I want to take a break today from the Letter and talk about a nuclear Iran. I have noticed that in recent discussions about Iran, there is something that almost nobody talks about: the acceptance of a nuclear Iran. Right now it seems that nobody is talking about whether or not we should let Iran have nuclear weapons capability, they just seem to skip to what to do to prevent it, and that is where the opinions divide.
Why? Nobody had this conversation about us during the Manhattan project, besides, like Iran is doing now, we would have ignored them anyway. Developing nuclear weapons for us was a matter of national security, a super weapon to be used against the Germans during WWII once it was deployable. Fortunately for the Germans, we beat them before it was ready (I guess that’s what the Japanese get for being persistent?). So, before we talk about how to stop this evil empire, please, let’s talk about why a nuclear Iran is seen to be such a terrible potential threat. There are three main problems that people present with a nuclear-armed Iran, first, that Iran is dangerous and will use them, two, that Iran is dangerous and will sell them, and three, that Israel will attack with a nuclear strike against Iran to prevent them from having nukes, and start a nuclear holocaust.
The biggest and most important point to remember about nuclear weapons is that nobody ever ever ever ever wants to actually use a nuclear weapon. In order to better explain this discussion, let’s use a simple analogy. Imagine yourself living in a really terrible neighborhood, where all your neighbors are dirty, thieving killers, and all are armed with only knives. The neighborhood is so bad that even the cops won’t go down there for a 911 call; the cold reality is that you are alone. You have to fend for yourself or you’re toast. So, one day, your neighbors all get a revolver, with a few bullets. What do you do? Most likely, you’ll get one yourself, because if you don’t, then the advantage for any conflict instantly goes to anyone with a handgun, which includes your evil neighbors. Once you have one, you’ll have an advantage against neighbors without guns, but not against those with guns, so you’ll probably not go out looking for a fight, because all you have done is leveled the playing field. We all know that gunfights are infinitely more dangerous than knife fights, and since you are back to square one (and only have a few bullets), it would be a bad idea to look for trouble.
Now, let’s say that before you have a gun, while you are in the process of making one in your basement, your homeless friend comes to you and asks for your gun once its ready, so he can fight someone that he dislikes. Chances are, you will not give him your gun, because you know that it’s that only way that you can keep your neighbors out of your house. If everyone knows you have a gun, then nobody wants to risk dying for your junky possessions, and you will deter any attack on your house. Once that gun goes away, then its open season on you.
The analogy might have its flaws, but it does well enough to see why nuclear weapons have an inherent stabilizing factor: they ensure security. To make the analogy a bit more accurate, imagine that each bullet will detonate like Rambo’s exploding arrowheads from First Blood II. One shot, and you blow up like fifty gallons of diesel fuel. If you are hit, it will destroy you, but not before you can shoot them, and destroy them too. This is the principle behind MAD (mutual assured destruction). This is why Iran wants a nuke, but will never use it. If they feel pressure from a security concern, it is because they feel threatened by the US and Israel. We have invaded two of their neighbors, and have overthrown their regime once already. Of course they feel threatened, they should! But once they have a nuke, to use it would mean absolute and merciless retaliation. Nobody wants to die, especially not powerful leaders of countries. They want power, not mushroom clouds over their cities. This is the same reason why Israel will not use them against Iran. If you think about it, Israel’s bombing run against Iran only has to miss one tiny little warhead in some secret place, and Tel Aviv will go up in smoke. That’s a big gamble. Moreover, like you and the homeless guy, Iran will never give these keys of their national security to terrorists, for the same reasons. Not only do you lose your only real defensive power when you give a nuke away, you guarantee that whomever it is used against will come after you.
The stark reality is that Iran having nukes will not hurt us as long as we have a nuclear arsenal (which we always will). It does not hurt Israel or anyone else. It will force Iran to be a far more responsible state, because fighting with anyone with nukes is just a bad idea in general. India and Pakistan have been far more reluctant to fight one they both had nukes, and the one fight they had toned down before nuclear escalation occurred, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. We should let Iran do its thing, get its nukes, for rest assured, they won’t be able to afford to cause any trouble.
