Bulletin: A Nuclear-Armed Iran Would Be Bad
I don't intend to spend much time discussing why an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be bad, but here are a few observations:
1. I agree with Jeffrey that an Iranian nuclear threat exists along a continuum - (e.g. an Iran that is capable of enriching uranium is not as much of a threat as one with a larger nuclear arsenal.)
2. That said, a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat in several ways. The most important, in my opinion, is the threat that it presents to the non-proliferation regime as a whole.
The NPT remains a valuable instrument for constraining proliferation, but that could change if the its mechanisms to prevent proliferation (e.g., safeguards, the role of the IAEA Board of Governors, the Security Council) fail.
Put another way, the regime is not the only tool in the international security toolbox, but it is an important one. If the NPT tool becomes less useful, then countries will rely more on other tools. Some countries may try to obtain nuclear weapons. In that case, others could well decide to hedge their bets, even if they don't actually decide to develop nuclear weapons.
That means that we won't just see states like Iran and North Korea trying to develop nuclear weapons - we could well see our friends trying to do the same thing.
One under-appreciated aspect of the NPT is that it has helped make proliferation disreputable. If flouting the NPT becomes respectable, we're in trouble.
There's more below on the possibility that an Iranian nuclear weapon could induce other countries in Iran's neighborhood.
3. No one knows exactly what, if anything, Iran would do with a nuclear weapon if it had one. I'm not sure the Iranians know. They may wait to build a larger arsenal, work out the kinks in their missile program, test several designs, maintain an ambiguous nuclear posture (something like Israel's) ...the list goes on.
Iran might not want or be able to do anything with a nuclear arsenal now, but I would rather not conduct that social-science experiment in order to find out. Further, we don't know what Iran might decide to do with nuclear weapons in, say, 20, 30, 50 years - especially if Tehran makes its own neighborhood more dangerous.
4. That said, I'm not at all sure that Iran, at least in the short-term, would be more aggressive if it had nuclear weapons. This is mainly because I don't understand what nuclear weapons would enable/embolden Iran to do that it can't do now. Nuclear weapons won't improve either Iran's conventional military strength or its economy. Nor will they enable Iran to win a nuclear war against states like the United States or Russia. Furthemore, , Iran could, depending on the circumstances, well be inviting nuclear retaliation if it uses its nuclear arsenal as a sort of "umbrella" for offensive military actions.
To be sure, Iran could threaten some of its conventionally-armed neighbors. But I'm not sure such threats would be terribly credible - using a nuclear weapon is step that even Tehran would take lightly.
5. Obvious caveat - just because something is/appears to be stupid or irrational doesn't mean that Iran won't do it. The problem with nuclear weapons is that they make such mistakes a lot more costly.
Obvious note - I don't blame Israel at all for worrying that it might make Tehran's target list.
6. We should take seriously the possibility that other countries in Iran's neighborhood could either develop nuclear weapons, or go overtly nuclear (in the case of Israel). We can all imagine some nasty scenarios that could result from this - see my above point about countries doing stupid things.
I can think of actions that the United States and others can take to keep other states from going nuclear. [see this study to get an idea about what some people are thinking.] I also find "domino theories" of proliferation to be simplistic and I can't necessarily draw a straight line between an Iranian nuclear arsenal and another country's acquisition of nukes. But it's more than fair to say that the more dangerous Iran's neighborhood gets, the worse it is for everyone.
Update [2006-1-25 20:38:16 by pkerr]:
I discussed the notion that Israel could strike Iran's nuclear facilities in this post a while back. Short version - Israel almost certainly could and would not do it without US permission, even assuming that they had the desire and capabilities to do so.
So to sum up, we should prevent Iran going nuclear, because
1. the fact of it would undermine the authority of the NPT which has yet to prevent any country that wanted to go nuclear from doing so
2. we don't know what Iran would do with nuclear weapons
3. it might cause Israel to admit it has nuclear weapons
4. it might induce some other country in the region to go nuclear
If that's it, I can see why Kerr doesn't "intend to spend much time discussing why an Iranian nuclear arsenal would be bad."
January 24, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prime mover, here, in undermining nuclear non-proliferation is George W. Bush's America.
