Home > Alex Massie

Saturday 21 November 2009

Cartoons

To keep up to date, the Queen tweeted her speech this year

Living with a nuclear Iran

Monday, 23rd March 2009

Dan Drezner asks his "realist colleagues" if they can think of any reason why Iran should or would give up its nuclear ambitions. Stephen Walt offers some reasons why, unlikely as it might seem, Iran should consider doing so for its own advantage. I think Walt makes some good points but that they may not seem quite so persuasive when viewed from Tehran. In the end, too much of his argument is based upon the notion that the United States is Really Crazy, which risks leaving Walt making an argument that is the mirror image of the Mad Mullahs are Mad and Cannot Be Trusted Not to Do Mad Things line that often surfaces when Iran is the topic for discussion.

The biggest danger posed by a nuclear Iran is not the threat to Israel, but that it will lead to a further bout of regional proliferation. The mre nukes there are the greater the probability that someday the kooks will get their hands on one of them. But what about Israel? At the moment President Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is cheap and easy. Since Iran doe not have the ability to "wipe" Israel from the face of the earth it is easy to propose doing just that. Not that Ahmadinejad controls nuclear or military policy anyway. But once Iran has - as it probably will some day - a nuclear capability such rhetoric becomes riskier. It could have consequences in ways that it does not now.

As I say, we're often encouraged to think that the Iranian regime - exceedingly nasty though it is - cannot be trusted to act sensibly and that, consequently, it cannot be "allowed" to become a nuclear power. Ignoring the fact that this is not a permission slip that's actually in the American president's gift, this notion supposes that the Iranians are somehow uniquely blind to logic. Yet nothing in their current or recent behaviour supports this. Yes, they have acted in a provocative manne, not just in Iraq but in their support for Hizbollah. Yet there's been logic too: each Iranian provocation has been grave enough to make others consider military action but not sufficiently brazen as to justify it. That is, the Iranians seem to know how much and how far they may tease the American tiger. Perhaps this would change if they were a nuclear power, but there's no cmpelling evidence that I've seen to support that notion.

So the idea that Iran will build a bomb and drop it on Israel seems far-fetched. Yes there's that line about how you only need one bomb to eliminate Israel but many more to destroy Iran. When push comes to shove, however, few people find the certainty of nuclear annihilation all that attractive. That is, once again, the stakes are raised when such a prospect could actually happen. Paradoxically, then, the higher the stakes the safer we may. When a single miscalculation can have such fatal consequences the calculations tend to be checked pretty thoroughly. Then again, it's obviously a big risk: but since the Iranians haven't shown signs of terminal stpuidity so far, why should we suppose they will lose their minds when they have the bomb?

And as for the United States, well it might even gain something from an Iranian nuke. The Iranians may be paranoid but then they have reason to be. The US would like to see regime change in Tehran after all. But since the Iranians also, I think, crave respect and, in the end, some form of international rehabilitation, then the prospect of a nuclear Iran permits Persia to enagage with the rest of the world, and specifically the United States, from a position of some psychological strength. For its part, the United States retains, (I trust!) sufficient institutional memory as to be able to play th enuclear game with rather more finesse, subtlety and confidence than it has sometimes shown in more assymetric struggles. That is to say, the Iranians are experts at the latter kind of proxy conflict, while the Americans might be better suited to a return to a game of Nuke vs Nuke.

Now, in the end, I think it would be preferable if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons. But I suspect we're not really likely to be able to stop them from getting the bomb. That in turn leads one to suspect that we need to spend time thinking about how to live and deal with a nuclear Tehran.

UPDATE: James Fallows has more on this and related matters. As he says, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities now would be stupid, self-defeating and wrong. Quite so.

Filed under: Foreign Policy (68 more articles) , Iran (61 more articles) , Middle East (24 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (13)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

MaxSceptic

March 23rd, 2009 5:17pm Report this comment

If I were an Israeli, I'd rather not have to live under the shadow of a Islamic nuclear Iran - wondering every day whether bluster will give way to catastrophic blunder that would wipe out me, my family and my tiny country.

