Why Shouldn't Iran Have Nukes?
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Thirty miles from where I sit typing this is the country of North Korea, which announced last week for the first time that it has nuclear weapons. When I first heard this news I paused for a moment of trepidation. And then, like everyone else in this region, I got on with life. After all, last week's announcement was not "news" as such, but merely confirmation of what, to use the Belfast parlance, "the dogs in the street know". Like it or not, we in north east Asia are learning to live with the fact that the regime in Pyongyang has nuclear weapons.
In a year or so it is quite possible that the people of the Middle East will have to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. It seems more and more evident that Iran, if it does not actually possess nuclear weaponry yet, that it will soon have the capability to manufacture said weaponry quickly should it feel threatened.
All the sabre-rattling from the US on this issue can't disguise the fact that the world's only hyperpower has limited options when it comes to confronting Iran. America can't give Iran a taste of Iraq's medicine because the current patient has the doctor by the throat.
Just as America's ability to stop Iran getting nukes is limited, its case for doing so is flimsy. One question which the US, or Britain, or France, or Israel have never satisfactorily answered is this: If you can have nukes, why can't Iran? There is, it seems to me, a quite startling hypocrisy at the heart of each of these country's posture towards Iran. What is so terrible about Iran having the big one, as opposed to say, France?
Is it because the Iranian regime is belligerent? Well, let's do a little comparison. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has only been involved in one conflict, with Iraq in the 1980s. Tehran went to war on that occasion on the far from unreasonable grounds that the world's largest Arab army had turned up at its door looking for a scrap. This is hardly the record of a prerennial warmonger.
Now let's take the record of one of the "established" nuclear powers, the UK. In the same period, Britain has gone to war five times, against Argentina, Iraq (twice), Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. On only one of these occasions, the first, was British territory actually attacked. Yet no-one seems to lose any sleep at the thought of Tony Blair's finger hovering over the red button.
Is it because Iran is a Muslim country? Perhaps, but why then is it OK for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons? The regimne of Pervez Musharraf is tight with the West. If the world can live with one nuclear-armed Islamic state, then why not two?
Is it because Iran has a poor human rights record? Possibly, but again look at one of the "established" members of the nuclear club, China, which leads the world in executions. And again, we've learnt to live with Beijing having nuclear weapons.
Is it because Iran could share its nuclear weaponry with international terrorists? Once again, this can't be ruled out, but it seems that other nuclear powers present a far more pressing danger in this respect. First we have Pakistan, where A Q Khan was for some years running a sort of Nukes'R'Us business.
Then there is Russia, with its huge arsenal and its withered government infrastructure. Finally, we have North Korea which might just sell one of its bombs for a bowl of rice sometime in the future. These three scenarios seem a whole lot more plausible than the idea of Iran, implacable foe of al-Qaida, giving nukes to terrorists.
Now imagine just for a moment that you are Iran. Take a look at your neighbourhood: Three countries over is your implacable enemy Israel - which has nuclear weapons. Next door to you is Pakistan - which has nuclear weapons. To your north is India - which has nuclear weapons, then China - which has nuclear weapons, and finally Russia which, wait for it - has nuclear weapons. To top it all off the US - which has nuclear weapons - has moved in next door to you on both sides. Considering all this, is it any surprise that the ayatollahs feel like Tim Roth at the end of Reservoir Dogs?
In the short-term, Iran having nuclear weaponry might actually serve to improve global security by bringing a balance of terror to the Middle East. At present, only one country in the region, Israel, has the ability to wipe other states off the map. This may be good news for Israel, but it's not good news for those, such as Iran, who may be in line for a wipe off.
Once Iran gets the big one though, the old Cold War "logic" of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) comes into effect. Iran can wipe out Israel but Iran won't because Israel can wipe out Iran. Israel can wipe out Iran but Israel won't because Iran can wipe out Israel. And they'll all live happily ever after!
Or at least in the short to medium term they will. MAD has a certain demented logic to it, but in the long-term, possessing nuclear weaponry is all demention, no logic. I rue the day that a species as singularly destructive as ours acquired the power to end all life on this planet. As an incurable pessimist, I can't help thinking that one day we'll utilise this capability. If the ice-caps don't get us, the mushroom clouds will.