An analysis like Kerr's, which completely leaves out of account how Bush's "Axis of Evil" b.s. has changed the calculus any power brings to the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons, is ignoring the prime mover. Bush has made it crystal clear that Iran, if it acts in its own interest, should acquire nuclear weapons. There's not much that platoons of diplomats can offer or threaten, which will trump the threat that the U.S. poses to Iran in the region, after the "Axis of Evil", after the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, and after the invasion of Iraq.
January 24, 2006 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really the wrong debate because nobody, including Iran, disagrees that Iran should not acquire a nuclear weapon.
The US has taken the position that Iran must be prevented from having the capacity to have a nuclear weapon.
The anti-Iran lobby plays very fast and loose the distinction between having the capacity to have a nuclear weapon and actually having nuclear weapons.
According to Baradei's estimate, 40 nations or more have the capacity to have nuclear weapons. 8 of them have weapons and 32 or more of those nations do not have weapons.
Legally and factually there is a huge difference between having capacity and having weapons that the anti-Iran lobby just skips over.
(Well either skips over or asserts that there is continuum of "having" weapons so that it is possible to "have" weapons even if you do not actually have weapons. I have never seen any mention of this continuum in the text of the NPT.)
What we need to see is the reasons why Iran having the capacity to build weapons, a capacity 32 other non-weapons NPT states have, is bad. Bad enough that there should be a special case in international law that applies specifically to Iran.
January 24, 2006 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I agree with most of Mr. Kerr's post. A nuclear-armed Iran would undermine the NPT, perhaps fatally. (Although I sometimes wonder if that horse hasn't already bolted from the stable already in the form of North Korea.)
However that isn't really the issue right now. The issue is allowing Iran to enrich uranium. Enrichment can't be said to undermine the NPT because the NPT explicitly allows for the right to enrichment for peaceful purposes. There are many other NPT signatories who enrich uranium without building nuclear weapons. So the crucial question is why it's so important to prevent Iran from exercising its legal right to enrich uranium. I would like more discussion about that.
January 24, 2006 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, now for your next assignment: "Why bullying behavior in the name of controlling nuclear proliferation is worse than proliferation itself." Some topics I'd like to see in this essay: Iraq, and the run up to the Iraq war including the effects of the sanctions; the influence of AIPAC and Israel on American foreign policy; the inevitable degradation of the fourth estate that happens in these circumstances; and the "Rome Effect" -- the creation of an empire in the name of self defense and spreading civilization.
Please write fast; I'm holding my breath waiting to see your efforts.
January 24, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. After posting no. 4 I noticed that Arnold Evans made the same point in greater detail making my post redundant.
Let me just add one thing: I find it rather strange that these basic points about enrichment appear to be largely missing from public discussion about the Iran issue in the US. Even the basic distinction between uranium enrichment and nuclear weapons isn't made clear most of the time.
January 24, 2006 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, a nuclear armed iran would be bad. but it is also inevitable. the nuclear genie has long been out of the bottle, and the miracle is that more countries haven't gotten atomic weapons to date. but they will. the question about iran and others is not if but when. u.s. refusal to engage iran, bad mouthing it as part of the axis of evil and threats of bombing will only quicken iranian resolve to get their own nuclear weapons to at least threaten to take out st. louis or omaha if the u.s. bombed them, or kill a few thousand americans with a backpack nuke exploded on the washington metro or new york's broadway line. everybody wants nuclear weapons anyway.
iran is a whole lot more dangerous than iraq because it is a whole lot bigger and stronger, and, more important, it has a long history as a supporter of international terrorism. hezbollah is an iranian creation, promoted by iran's ex-premier rafsanjani and/or some of his relatives. if anybody is going to turn wmds over to terrorist groups, it's far more likely to be iran than it would have been saddam.
what do we do? prof niall ferguson, the hawkish british historian now teaching at harvard has written a column in the london telegraph bemoaning the possibility that condi rice has talked (or will talk) bush out of attacking iran. if bush doesn't act preventively, ferguson posits the possibility of a great mideast war that starts next year with iran and israel exchanging nuclear strikes.