I'd rather have the certainty of eliminating the threat - whatever the cost.

As most of the 'progressive' world already 'hates' Israel and sees it as an 'aggressor' (rather than a small beacon of democracy and freedom in a sea of Islamic authoritarianism and repression that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific), I'm not quite sure what the 'downside' would be.

Mike

March 23rd, 2009 5:27pm Report this comment

With all due respect, this article is the stupidity that Iran is hoping people will have. What you are saying is exactly what they want people to see. Iran is not going to be doing anything stupid, why? BECAUSE IT WANT THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! Because they are so quiet now, you might think that they will not use the bomb. This is the exact opposite, they are quiet now to gain it so that they can use it after!!!

elixelx

March 23rd, 2009 5:30pm Report this comment

"The biggest danger posed by a nuclear Iran is not the threat to Israel, but that it will lead to a further bout of regional proliferation."
Well, Alex, if they DON'T use the nukes they posit blackmail; and if they DO use the nukes they posit genocide!
You really should study the Talmud, dear boy, so that you can learn how not to pose rhetorical questions!
"Can we live with a nuclear Iran?" Oh, Yeah!

Hugh

March 23rd, 2009 5:45pm Report this comment

The problem with this type of analysis is that the price of being wrong is somewhat higher than it usually is when pundits put pen to paper.
Also, it's difficult to be convinced by any argument that concludes America's clout will be stronger once both sides have nukes. Does that really make any sense? Even if they're not suicidal, why on earth would Iran be less, not more, belligerent once they know there's little chance of anyone invading?
If I follow your argument, the problem is that Iran has self esteem issues. But if that is the case, I think we should try counseling before we decide to let them have the bomb.

jingouk

March 23rd, 2009 6:11pm Report this comment

Iran is an unstable bipolar state that poses a serious systemic threat to vital western interests in the middle east and not least to Israel and arab states.

Iran has shifted its tactical battle with the US from Iraq to Afghanistan probably facilitated by a secret protocol with the newly emboldened Iraqi government - as the Iranians already have with Syria.

The Persians are backing the Taliban and undermining big-time western influence.

If Hitler had built the bomb - and he was trying - who doubts that he would have used it against the "Jewish proxy-states" as he would have labelled them.

Make no mistake, the west is running out of time and sadly Obama may go down in history - if there is a future - as a Neville Chamberlain - laying the strategic certainty of a major nuclear war.

Bruce Lewis

March 23rd, 2009 6:18pm Report this comment

What nobody on this thread seems to understand is that Iran is GOING to have a nuclear weapon, no matter who attempts to bomb them into desisting: their national pride seems to require it and their people seem to WANT it, no matter whether they're supporters of the regime or not. It is now the West's problem--and Israel's--to learn how to live with the national aspirations of the Persian people.

Mike

March 23rd, 2009 6:51pm Report this comment

Well, Bruce Lewis, there is a miniscule but possible chance Israel will have enough guts to bomb all three of irans nucleur facilities. There were some news about Israel getting ready. I know iran will try to attack but Israel is strong enough to take them, not in numbers by with the smarts, tactics and technology. And hopefully Benjamin Netaniyahu is as good as i (and hopefully all) hope and he will do the right thing.

ndm

March 23rd, 2009 6:58pm Report this comment

It is quite possible that Iran gaining nuclear capability will significantly increase stability in the Middle East because we will no longer need to deal with the uncertainty. We will no longer need to listen to or even heed those idiot voices, like John Bolton and the other crazed neocons, berating us for not taking seriously the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Iran has been under threat for three dacades from the World's most powerful nation - a nation with a long and sordid history of malign interaction with both Persia and Iran.

The declaration of the "Axis of Evil" and the response of the United States to the nations so described merely demonstrated once again the need for Iran to gain nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American attack. Of course, the United States wants to be free to attack any nation at any time - that is the nature of the beast. Yet in its wanton attack on Iraq the United States demonstrated that it possessed the military force to prevent carnage it lacked the moral force.

