"That genuinely would be bad for the United States. On the other hand, it seems like it would clearly be a much bigger problem for Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states (indeed, probably a bigger problem for Japan, China, and Europe) than for us. So why not let them take care of it?"

Because we have the only military in the world capable of taking care of it.

I'm not taking a stand on whether or not we ought to be taking care of it, but I am saying we're the only folks who possibly could.

"So Iran can't get nukes because that would let them make it harder for us to maintain a military presence in the Middle East? But our presence in the Middle East is usually justified in terms of the need to halt the spread of nuclear weapons in the region"

Our interests in the middle east go far beyond halting the spread of nuclear weapons.  Our main interest is in keeping the oil flowing.  Halting the spread of nuclear weapons is merely the means toward the end of keeping the oil flowing.

"At any rate, I'd be much happier safely ensconced in the mainstream view that a nuclear Iran would be a huge problem, so I'm eager to be talked out of this skepticism."

One of the biggest problems in a nuclear Iran is the possibility of widespread regional proliferation.  A nuclear Iran means Iraq feels compelled to build a bomb.  A nuclear Iraq means Saudi Arabia feels compelled to build a bomb.  That would be a bad outcome.

And, of course, the military's concern about a nuclear Iran is that we would no longer have military leverage over them.  If a nuclear Iran began interfering in Afghanistan and sponsoring terrorist attacks against Israel, Europe, and the U.S, our response would obviously be constrained.

At any rate, I'd be much happier safely ensconced in the mainstream view that a nuclear Iran would be a huge problem, so I'm eager to be talked out of this skepticism.

Would a nuclear Iran be more, or less, of a huge problem than a nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Petey: One of the biggest problems in a nuclear Iran is the possibility of widespread regional proliferation.  A nuclear Iran means Iraq feels compelled to build a bomb.  A nuclear Iraq means Saudi Arabia feels compelled to build a bomb.  That would be a bad outcome.

That's silly. Why aren't they 'compelled' to build a bomb by the power of the Unitd States? No. Every serious country on earth feels 'compelled to build an atomic bomb; which doesn't, by itself generate a crtitical mass of bomb-grade uranium. Now, if you're in Washington, and you think the center of the universe is shining out of your ass, you might somehow think the US policing the world somehow makes every other country feel less 'compelled' to build a bomb, but I doubt that has very much to do with it.

Report: Iran would likely lend greater support to terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Europe, and the United States.

More so than they do now? That's silly.

Petey: And, of course, the military's concern about a nuclear Iran is that we would no longer have military leverage over them.

Now we're talkin'! It raises the stakes anytime the United States wants to push the Iranians around, or for that matter, any of the other states in the area, since politics makes for strange bedfellows.

At any rate, the real issue is Iran's army. If they're feeling their oats, well, since the Soviet Union went away, they effectively have no enemies to their rear. (Those non-enemies would be Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan.) Spread out in front of them now are the states of not-Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the assorted Gulf States. That is, the bulk of the oil, lots of flat and easily crossed terrain and no armies worth a shit stop them. If they are also 'immune' to being 'policed' by the United States, they can pretty much do what they what. Think Darius and Xerxes! (Subject to reasonable limits. Their army isn't particularly good, and the Sunnis hate them, so it's guerrilla war funtime in any Sunni territory they conquer.) Iran could also blockade the Gulf with some immunity if they had the bomb.

The basic question comes down to the oil, and what we're willing to do to get it on our terms.

We knocked out the counterweight when we took out Hussein. The problem there tho, is that contrary to your other notion, leaving the government of Iraq (read:Ahmed Chalabi) with lots of our heavy military equipment means essentially giving them to the Iranians, one way or another.

The essential question is always, what are you trying to do? Maintain the Middle East as quasi-imperial area? Spread (real) democracy? Simply keeping the oil flowing? Get Osama bin Laden? UN über alles?

We have dealt ourselves a really bad hand. If we want to insure the 'liberties of a peoples' and maybe allow for some actual democracy to occur sometime, then the Iranian mullah-state has got to go before we can leave. If, on the other hand, we're keeping Iraq as an imperial mandate, it hardly matters, really, as long as we don't tank our army. We replace Hussein in that scenario. (See NATO & the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.)

Unfortunately, we have no idea of what we're trying to do, except keep our actions in accord with the impulse 'Own it all, drain it all'; amoeba-like, we wind up spreading over everything.

If I'm king, well, we have a living enemy who attacked us, the job in Iraq is done and I have nothing personal against the Sunnis, and the Iranians are in the way. Ergo, bug out of Iraq wholesale and hit Iran. ("Surprise!") And then lean on the Pakistanis until we get bin Laden's head. And then go home.

ash

['But we don't want to go home. No promotions in that.']