i don't buy this because no one really believes iran will even have a nuclear bomb by next year. the experts' best guess is 5 or 10 years. and, why either iran or israel would start or even permit a nuclear war is something i can't buy either, since it would mean the same kind of mutually assured destruction as in our own cold war with the russians. but ferguson posits an iran headed by muslim religious fanatics, and there is, i suppose, no knowing what they might do. so that is possible, though, for me, not likely. then, too, accidents happen. they almost did between us and the russians.
anyhow, i don't know what the solution is to nuclear proliferation. with time, more and more countries will get nuclear weapons and one of these days someone is likely to use them and all of us in the world will be at risk. we have got to prevent that, but one way not to do it is for us to bomb iran.
if the iranians have their nuclear facilities scattered, and we don't know where some of them are, then we don't get them all or even most of them. futhermore, is there any reason to believe that our intelligence on iran is any better than our intelligence on iraq? do we really know what we would be bombing?
and let's say we bomb them. what happens then? we don't go in and occupy iran. it has almost three times as many people as iraq and look at the terribly inadequate job, with not nearly enough troops, we're doing providing iraq's security. so as the smoke from the bombing sites rises, iran vows revenge, and every muslim in the world is now convinced beyond a doubt that the u.s. is his or her enemy. every muslim country decides it must have nuclear weapons asap to deter the u.s. from bombing it. and we have an arms race even worse than the one we have now.
and, as with our intelligence failures, given this administration's total incompetence, an effort to bomb iran might end up bombing our troops in iraq (after all, they are right next to one another, and there's only a one-letter difference in their names) or even israel, whose name also starts with an "i" and includes an "r" and an "a". bush hasn't done one thing competently since he got into office. what makes prof. ferguson, or anyone else, think he can do something right by bombing iran now?
January 24, 2006 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iranian nuclear weapons would take any attack on Iran off the table for both the U.S. and Israel. It's clear that the main impetus behind stopping the development of an Iranian fuel cycle is that in a crisis, Iran -- like Japan, Germany or Taiwan today -- could quickly develop a nuclear deterrent and thus stymie anti-Iranian aggression. Iran knows this and this is the precise reason Iran will never bargain away its right to develop a nuclear fuel cycle. Thhis is also why Iran will withdraw from the NPT if it appears the UN will impose sanctions in an attempt to deprive Iran of the development of a nuclear fuel cycle.
We're dreaming here. Iran will develop a nuclear fuel cycle and thus the capacity to develop nuclear weapons on a moment's notice. This will not violate the NPT any more than the same capacity by Japan, Germany or Taiwan violates the NPT.
The U.S. and Israel will just have to live with the fact that Iran will have a nuclear deterrent.
The real pertinent question is how we can make Iran less likely to develop a full-blown nuclear weapons program. Somehow, I don't think threatening Iran with invasion and/or a bombing campaign will accomplish that.
January 24, 2006 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there some reason this guy Kerr has been asked to comment on the Iranian issue?
All I'm seeing from here is a list of "maybe's", "I don't knows", "we can't tell" - and then the conclusion that an Iranian nuke would be bad.
Well, DUH! Evidently Kerr was not selected for this commentary on the basis of his mastery of carefully reasoned logical syllogisms.
This is pointless crap. I don't even need to point out the specifics, since that's been done fairly well by the other posters today. Of course, I won't let that stop me from doing so anyway.
I and others have covered the REAL "bottom line" here far more precisely than Kerr is doing:
1) There *is no* Iranian nuclear "crisis."
2) There is *no* evidence *anywhere* that Ian is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
3) There is no particular reason to believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would be anything more than what it is today - especially if they only have one to ten nuclear weapons. We're sitting here right now with North Korea having at least two and probably more. Anybody see the world falling?
4) The only beneficiary from this manufactured "crisis" is Israel and the neocons.
