Iran’s leadership to give it up. As Iran slips further into international isolation, this will be ever harder to do. The prospect of a nuclear Iran is not a pleasant one, but sound diplomatic steps could mitigate the damage and avoid a costly war.
There is no reason to assume that deterrence and containment, which worked so well against the Soviet Union could not also be successful with Iran. Israel’s nuclear stockpile means that the prospect of mutually assured destruction that kept the US and USSR in check will apply to Iran and Israel as well. Some claim Iran is irrational based on its theocratic politics and President Ahmadinejad’s threats to exterminate Israel. We must remember that politicians make ridiculous statements they do not intend to act on all the time—one recent Presidential candidate sang “Bomb, bomb Iran.” Ayatollah Khamenei would not have lived to 70 or lasted 20 years as Supreme Leader if he was in search of martyrdom. Rather Iran’s leaders see themselves surround by nuclear powers (India, Pakistan, and Israel), American allies (Turkey, the Gulf Arabs, and Pakistan) and American armies (in Iraq and Afghanistan). To the Iranian view point, having nuclear weapons is as important to their security as Israel thinks Iran not having one is to her own.
Smart diplomacy in the Middle East could prevent a much feared regional arms race if Iran does develop nuclear weapons. Turkey and most European states enjoy the protection of America’s nuclear umbrella as NATO allies. Similar, though perhaps less formal, arrangements should be made with Saudi Arabia and the other states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, as well as Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. An increased American naval presence in the Persian Gulf could also allay our allies’ fears while staying out of site of their publics. This could be accompanied by the sale of missile interceptor technology to Gulf Arab states and other trade and diplomatic favors. The US should hurry to implement the US-UAE nuclear deal and others like it, to demonstrate that America is not opposed to Muslims having nuclear technology, as long as it is done peacefully and in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The idea that countries might forswear nuclear weapons for American protection is not unprecedented: all NATO countries except Britain and France already do.
The notion that an Iranian bomb would end up in the hands of terrorists is ridiculous. Sponsoring violent non-state actors to undermine opponents and extend influence is common practice. But national leaders keep a tight reign on nuclear weapons. The idea that Iran is going to give Hamas or Hezbollah a nuclear bomb is as ludicrous as the thought that the Reagan Administration would have given one to the Afghan mujahidin or the Contras. Despite the recent turmoil, the Iranian regime is firmly in power (as their iron-fisted crackdown demonstrated). The prospect of state collapse and a bomb going missing is highly improbable.
The consequences of military action would be calamitous. With a comprehensive security framework and demonstrable American commitment to regional defense, the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons would be minimized. Given that the prospects for a nuclear deal look slim, the US should begin now laying the foundation of a Middle East security framework for the day after Iran tests a bomb.
Tags: containment, deterrence, GCC, Gulf States, Iran, Israel, Middle East, nuclear proliferation, Nuclear weapons, Persian Gulf, Turkey, United States
[...] Excerpt from: Council for the National Interest » Blog Archive » Living with a … [...]
[...] post: Council for the National Interest » Blog Archive » Living with a … Tags: only, only-way, slow-the, stop-the, west [...]
Thanks Brian, for airing out this smelly 800lb. gorilla that’s been in the room for quite some time now. Hopefully people will start to realize this logic is really pretty simple.
Why, though, should we require peaceful NNPT compliance of “Muslim” nuclear powers and not make the same demands of Israel? US/Israel actions of late are hardly leading by example.
A not-so-minor point also needs debunking:
“..Ahmadinejad’s threats to exterminate Israel.”?
What threats? Not defending Iran’s “GWB”, but this oft-repeated claim begs closer scrutiny.
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/