Underlying Sokolsky and Clawson's article is the assumption that Iran wants to be expansionist and aggressive. But is this really true? Maybe they just want to be left alone and are looking to increase their military power simply to ensure they're not invaded by the world's liberator. On the assumption that other countries want to act aggressively, the US acts aggressively and ends up stimulating counter-aggression. (It's circular not just in argument, Matt.) Maybe we should just back off and see if, without constant pressure from the US, the Iranians act not like the immature children we assume them to be, but like rational adults. Heck, maybe they'll even want to sell us their oil--after all, there's nothing like a profitable business deal to turn enemies into friends.    

One of the biggest problems in a nuclear Iran is the possibility of widespread regional proliferation.

But the possibility of widespread proliferation is clearly NOT a consequence of nuclear Iran, but of the new single-superpower paradigm, especially when the superpower is ruled by a bunch of crazy messianic megalomaniacs. So, us getting loonier is only gonna make the problem worse, not better.

When Iran becomes the solo superpower in the world, then you'll have a point here.

"the possibility of widespread proliferation is clearly NOT a consequence of nuclear Iran, but of the new single-superpower paradigm"

But widespread regional proliferation is indeed a highly possible consequence of a nuclear Iran.

For example, India acquired nuclear weapons not because of anything to do with a dual or single superpower paradigm, but solely to counter their neighbor China.  And then Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons not because of anything to do with a dual or single superpower paradigm, but solely to counter their neighbor India.

Israel doesn't happen to fit into the discussion I posted, but the War College report goes on about Israel at great length. They advocate a complicated program I don't quite understand to get Israel to substantially curb its nuclear program without quite giving it up. My understanding of what they were saying is a little weak, so I would recommend that interested parties read it for themselves.

Some day, perhaps, there will be a nuclear terrorist attack in some part of the world. But, that hasn't happened, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it will happen in the immediate future. It isn't really a simple thing to do, especially compared to using regular high explosives for suicide attacks. So, the whole argument that if nation X has nuclear weapon capability, then terrorists will soon have them, doesn't impress me.

On the other hand, if an industrialized nation, say Russia, for example, has nuclear weapons, they may also have the ability to deliver them in large numbers to a nation they wish to attack. That is reason to be worried, but we just lived through a half century with that worry, and no one except our country has ever used a nuclear weapon on another country. So, perhaps that isn't a rational worry either.

Considering that our country has twice exploded nuclear weapons in an attack on another country, that our country has threatened to repeat that exercise against other countries, that our country is now seeking a form of nuclear weapon that would be easier to casually use, then perhaps our real worry should be that our country has nuclear weapons.

Not only does Israel have 200 nuclear devices as well as the uplift to get them to Iran, she also has demonstrated (within the last two weeks) a fully operational ARROW anti-missile launch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4492212.stm 

Yes, Israel actually has a star-wars system up-and-running. They achieved a direct hit on a dummy Iranian  "Shahab-3" medium range missile.

If Israel is not worried, then I am not going to lose any sleep over a "nuclear-ready" Iran.

I think BushCo is making a big deal over this issue as justification to keep the 14 bases he just built in Iraq fully operational.

The only interest the US has in the middle-east, as Petey said, is in keeping the oil flowing. 

Good wars, good government, and for the most part good news would all seem to be relics of a bygone age. That we would appear to be losing good titles as well would not surprise me.

I, personally, would feel much safer in a world where Iran possessed nuclear weapons...

Would you? Really?

I think people are getting too bogged down in the small picture (Middle Eastern geopolitics) when they should be looking at the big picture: the fact that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad, very bad.

Once upon a time one country possessed atom bombs. Then another country learned how to make them. And pretty soon several more countries followed. And before long, many many countries had found out how to make them, and 10 or 12 had actually made the weapons part of their arsenals.

None of us wants to live in a world where that 10 or 12 becomes 40 or 80 or 150. But that's where we're headed. A Iraninan bomb would indeed increase the chances of an Iraq or a Saudi Arabia or a Turkey armed with nuclear weapons. An Iranian bomb indeed nudges the world a little further down the path toward nuclear weapons ubiquity. And a world characterized by nuclear weapons ubiquity is a world where some government or another is bound to f*@k up and use the dogone things in a war, or let one fall into the hands of terrorist.

One can imagine 10 or 12 governments keeping some sort of handle on nuclear weapons, if we're very very lucky, and delaying their eventual use indefinitely. One cannot imagine 140 governments doing the same.

Besides, that Abjimawhatshisname fellow is a lunatic. 

I don't know man. I'd trust these guys before I would trust this man or even this man.

On the assumption that other countries want to act aggressively, the US acts aggressively and ends up stimulating counter-aggression




This is a well-known concept in international security theory called the Security Dilemma. That is, the actions one country takes to make itself secure are often misinterpreted as aggressive, thus sparking countermeasures by others countries, decreasing the first country's security in the end.




This was certainly the case in European diplomacy circa 1900, but has little relevance to the present situation with Iran. Lost among the discussion here is a simple fact: the Iranian regime is run by a bunch of fanatic medieval criminals bent on spreading their brand of revolutionary Islam and who have a long history of supporting terrorism. To sit idly by while such a regime develops nuclear weapon is simply unthinkable. Pakistan with nukes is bad enough. Many people in security circles get heartburn thinking about Pakistan's nukes because of the very real possiblity that the present government there could be toppled by Islamist fanatics. In Iran, the fanatics are already in power.