5) The NPT would not be harmed by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons because plenty of other people have them, too. The notion that the NPT would "fatally" harmed is simply speculation - nothing more. And all of this presumes that Iran will in fact have nuclear weapons sometime in the next ten years. So again - *why* is this a "crisis" *now*? It seems to me there is plenty of time to worry about the NPT once the IAEA actually comes up with something - anything - to indicate that Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
6) Flouting the NPT would be "respectable" if Iran gets away with it? Oh, please - what has Israel been doing for the last thirty years with the enthusiastic ignorance of the US and Europe? Yes, they are not a signatory, so you can technically say they aren't "flouting" an agreement they signed. They just ignored the entire concept of the NPT from the git-go - and nobody cares. Let a Muslim do it and all hell breaks loose!
7) The entire "crisis" is manufactured to cover up the real reasons for the US's and Israel's antipathy to Iran: namely, the US's determination to be the dominant power in the Middle East with dibs on the oil and control of the currency in which oil deals are made, and Israel's determination *also* to be the dominant power in the Middle East (using the US as it's stalking horse) with dibs on the oil and control of the US economy.
8) Kerr's argument boils down to "we don't know what Iran would do with nukes in 50 years". Brilliant. So we should force them to abandon nuclear energy now rather than wait because something "bad" might happen someday.
Any wonder why the Iranians couldn't care less what the US thinks about the issue?
If this is the best this site can come up with for "informed comment" about the Iranian issue, we're all in real trouble.
The Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations office has posted a very clear and carefully reasoned argument about why all this is nonsense.
See it here:
http://www.iran-un.org/pressreleases.php?ID=11
Match this precise polemic against Kerr's nonsense and see which one makes sense to you. (Not that I ever thought anything coming out of Iran would make any sense, but considering what the US has to work with, I'm no longer surprised by anything.)
January 25, 2006 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Notice how everyone, even on this fairly liberal site, is now talking about Iran, whether or not Iran has "nukes", whether that is bad, very bad, or catastrophic, and whether or not unilateral military action against Iran is justified.
Somehow forgotten seems to be TraitorGate including Rove's involvement, DeLay, Abramoff, and FISA violations.
Think there is any connection there?
sPh
January 25, 2006 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
<I>' The NPT remains a valuable instrument for constraining proliferation'</i>
The NPT is dead.
Various countries have developed nucleur weapons since it's inception, thus, what is the point of it?
It's simply an agreement that can be broken, like any such agreements when a party deems it to be in their 'national interest' to break it.
January 25, 2006 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't have any sophisticated grasp of the politics of nuclear weapons here, we don't have any intelligent evaluation of the nuclear realities of the middle east, any assessment of Iran's potential motivations, no actual consideration as to whether Iran actually is developing nuclear weapons or what the proof or lack of proof is for such a proposition, nor any sort of calculation of the realistic and potential consequences, nor the options or lack thereof.
Instead we've just got some dopey 'it would be a bad thing, maaaaaaaan!'
Well, whatever. I'm interested in this subject, but honestly, I have no idea why anyone bothered to even write this.
Discourse like this does not elevate the debate. It merely suffocates it with crashing ignorance.
January 25, 2006 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Various countries have developed nucleur weapons since it's inception, thus, what is the point of it?
It exists so there will be something which powerful nations can accuse weak nations of violating, and then punish them.
The circular argument that enforcing the NPT is important because the NPT is important would be humorous, were not so many people going to suffer and, in all probability, die, as a result of the efforts of people like Mr. Kerr to earn themselves spots on the talking head circuit as arms control experts and so on.
BTW, if you want to read a truly hilarious document, written, it would appear, by someone even less talented than Mr. Kerr, I would suggest you read this. It claims, among other things, that the NPT is good, because when India and Pakistan got nukes, the international community condemned it. I'm not making that up. That's from the U.S. State Department. Mr. Kerr's argument that the NPT is good because the NPT is good is better than that one any day of the week -- maybe he should see if the State Department is hiring.
January 25, 2006 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barring a preemptive strike, Iran is going to obtain a nuclear weapon capability, and for no other reason than we don't want them to have it. It's a macho image thing, and it plays more to the home folks than to the rest of the world. I have a cynical feeling that any diplomatic endeavor will ever work.
The lasting effect of our overthrow of Saddam in Iraq is not the introduction of democracy in the Middle East but the rebalance of power among the various factions within that area. Don't be surprised that shortly after the Americans finally leave Iraq, the Shiite majority will steer their country into a tight alliance with Iran. It has already started.