Furthermore, the assymmetry whereby the United States avidly supports a nuclear-armed Israel that has commmitted horrible atrocities against the Palestinian people for more than four decades. The United States has been ably supported in this endevour by those so-called friends of Israel who have turned the phrases "blood libel" and anti-Semitism into breathing exercises for those who wallow in the blood of dead Palestinians.

Bruce Lewis

March 23rd, 2009 9:56pm Report this comment

Mike, I have read in numerous places that, even if Israel were to bomb "all three" of Iran's nuclear facilities, that the sites are so heavily hardened against bombardment that some residual elements of Iran's nuclear installations would survive. For that reason and others, it really isn't worthwhile anymore to so brutally harden the will of the Iranian people to aspire to membership in the "nuclear club" or to strengthen politically the ayatollahs who govern them. Now the only hope for dealing with Iran's government is to negotiate a compromise with it. Obama has begun to do it, and the incoming Netanyahu government would be ill-advised to cross so politically powerful an American President as Obama now is.

elixelx

March 23rd, 2009 9:58pm Report this comment

"Iran has been under threat for three dacades from the World's most powerful nation - a nation with a long and sordid history of malign interaction with both Persia and Iran."

I didn't know, ndm, that Andorra had threatened Iran. Can you provide a link or backup on that?

And was it with Persia or with Iran or with both that the Andorrans were malign? Link please!

Oh and the Iranians deny wanting a bomb; so how is NOT having a bomb going to be a deterrent to an American attack?

And if the Iranians do get their lethal toy, they will use it against Israel if America attacks, and they will use it against Israel if America DOESN'T attack, so America has absolutely nothing to worry about!

In fact the are only two possible reasons why the Iranians have held off attacking Israel with conventional weapons: ONE: because they KNOW that their country will be sent to kingdom come by Israel's deterrent! and TWO: because they KNOW that they will be sent to kingdom come by Israel's deterrent!

Other than the reasons given above, Iran or Persia or both having nuclear weapons is just tickety-boo!

ndm

March 23rd, 2009 10:26pm Report this comment

elixelx, who appears to be on the Andorran payroll, writes:

-- In fact the are only two possible reasons why the Iranians have held off attacking Israel with conventional weapons: ONE: because they KNOW that their country will be sent to kingdom come by Israel's deterrent! and TWO: because they KNOW that they will be sent to kingdom come by Israel's deterrent!

This analysis ignores the obvious and almost certainly correct reason why Iran has not attacked Israel - that it does not want to.

Unlike Israel, Iran does not have a history of belligerence towards its neighbours. Unlike Israel, Iran has not occupied one of its neighbours for the best part of four decades. Unlike Israel, Iran has not prosecuted annual assaults bringing wanton carnage on its neighbours. Unlike Israel, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons.

I realise it is fashionable in certain circles to harp on about the possible danger Iran poses to its neighbours to divert our attention from the actual danger Israel poses to its neighbours. And these harpies become ever more shrill as increasing numbers of influential commentators, like Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan, openly recognize and condemn their moral failure leaving the likes of Jeffrey Goldberg and Melanie Phillips with no argument left except the name-calling of anti-Semitism and blood libel.

Ben

March 24th, 2009 9:32pm Report this comment

"...I have read in numerous places that, even if Israel were to bomb "all three" of Iran's nuclear facilities, that the sites are so heavily hardened against bombardment that some residual elements of Iran's nuclear installations would survive..."

These sites will be completely destroyed if Israel uses nukes to take them out. It is becoming clearer and clearer that this is what is going to happen in the not too distant future. It is Israel's best bet.

Bruce Lewis

March 25th, 2009 4:41pm Report this comment

If Israel uses nuclear weapons on Iran, one of the most populous Muslim countries in the world, and if large numbers of innocent Iranian civilians are killed as a result, then God help Israel, and God help any country that supports her doing this!

Post comment