It boggles my mind how people can be so nonchalant about this danger. Why should it take a catastrophe of biblical proportions i.e a terrorist nuke, to wake people up? We know the nature of this regime. Do we really want to trust them with the world's most powerful weapons?

Most people think they are right. Nonetheless they are not right 9 out of 10 times.  

Re: There are studies--------
Which studies? 

A nuclear Iran is no worse a problem than a nuclear Pakistan, and we're getting through that (though there were some scary moments with India).   Pakistan, indeed, would have made more sense as a place to conduct strategic opertaions than Iraq.  That's history, now, and Pakistan will be a rogue power with nuclear weapons for the next few years, or a subcontinental partner with India in a Predator-vs.-Alien kind of symbiosis.

I digress.  The only advice I got is that I just don't want anything to blow up with either Iran or with North Korea until we get this Bushite down the road in 2009. We can't trust him. Or the Rove/Cheney axis (jettison Rumsfeld, the unlikely victim of Plamegate) which rules his world.  And, somehow. through some crazy electoral college logic, he rules ours.

Sure, we should advocate that Iran stay with the NPT.  But we're hypocritical at best to insist that they do so when we so cavalierly toss aside our commitments to international law.

For my money destor23 (#29) has said it right. All the evidence points to possession of nukes concentrating the mind intensely. There is the possibility of nuts, but since the major source of possibly loose nukes is Russia et al, we are worrying about a seconday (or tertiary) problem. Kind of like Iraq was. Fund Nunn-Lugar and relax.

The only way anyone, even a nut, is going to set off a nuke is utter, total desperation. It will be obvious who's being pushed to the limit long before that limit is reached.

While we don't know the limit, perhaps, some things are obvious. The main deterring is that of invasion. Any situation less dire than that will mean nuclear threats are posturing. But it will be important to make clear invasions are not in the offing.

It is perhaps annoying to have competitors but not unfair or unethical. What is unethical is to think we can run the world.

"And, of course, the USA does not possess a fair number of officials who, to put it bluntly, are religious nuts, and who fervently believe in an afterlife. Does that make it hideously obvious that the USA, our country, is a major threat due to our possessing nuclear arms in abundance?"

No, because:

(1)  The US is (still) a democracy.

(2)  Even our most fervent religious nuts don't seem to take the idea of an afterlife nearly as seriously as the more extreme Moslems do.  For all his ominous previous comments on the subject, Reagan, when the crunch came, backed away in horror from the idea of a nuclear exchange.  (In fact, his current fans are blowing hooey when they say that he used Star Wars to blackmail the Soviets into surender -- in reality, he at least had enough sense to realize that such a threat would be equally likely to provoke them into a preemptive attack, and so he actually kept offering them a copy of the system.  The records of Reykjavik released by the Kremlin show him telling Gorbachev: "I would never have proposed such a system if I didn't think it could be shared.")

Now compare this to al-Qaida: "The Americans love life while we love death."  Precisely because Islam is an as-yet unliberalized and unreconstructed religion, a lot of its advocates actually take the idea of an afterlife deadly seriously, which (to repeat) even our most fervent Christian religious nuts are stupendously less likely to do.  Certainly enough of them do to make me very unhappy with the idea of an extreme-Islamist government  in Iran or Pakistan possessing the Bomb.

Chinshihtang: "A nuclear Iran is no worse a problem than a nuclear Pakistan, and we're getting through that (though there were some scary moments with India)."

Really?  What evidence do you have that we're "getting through it"?  Do you see any sign that the Pakistani government is more stable than it was, or that the degre of public sympathy for al-Qaida has diminished?  (I believe Pew Research Center pegged it earlier this year at 50% of the populace.)  

"Pakistan, indeed, would have made more sense as a place to conduct strategic operations than Iraq."

Not, of course, when it already had the Bomb, and we had no way of knowing where all the Bombs it had were.  Which is also why we don't dare attack North Korea now.  The only thing we can do to resolve the Korean situation at this point is to make it clear that (1) we won't pay one cent to keep Kim's government propped up in power; but (2) we WILL do absolutely anything necessary to allow it to give up power peaceafully without being massacred by its own people.  To do that credibly, however, we have to be capable of occupying and stabilizing the place -- which, of course, is something else we're totally incapable of doing as long as we stay entangled in Iraq. 

"That's history, now, and Pakistan will be a rogue power with nuclear weapons for the next few years, or a subcontinental partner with India in a Predator-vs.-Alien kind of symbiosis."
 
Thou sayest it.  How likely is it that it WILL turn into a "rogue power with nuclear weapons" in the near future?  Enough to scare the hell out of me -- but it's too late for us to do anything about it.  It is not, however, too late for us to prevent Iran from becoming still another deadly theat of the same kind.  (Or, rather, it wasn't too late for us to do so before we got entangled in Iraq because of the cretinous overoptimism and duplicity of the Bushites.)