One of the noteworthy aspects of our involvement in Iraq is that Sunnis and Shiite hate each other more than they hate Americans. The Aryans and Arabs have been at odds for as long as there has been history.
Next to Israel, the Arab nations have more to fear from a nuclear Iran (with their brothers in Iraq) than we in America or Europe.
All members of the nuclear club should be held accountable for were their nuclear technology is used. Any fissionable material from a terrorist attack can be traced back to its source, and the world through the U.N. should take corrective action with great prejudice against any nation that supplies the terrorist.
January 25, 2006 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Kerr,
Your four posts on this topic have drawn many comments, including some fairly powerful criticism and counter-arguments. I think it is time now for you to stop posting new material and respond meaningfully to your critics. This is after all a blog with comments, not a TNR-type lecture vehicle.
sPh
January 25, 2006 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Those crazy Iranians. If only they were rational like us we wouldn't need to be nearly so afraid of them!
Alternatively:
''I want the North Vietnamese to believe," [Nixon] went on, ''that I've reached the point that I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry, and he has his hand on the nuclear button, and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."
We do not know exactly what is running through the minds of the Iranian leadership. (And I don't mean Ahmadinejad). But it certainly fits more easily with our national prejudices about "crazy Arabs*" to believe they are insane and irrational, rather than calculatedly scaring us on purpose, and therefore playing us for suckers. That's what white people do to the coloreds - not the other way around!
* Persians, whatever.
January 25, 2006 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might be helpful to deal with the NPT issues in more detail and to consider what might be done in that context.
How might a deal be crafted with Iran under the NPT? What would be needed? What does Iran want/need?
Security assurances are not an explicit part of the NPT, but they have been present in side agreements throughout its history. Clearly both Iran and North Korea are looking for security assurances. That situation changed radically when the Soviet Union collapsed, and no new order has shown up to replace the Cold War assurances.
Then we might look at the neighborhood. Yesterday there was an op-ed in the NYT discussing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. I've lost that link, but the idea is potentially a good one. (I've written about it here-http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2005/02/nuclearwe aponfr.html-and here-http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2005/02/nuclearwe aponsf.html. Sorry about that--can't figure out the linking with this editor.) Of course, it brings up the sticky question of Israel's nukes. Maybe it's now time to discuss them.
January 25, 2006 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is now seeking to control the US economy? I had no idea how extensive the fever dreams of leftist anti-Semites Zionists had gotten. This is enlightening to say the least.
If the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" crowd on Iranian nukes is really trying to persuade liberal hawks that they are wrong to be concerned about Iranian nukes (rather than engage in yet another round of echo-chambering), it would be far more effective if the argument was presented from someone who does not look upon the rabid anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric of the Iranian regime with sympathy.
January 25, 2006 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NPT is obsolete. The US and the rest of the accepted atomic club members had the opportunity to address the major flaws in the NPT conference last year, but they didn't.
The atomic genie has of course been out of the bottle for over a half century, but now the tomcat of proliferation is out of the bag, and driven by the howls of Bush's dogs of war, running loose around the neighborhood.
The old boys of the atomic club won't be able to keep unwelcome states from crashing their party until the US rejoins the world community and takes the lead in nuclear disarmarment and revamping the NPT so that it reflects 21st century reality.
January 25, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch. Because we all know that accusations of antisemitism are a cheap way to stifle dialogue by scheming racist Zionist thugs.
January 25, 2006 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran's leadership has made no secret of its nuclear ambitions or of wishing Israel off the map.
Reform the culture of radical rejection and the state of war currently imposed on Israel by Iran and the 19 out of 22 Arab League member nations that still do not recognize Jewish national rights in the region, and perhaps Israel may find a reason to believe in the good intentions behind the rhetoric of a nuclear free Middle East.
January 25, 2006 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's nice - I get moderated down to 3.66 because somebody raises the anti-Semite complaint and in addition thinks I view the Iranians with sympathy. Knee-jerk reactions evidently kick in at that point.