Your analogy about guns makes no sense when trying to prove that Iran will not give/sell nuclear weapons to "crazies". Given recent personal expirence I am baffeled that you even tried to make that point with that analogy. Iran sponsors both Hezbollah and Hamas but its armed forces do not directly engage the armed forces of Israel. Why? The IDF would cream the Iranian military. So Iran funds a non-state actor to attack Israel without risking Israeli reprisals. Do you see the potentail problem? Iran already sends conventional weapons to terrorists to use against Israel, why not nuclear ones?
ReplyDeleteYou try to prove your point by talking about the MAD balence as a stabilizing factor, and that MAD will be the result of a nuclear Iran. Unfortunatly, you won't get MAD, (for a couple of reasons) just madness with mushroom clouds.
PS. What Iranian regime did we overthrow? I must have slept through history class....
ReplyDeleteWe have had this discussion before Pat, and I think you make good sence. My only reservation on this logic, is that as sensible as these concepts are, I don't know if I am willing to bet my security on this reasoning being true.
ReplyDeleteBarbarian-
ReplyDeleteThis was something that I wanted to include in the post, but the length prevented me from adding it. The main point here is twofold. One, nuclear weapons are extremely expensive in terms of massive amount of capital needed to develop them. You must have a descent national infrastructure, lost of manpower, brainpower, and development in secret requires a really good national security. After spending so much to get a tiny little nuke, who’s going to just give it away? Iran doesn’t need money, it needs security, which is the same reason we made a bomb, too.
The second point to remember is that the IEAA has set up isotope tracking that allows all uranium made to be able to be tracked back to its manufacturing location. If illegal uranium is found and we can’t ID it, then we we’ll probably be able to guess who made it. Which comes back to my analogy. You would never let the one gun you have (your nuclear capacity) to a crazy homeless friend (Hamas) to go and kill a cop (the US), because then can trace the gun back to you.
After 9/11, Al-Qaeda didn’t have a country to invade, so we invaded those who helped fund and train them. We pummeled the help out of the Taliban. So you can bet if a nuke was used against us, the minute we found out who it was from, a nuclear retaliation would obliterate them, and whatever would be left standing (i.e. oil fields), we would invade. Retaliation is a must; otherwise we open ourselves to future attacks.
Leaders want power, especially powerful ones, and they will always act in their interest. You don’t come to power in Iran by being good-looking, you must be very, very clever; one mistake and you could disappear in a prison somewhere, or buried in the desert. Even Saddam, who we joked about being crazy, acted very much in his interest (before he called a bluff on GW; big mistake, but still very rational). He threatened to use chemical gas on our soldiers in Kuwait, and we made it very clear: you use WMD’s on us, we use WMD’s on you; P.S. we have a hell of a lot more WMD’s than you so we dare you to use them. We were just looking for an excuse to take his regime out, and that would have done nicely. He knew this and sought to protect his own power, and so will Iran.
P.S. - Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was legitimately elected Prime Minister in Iran in 1951, but because he nationalized the British-held oil manufacturing in his country, the Brits got the CIA to depose him and reinstate the corrupt Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Operation Ajax ultimately led to the Islamic revolution in Iran and our current predicament, in other words, our own spit has come back to hit us in the face.
Basically, you trust the Irainian theocracy a HECK of a lot more than I do to act rationally. The way they talk about their dedication to the destruction of the State of Israel and their support of anti-Israeli terrorists, historic and current, does not ease concerns.
ReplyDeleteSaddam, though a total bastard, was a secular dictator who pragmatically sought to increase his power. I would classify him as much more stable than Iran. How is it reasonable to go on talking about how you are going to level Israeli cities "in a flash" when the world is highly questioning your claims to be only pursuing peaceful nuclear power?