But in the meantime, I fail to see how having ten nuclear states, rather than nine, should create such a great crisis.
In a year or so it is quite possible that the people of the Middle East will have to learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. It seems more and more evident that Iran, if it does not actually possess nuclear weaponry yet, that it will soon have the capability to manufacture said weaponry quickly should it feel threatened.
All the sabre-rattling from the US on this issue can't disguise the fact that the world's only hyperpower has limited options when it comes to confronting Iran. America can't give Iran a taste of Iraq's medicine because the current patient has the doctor by the throat.
Just as America's ability to stop Iran getting nukes is limited, its case for doing so is flimsy. One question which the US, or Britain, or France, or Israel have never satisfactorily answered is this: If you can have nukes, why can't Iran? There is, it seems to me, a quite startling hypocrisy at the heart of each of these country's posture towards Iran. What is so terrible about Iran having the big one, as opposed to say, France?
Is it because the Iranian regime is belligerent? Well, let's do a little comparison. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has only been involved in one conflict, with Iraq in the 1980s. Tehran went to war on that occasion on the far from unreasonable grounds that the world's largest Arab army had turned up at its door looking for a scrap. This is hardly the record of a prerennial warmonger.
Now let's take the record of one of the "established" nuclear powers, the UK. In the same period, Britain has gone to war five times, against Argentina, Iraq (twice), Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. On only one of these occasions, the first, was British territory actually attacked. Yet no-one seems to lose any sleep at the thought of Tony Blair's finger hovering over the red button.
Is it because Iran is a Muslim country? Perhaps, but why then is it OK for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons? The regimne of Pervez Musharraf is tight with the West. If the world can live with one nuclear-armed Islamic state, then why not two?
Is it because Iran has a poor human rights record? Possibly, but again look at one of the "established" members of the nuclear club, China, which leads the world in executions. And again, we've learnt to live with Beijing having nuclear weapons.
Is it because Iran could share its nuclear weaponry with international terrorists? Once again, this can't be ruled out, but it seems that other nuclear powers present a far more pressing danger in this respect. First we have Pakistan, where A Q Khan was for some years running a sort of Nukes'R'Us business.
Then there is Russia, with its huge arsenal and its withered government infrastructure. Finally, we have North Korea which might just sell one of its bombs for a bowl of rice sometime in the future. These three scenarios seem a whole lot more plausible than the idea of Iran, implacable foe of al-Qaida, giving nukes to terrorists.
Now imagine just for a moment that you are Iran. Take a look at your neighbourhood: Three countries over is your implacable enemy Israel - which has nuclear weapons. Next door to you is Pakistan - which has nuclear weapons. To your north is India - which has nuclear weapons, then China - which has nuclear weapons, and finally Russia which, wait for it - has nuclear weapons. To top it all off the US - which has nuclear weapons - has moved in next door to you on both sides. Considering all this, is it any surprise that the ayatollahs feel like Tim Roth at the end of Reservoir Dogs?
In the short-term, Iran having nuclear weaponry might actually serve to improve global security by bringing a balance of terror to the Middle East. At present, only one country in the region, Israel, has the ability to wipe other states off the map. This may be good news for Israel, but it's not good news for those, such as Iran, who may be in line for a wipe off.
Once Iran gets the big one though, the old Cold War "logic" of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) comes into effect. Iran can wipe out Israel but Iran won't because Israel can wipe out Iran. Israel can wipe out Iran but Israel won't because Iran can wipe out Israel. And they'll all live happily ever after!
Or at least in the short to medium term they will. MAD has a certain demented logic to it, but in the long-term, possessing nuclear weaponry is all demention, no logic. I rue the day that a species as singularly destructive as ours acquired the power to end all life on this planet. As an incurable pessimist, I can't help thinking that one day we'll utilise this capability. If the ice-caps don't get us, the mushroom clouds will.
But in the meantime, I fail to see how having ten nuclear states, rather than nine, should create such a great crisis.