Neither accusation is true. I have specific complaints about the behavior of Israel's Zionist fanatics, and I recognize that Iran is being picked on here despite the Iranians being Muslim fanatic bozos of the first order. And even if the accusations were true, it would be irrelevant to the points I wished about the lameness of these posts by Kerr.
My point is that the Iran discussion is being conducted here in a manner which avoids the central issues, the context of the entire issue, and the motivations of those engaging the issue. It is all being framed as if it were already a proven fact not only that the Iranians want a nuclear weapons program, but that they already have one, and it's only a few months until they threaten Israel with a weapon, so we have to deal with this "crisis" NOW.
All of which is bullcrap as any number of commentators have demonstrated in excruciating detail.
This is exactly like the runup to the war in Iraq - where virtually every commentator was pushing the party line that Saddam was an "imminent threat", and those people who were saying, "Hey, wait a minute here! NONE of this is proven!" are completely ignored by people trying to outdo each other in "punditry."
The other problem evidently is that somebody doesn't like my tone. Well, boo hoo! Try posting on Slashdot some time and see how long you last!
January 25, 2006 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to say, I'm really, really disappointed in the quality of some of the Iran entries, including this one. I expected intelligent commentary from TPMCafe, and instead, I'm getting, "Okay, first, forget all the lessons we've learned in Iraq, and pretend we have someone competent in the White House..."
January 25, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reform the culture of radical rejection and the state of war currently imposed on Israel by Iran and the 19 out of 22 Arab League member nations that still do not recognize Jewish national rights in the region, and perhaps Israel may find a reason to believe in the good intentions behind the rhetoric of a nuclear free Middle East.
eh...what?
Um, and how is their absolutist ideology different from Israel's?
Oh wait, let me guess, Israel pursues an evan handed "culture of life" and "good will", and "rule of law", right? *snicker*
Isreal has not made much of an effort to be a good neighbor to its neighbors, and it has nukes.
"The state of war currently imposed on Israel" you said. Oh was open warfare declared? I had missed that in our vaunted news media coverage. My bad. Well now all Israel's missile lobbing into populated areas can be a little more easily justified, so hey at least that's looking up for you. Such a hassle thinking up justifications all the time and looking like you are still making an effort and have some sort of moral high ground. Wouldn't you say? Every cloud has a silver lining eh zionista? Even your propoganda based zealot one. Hey keep up the "good fight" eh bro. good luck to ya.
January 25, 2006 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please give us another way to understand your previous comment:
"7) The entire 'crisis' is manufactured to cover up the real reasons for the US's and Israel's antipathy to Iran: namely, the US's determination to be the dominant power in the Middle East with dibs on the oil and control of the currency in which oil deals are made, and Israel's determination *also* to be the dominant power in the Middle East (using the US as it's stalking horse) with dibs on the oil and control of the US economy."
January 25, 2006 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which do you mean? The silver lining or the cloud?
January 25, 2006 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 25, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever notice how each of these articles managees to ignore the obvious?
Why is that?
From Defense and the National Interest
Still Looking Out From the Forest of Iraq: At Iran
This piece is a follow up to my previous posting, Looking Out From the Forest of Iraq (8/8/05), and subsequent events haven’t given me any reason to change my opinions on Iraq’s future. A few readers called it a cynical view of the future of Iraq, and some were even convinced that I was a stalking horse for a new administration position. To which I would have to reply that mistaking realism for cynicism is a common error. And, having read Our National Strategy For Victory in Iraq in its entirety, I feel confident in stating that the administration has no national strategy for victory in Iraq. There is wishful but contradictory thinking, bordering on self-delusion. And a lot of PR spin. But, based on their actions and not their words, what we have is mainly a cynical desire to extricate themselves as much as possible, by any means possible, before the November 2006 election. The November 2006 election in the U.S., that is.
So in the spirit of realism, I think the rest of our adversaries around the world in this soon to be post-Iraq period deserve a look. Because Iraq should have taught us all that the only thing worse than wishful thinking is wishful thinking combined with muddled reasoning
ecause it looms so large over our shoulder in Iraq, I’m going to begin with Iran. The Islamic Republic has considered itself at war with the United States since its establishment, and until 9/11 was responsible for more American casualties than any adversary in the post-Vietnam period. We, on the other hand, have always accepted those casualties and done nothing, relegating Iran to the “too hard” category.