Part of the official Israeli defense policy to takeout the entire Middle East if they get hit with a catastrophic attack-that MAD factor you talk about. (see Sampson Option)
Weigh the impacts of stopping Iran vs. the reasonable possibility of the whole Middle East being reduced to a radioactive parking lot.
P.S. Mossadegh kicked the Shah out and we supported the Shah when he retook power. I am not an Iranian constitutional legal expert but if its like most other king/parliment based governments the Head of State has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. I think technically we supported a counter-coup. Seeing as the US took zero military action in the incident I find the use of the term "overthrew" grossly slanted at best.
As to the analogy, Iran would probably make more than one bomb, just as most gun owners have more than one gun. Now, a gun owner with many guns might at some point be moved to gift an extra one to a kindred spirit (see crazy friend) who would use it for a cause they also believe in. (like protecting their friends/family) Now to the well "endowed" gun owner this is no biggy because they still have more than enough firepower to disuade any attacker.
ReplyDeleteWould you say our benevolent gun owner is an idiot for giving away part of his arsenel to a crazy friend?
I am interested in your thoughts on this point.
I believe that you are confusing chest beating rhetoric with actual foreign policy. Everyone talks tough, especially to their own people when talking against perceived enemies. The reality is you are safer betting that the Ayatollah will not elect to destroy himself, then meddling in his country’s affairs again. The CIA covert action in Iran could certainly be called an overthrow, since the CIA had General Fazlollah Zahedi of the Iranian Army arrest the rightfully elected Prime Minister, and sentenced him to death (though later he was only imprisoned until he died).
ReplyDeleteThe result of this catastrophic action was initially perceived as a great success, until the radical Islamic fundamentalist had a revolution, and declared their undying hatred for the US. It is a pretty safe bet that, had we not executed a coup’ d’état, Iran would probably still be a democratic nation, and it would not be developing nukes right now, because they would have no reason to fear invasion from the US. It is the fear of what we will do to them that inspires them to rock the boat.
In all, you have to look at international politics as a game where the loser dies, and no one is there to help protect you; you are on your own. If you were in such a position, you would never give any gun away, because your net security would decrease. Like guns, to a threatened state, you can never have too many nukes.
The main point to consider, Barbarian, is that in any attempt to predict a nation’s behavior, your best bet will be to predict a rational attempt at self-preservation. Yes, one country is Jewish, and the other one is Muslim, but they want to survive, and they will do what it takes, which, far more often than not, only means being prepared in case of invasion. War is far too risky and costly, especially nuclear war, to commit to without weighing those massive costs (like the destruction of you and your people) against any trivial benefits (like no more Jews). If you're dead, then who cares? Nations might make suicidal defensive stands when they are attacked, but they never start a war unless they are damned sure they can win and they'll get something out of it (often they are wrong, but that is beside the point). In a nuclear war where both sides have first and second strike capabilities, there is no winner, and everybody, even Iran and Israel, knows it.
I agree with you and the Barbarian. I think for the most part, principles of MAD will assure that Iran does not use its nuclear weapons (note the plural). However, I think you are underestimating the power of radical Islam in Iran. Jews are wrong, Christians are wrong, secularists are wrong, even moderate Muslims are wrong, and it is right and glorious to rid the world of these wrongdoers. This is a point of view that could very well lead to handing a gun to your crazy neighbor. Your contention that leaders are rational and practice self-preservation and preservation of power is correct to a point, but I think radical Islam might tip the balance to where the leaders of Iran feel the possible ramifications are worth it. Besides, let's be honest here, leaders often find a way to self-preserve while their populace pays the price. We already have ample evidence that Iran cares not a whit about what its populace actually wants. Why should we believe that continuity of the state is something they care deeply about? It is easier to rationalize destruction of one's country when one truly believes that all those who die become righteous martyrs.
ReplyDelete