Now, in 2006, Iran would seem to be in an outstanding strategic position. Mainly due to our efforts.
Its nemesis Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. The Iraqi army no longer exists as an offensive force to threaten it. On its eastern border with Afghanistan the hostile Taliban has been replaced by the much friendlier Karzai government. And the coalition has allowed it a virtually free hand in Iraq.
Examining Iranian methodology sheds a great deal of light on their strategic thought. So consider the following snapshot compiled from open source reporting.
January 25, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still unclear on why exactly Iran having nukes is bad. It seems to me just because we won't be able to effectively threaten them anymore.
They don't like us very much. For good reason: We've overthrown their government in the past and have declared that it is our goal to do so again. We supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war when we got concerned that the Iranian Revolution was getting too powerful after they overthrew our puppet. This war resulted in the death of 300,000 Iranians. We "accidentally" blew up an Iranian civilian airliner killing hundreds of innocent people. We have 140,000 troops in the country to their west, huge airbases in the countries to their north, and 20,000 troops in the country to their east, and 1/4 of our navy patrolling the seas to their south. They are completely surrounded by an aggressive military power that wants them gone.
If I were the mullahs I would be trying to build nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. I think the peaceful energy part is true, but they would be insane not to be developing weapons as well.
The US is militarily fairly overextended in a country over whose new leaders Iran has plenty of influence. The mullahs would thus want the conflict now, when they can cause significant harassment to American troops while they are outside the territory of Iran, rather than later.
Israel has nuclear weapons and is apparently thinking about attacking Iran's nuclear sites. Iran again would be insane to not develop a credible deterrent to this sort of bullying. We should tell Israel to back off, for sure.
for much better Iran analysis check out Arms Control Wonk .
January 25, 2006 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little more to than that but THANK YOU!
They're driving me batsh*t
Thank you
Thank you
January 25, 2006 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not without irony that the seasoned liberals who are presently attacking Mr Kerr are defending ruthlessly the good-old days of nuclear proliferation (please, attack my two-dimensionality, my ‘if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us logic, since this is expected of you). Why does a commentary on the negative repercussions of an Iran with an enhanced capacity to nuclearize within days elicit such outrage? Why is it unreasonable to suggest that such a move might destabilize the already shaky order in the Middle East (and that this, uh, might be bad)? Mr Kerr’s post on these implications was far from alarmist—to suggest that we have a neoconservative in the room is facile. The muted, quite reasonable discussion of these matters stands in refreshing contrast to the Michael Ledeenians among us. I painfully read through the comments and much has been made of the legality of Iran’s actions. What of Mr Kerr’s argument, and matter of record, that the IAEA has determined that Iran’s existing program is in violation of its international obligations of the NPT? Presumably the legality argument emerges from the legal apparatus of the NPT itself. It is my understanding that Iran’s violation of these safeguards is the basis of fairly universal international concern, not militaristic or imperialistic hostility from the United States. The inalienable right to a peaceful nuclear energy program exists with a set of legal constraints which at present are being circumvented. Iran has a long and notable history of violating international law; it has tapped into the nuclear black market; it’s history of hiding nuclear facilities is well-documented; it is currently giving the finger to the IAEA; it is a nation which is hostile to its own people; it is run by a president whose feelings about Israel apparently require no mincing of words. What here inspires confidence? If the concern is ‘picking on Iran’, why not support ElBaradei’s proposal to enact a global moratorium on new nuclear fuel-making facilities, at least until such time as the NPT can be shored up. The NPT may be broken but it is certainly not beyond repair. It seems to me that rather than advancing the notion that Iran should be allowed to continue on a path which makes possible its rapid nuclearization, people ought to be suggesting, as Mr Kerr and other experts who harbor legitimate concerns, diplomatic approaches that stymie Iran’s efforts and strengthen the international non-proliferation regime. That the NPT is down does not me you should kick it. It means you should pick it, dust it off, and maintain the norm. To suggest that the NPT has not been a highly effective instrument in slowing global nuclear proliferation is simply un-insightful.
January 25, 2006 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 25, 2006 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink