EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
If You Lived in Iran, Wouldn't You Want the Nuclear Bomb?
The best way for the US to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons is to dial down the rhetoric and adopt some diplomacy
Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah. Sitting crosslegged on your Persian rug in Tehran, sipping a cup of chai, you glance up at the map of the Middle East on the wall. It is a disturbing image: your country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, is surrounded on all sides by virulent enemies and regional rivals, both nuclear and non-nuclear.
On your eastern border, the United States has 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. On your western border, the US has been occupying Iraq since 2003 and plans to retain a small force of military contractors and CIA operatives even after its official withdrawal next month. Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation, is to the south-east; Turkey, America's NATO ally, to the north-west; Turkmenistan, which has acted as a refueling base for US military transport planes since 2002, to the north-east. To the south, across the Persian Gulf, you see a cluster of US client states: Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet; Qatar, host to a forward headquarters of US Central Command; Saudi Arabia, whose king has exhorted America to "attack Iran" and "cut off the head of the snake".
Then, of course, less than a thousand miles to the west, there is Israel, your mortal enemy, in possession of over a hundred nuclear warheads and with a history of pre-emptive aggression against its opponents.
The map makes it clear: Iran is, literally, encircled by the United States and its allies.
If that wasn't worrying enough, your country seems to be under (covert) attack. Several nuclear scientists have been mysteriously assassinated and, late last year, a sophisticated computer virus succeeded in shutting down roughly a fifth of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. Only last weekend, the "pioneer" of the Islamic Republic's missile program, Major General Hassan Moghaddam, was killed – with 16 others – in a huge explosion at a Revolutionary Guards base 25 miles outside Tehran. You go online to discover western journalists reporting that the Mossad is believed to have been behind the blast.
And then you pause to remind yourself of the fundamental geopolitical lesson that you and your countrymen learned over the last decade: the US and its allies opted for war with non-nuclear Iraq, but diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea.
If you were our mullah in Tehran, wouldn't you want Iran to have the bomb – or at the very minimum, "nuclear latency" (that is, the capability and technology to quickly build a nuclear weapon if threatened with attack)?
Let's be clear: there is still no concrete evidence Iran is building a bomb. The latest report from the IAEA, despite its much discussed reference to "possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program", also admits that its inspectors continue "to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at [Iran's] nuclear facilities". The leaders of the Islamic Republic – from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to bombastic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – maintain their goal is only to develop a civilian nuclear program, not atomic bombs.
Nonetheless, wouldn't it be rational for Iran – geographically encircled, politically isolated, feeling threatened – to want its own arsenal of nukes, for defensive and deterrent purposes? The US government's Nuclear Posture Review admits such weapons play an "essential role in deterring potential adversaries" and maintaining "strategic stability" with other nuclear powers. In 2006, the UK's Ministry of Defense claimed our own strategic nuclear deterrent was designed to "deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means".
Apparently, what is sauce for the Anglo-American goose is not sauce for the Iranian gander. Empathy is in short supply. As leading US nuclear policy analyst George Perkovich has observed: "The US government never has publicly and objectively assessed Iranian leaders' motivations for seeking nuclear weapons and what the US and others could do to remove those motivations." Instead, the Islamic Republic is dismissed as irrational and megalomaniacal.
But it isn't just Iran's leaders who are unwilling to back down on the nuclear issue. On Tuesday, around 1,000 Iranian students formed a human chain around the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Their protest may have been organised by the authorities but even the leaders and members of the opposition Green Movement tend to support Iran's uranium enrichment program. According to a 2010 University of Maryland survey, 55% of Iranians back their country's pursuit of nuclear power and, remarkably, 38% support the building of a nuclear bomb.
So what is to be done? Sanctions haven't worked and won't work. Iranians refuse to compromise on what they believe to be their "inalienable" right to nuclear power under the Non-proliferation treaty. Military action, as the US defence secretary Leon Panetta admitted last week, could have "unintended consequences", including a backlash against "US forces in the region". The threat of attack will only harden the resolve for a nuclear deterrent; belligerence breeds belligerence.
The simple fact is there is no alternative to diplomacy, no matter how truculent or paranoid the leaders of Iran might seem to western eyes. If a nuclear-armed Iran is to be avoided, US politicians have to dial down their threatening rhetoric and tackle the very real and rational perception, on the streets of Tehran and Isfahan, of America and Israel as military threats to the Islamic Republic. Iranians are fearful, nervous, defensive – and, as the Middle East map shows, perhaps with good reason. As the old adage goes, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
59 Comments so far
Show AllThe principal lesson of NATO's invasion of Libya for leaders of other Third World nations probably is the need for nuclear weapons. Remember that Qaddafi gave up nuclear weapons as part of a deal with the U.S. Would he have been stabbed to death in a ditch if he had given up those weapons? Those interested in disarmament must insist that the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, etc., give theirs up, or those in small countries will never feel safe to give up theirs. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and the fall of Libya demonstrates the dangers of unilateral disarmament while NATA keeps their military superiority and shows that they will use it to dominate others.
loopless -- Did you mean if Qaddafi HAD NOT given up nuclear weapons?
"Those interested in disarmament must insist that the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, etc., give theirs up, or those in small countries will never feel safe to give up theirs." Well said.
Perhaps.
Then again, when you know that in order to build such a bomb you have to do things that other nations can detect, when you know that if anyone detected any such evidence your government would be giving the Israelis and the Americans the causus belli that they're looking for... Well, I'm not sure the argument for getting the bomb would do any good at this point.
I'd also mention that if they tried to buy a bomb, from Pakistan or whoever else, and were found out before they had an operational bomb in their control, they'd also be giving the I&A that causus belli.
In the end the USA and Israel will come up with another causus belli, Oil.
..
"Liberals" against war may be hypocrites because they vote for Democrats that support the war; but "liberals" are not hypocrites because they are not on the street as part of an antiwar movement. During the Bush II era, when there was an antiwar (Iraq) movement and millions were on the street protesting, the movement was, in part, strong because many (not all, by all means) in the Democratic Party were feigning to be anti-war and offered hope to the protesters. After the Democrats took power, they were exposed as providing rhetoric only as they expanded the war on "terror" in the world. Even Hillary stated that elections don't change foreign policy. Therefore, with both parties pro-war, having a singular movement just dedicated to anti-war is not realistic when we have so many issues, e.g., poverty, in our broken US political system. That's why effort is being made by many, including those supporting third parties, to break the duopolistic power of the two parties and attack the root of the problem. On this front, the OWS protests are very positive and something to build on.
As I already posted in another thread, Iran - and all other countries that sit on top of oil - need to get nukes, ASAP. That is the one guaranteed way of making sure the US/Israel cartel never invades them. The US is responsible for the spread of nuclear weapons across the globe, as they have demonstrated again and again that any country with exploitable natural resources that does not have nukes is fair game for the US War Machine, using any pretext that fits. Any country that DOES have nukes, however, we will leave alone and be very nice to - like all bullies, the US is actually a big coward, and only goes after the weakest and most defenseless of foes.
The lesson we have taught the rest of the world: get nukes. FAST.
Wow, excellent post, especially "like all bullies, the US is actually a big coward, and only goes after the weakest and most defenseless of foes". That is so true it makes me sick.
Great article highlighting the hypocricy of US and Israeli policy toward Iran. Damn right i'd want a few nukes if i were Iran.
I just read a book on the development of the Atomic Bomb during the cold war and some of the hair-raising schemes the US and Russia planned for delivery. We are very lucky that neither attacked with these because it would have simply destroyed the ecosystem. Think Fukushima and Hiroshima combined, multiplied a million or more times.
Its insanity to develop these things and think that nuclear exchanges can be limited. Its good that we have destroyed some of the last of the cold war era big ones but we still develop smaller nukes. Perhaps the US could set a better example by simply ending its nuclear weapons program entirely and getting rid of its stockpile. Perhaps all the other countries would see the wisdom (not to mention be envious of the economic benefits of no longer throwing money at this suicidal dead end) and follow a similar path. We better lead by example - not by threats and cruise missiles taking out wedding parties.
Excellent piece of writing.
Can you imagine such column appearing in the WaPo or NYT?
No, but it's really just basic logic!
I wouldn't want the bomb but I am not the Iranian people.
They do want the big one by popular demand and I heard not only that, but the majority of the Arab Middle East think if the west should have the Bomb why not Iran or others?
So remember it is the Mullas and the top religious who have been preaching for a non nuclear world where the meek shall get a break, at least once a week...
It is time for that Old time religion Folks, and I never thought i would ever think so.
The Evil Empire and NATO are forcing nukes on Iran. It has no choice, really. It isn't rocket surgery.
Can someone please tell me why, if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, it would pose a threat to our security (or Israel's for that matter)?
If they were actually to use it, it would mean the end to its existence as the response would be horrific not only for the region, but the entire planet.
Clearly this is about 'deterrence' for the Iranian regime, and 'oil' for the West.
______________________________________
Exactly! And besides, it distracts from the real problem, and that is that ANY country is allowed to have nukes, especially the country that's already used two of them!
You too are naive. See my earlier post.
It's about humiliation and domination, which everyone in the world understands, and O'Bomber and his savvy guys in Wall Street know that if they can't control everything, they will control nothing.
Old Peculiar: Good question. I see this as similar to the concerns about the nuclear capabilities of Pakistan and India. One could argue that for those countries, on a smaller scale, it's the same MAD doctrine that supposedly prevented war between the U.S and the U.S.S.R. after WW II.
The only real worry would be as with Pakistan or India -- could irrational factions in those countries, or Iran, take control of the bombs and do something irrational with them? Maybe I'm assuming too readily that irrational factions in the U.S., Britain, and China couldn't take control of the weapons there.
So really, the problem should be viewed from the broader international perspective. If the no-nukes policy of the U.S. and others toward Iran was accompanied by progress toward an international ban on nuclear weapons by all countries, including the U.S., the policy toward Iran would make more sense.
This author is naive. He believes we live in a world where nations are like people who have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. He's wrong. It's purely Might Makes Right. Once you realize that, you see just about every foreign policy decision the US and other superpowers have made makes perfect sense. The big question is, when will the not-mighty nations realize this, en masse, and adjust their tactics?
Ah, yes. George W. Bush's infamous Axis of Evil speech. Remember those heady days of American military exceptionalism in early 2002, with the smirking new sheriff in town announcing the future rules of engagement to the international community, while Congress and the mainstream media wildly cheered and applauded the Commander-in-Chief's bold vision?
First Iraq, then Iran, then North Korea.
That single sabre rattling speech is still the gift that keeps on giving, if the purpose was to encourage nuclear proliferation in a destabilized, mistrustful world. It remains George W's truly lasting legacy on the world stage, even more than Mission Accomplished.
Bill from Saginaw
We should stop pointing the finger at the figurehead , whether it's Rep. or Dem
It's still the ongoing game of Empire, doing what Empires do, expanding, and attacking anything that stands in the way of their lust for power.
If recent wars were exposed for the lies that led to them, fewer citizens would back these M.A.D. adventures.
This article does a good job of placing the reader in the shoes of an Iranian citizen, and an equally good job of depicting the menaces that surround the nation of Iran. The only item left out is that Iranians also know that the U.S., U.K and Israel will use false evidence in pursuit of a rationale for attack, if these mad minds decide upon that course of action. After all, that modus operandi was done unto Iraq, and thus far, no international body has been able to hold the bullies to account.
What's so unbelievably tragic about the drums beating for war against Iran is that the evidence for what current wars have wrought is abundantly clear in the form of lost lives, destroyed national infrastructure, and dangerous chemical legacies left behind. Who, what mad mind, would argue for more of this... given The Record?
For nations, primarily our own, to continue in this form of abject plunder, having already educated their populaces to history's examples of martial conquests and quagmires is the stuff of an arrogance so toxic, that it pratically begs for the fiery winds of karmic blowback to stop it in its tracks.
A more insane and stupid waste of human resources and potential would be difficult to imagine. And they call this Defense, and fund it while bleeding citizens of the very resources that would instead nourish and support their own lives. Until the pain hits home strongly enough, too many will confuse a mutual suicide pact with what passes for a sound foreign policy.
Wonderful post. I feel every bit of the frustration that drips from your writing.
The world will not know peace until the greatest purveyor of war on the Planet, The United States of America , goes bankrupt and breaks up into smaller states.
..
Just in case you've never read it, Kurt Vonngut's "Slapstick" is set in a future "post-apocalyptic" world in which Amerika has indeed disintegrated into individual states and territories.
The book may be a little too off-the-wall for non-fans, but I recommend it as a slapsticky treat.
The imperial bullies don't give a damn whether Iran has or hasn't any nukes. The big problem is that Iran has both oil and a government that doesn't take orders from Washington. This makes it harder to surround China and control its access to the oil.
The Iranians would be nuts not to want nuclear weapons as a defense against the real threat of the dynamic terrorist twins of Israel and the United States who would have no compunction whatsoever to slaughter them by the hundreds of thouaands in order to maintain their control of the world.
The first ape picked up a piece of wood and hit another ape with it and he ruled the cave. then the rest of the apes picked up a piece of wood and self defense was born. Then the first ape sharpened a stone and once again he ruled the cave, and then the rest of the apes learned how to sharpen a stone.
And so it went generation after generation of Ape and Human progress, until here we are, ready, able, and willing to destroy the entire planets ability to sustain life of any kind.
I blame that freaking monolith.
"Thus spake Zarathustra" my ass!
The article says that Israel is Iran's mortal enemy. It doesn't say why. If you look at the map they don't share a border. Tiny Israel can't be doing anything to Iran.
"The article says that Israel is Iran's mortal enemy. It doesn't say why."
Go ask Bibi.
"If you look at the map they don't share a border."
Tell that to Bibi.
Poor "Tiny Israel" is big enough to have hundreds of advanced nuclear weapons and delivery systems, plus they're insane enough to use them.
The point of Iran being encircled and threatened by nuclear armed powers, where "all options are on the table", is such an easy case of the bloody obvious. As is the logic that the same powers want Iran disarmed so they can do what they would like with her. What they would like, slaver over and dream of every night, is what was done to Iraq, which is wholesale resource rape, mainly for oil, and infrastructure devestation for the rest of it. Add the sunni shiite muslime divide, which accounts for the reasons that Islam, supposedly the religion of peace, has millions of adherents ready to spring at their heretics throats. Only they are also power groups wishing to acquire the resources of another. Add Israel, the poisonous nation of the yet another legally defined one true religion and culture, which cannot recognize the possession of any other sort of belief as legal human beings.
Add to the mix the ingredients of growing populations, encouraged by each religion and culture, global warming, increasing pressure on food and water resources, and the chances of more devestating conflicts in the region, for the near future, are a geniune one hundred percent. Possession of a few nuclear weapons and delivery rockets, will only highlight the fact that every member of this human race has a knife at everyone elses throat. Nuclear weapons only underline this, by threatening massive retaliation.
With or without nuclear ownership, the threats are already real and intensifying. Yet any conflict will not solve, and will probably worsen the underlying problems, nor benefit the aggressors long term. Without non-violent concentration and significant recognition and treatment of the underlying causes, there is no hope. With the limited attention span, understanding and communication abilities, and extremes of emotional volitility and competition of average human beings, their is no hope. The only hope comes from simultaneous revolution and overthrow of all aggressor governments at the same time.
"If You Lived in Iran, Wouldn't You Want the Nuclear Bomb?"
No I wouldn't, and nothing anyone else did could convince me otherwise
Well, if *I* lived in Iran, I suppose I'd most prefer that nuke-armed countries gave up their nukes. But seeing as that just ain't gonna happen . . .
You can see how the Israelis are made afraid using a bogus long media hyped imaginary "existential" threat. Well, if you live in Iran, the threats are not imaginary. The threats are very real. It happened to their neighbor. All on a pack of lies.
Easy to say, being a member of the Empire. Imagine watching as the US bombed the fuck out of your country for a few years, your neighbors/family/friends die again and again, your country get torn to hell and back by the mighty US, all because your government doesn't have nukes.
FACT: countries with nuclear weapons are not attacked by the U.S.
FACT: countries with large reserves of oil that do not have nuclear weapons DO get attacked by the U.S., unless their ruler is a horrific dictator who agrees to be the U.S.'s puppet.
Hmm...get attacked and invaded by the U.S., or live under the rule of a dictator......decisions, decisions.
Gerald Ford, Little Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld all wanted Iran to have a complete cycle nuclear program including plutonium processing. (What can you use plutonium for besides a bomb? ) Of course this was when Iran was ruled by a brutal dictator. The Iranian people revolted and overthrew the dictator and elected their leaders. Now that Iran has a democratically elected government they can't have ANY nuclear program?
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?iran_general_topic_areas=us_force_against_iran_nuclear&timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_iran
You would think Iran could just buy a nuke or two on the black market
Wouldn't surprise me if they already have done so.
Ahhhh! Poor Israel!
Um, no. I'd rather be left open to nuclear attack without recourse, of course.
Not!
What is it with these stupid titles, anyway? Does CD think we're idiots? (That's a rhetorical question.)
The question of a nuclear arsenal for Iran is irrelevant until the Iranians have successfully tested an implosion device delivered by their Shahab 3 missile. That's years away - so there is plenty of time for diplomacy. The noise from Israel is just that; so just wait until we all find out Israel's real reason for making it. They ain't gonna bomb Iran, that's for sure.
Equally, there is no doubt that Iran wants to have the capability to develop a bomb quickly should it be deemed necessary. No harm in that. When it gets to that point, everybody concerned can then start to negotiate seriously.
Either Nukes are a bad thing or they are a good thing. As they wreck damage not to be undone for many thousands of years on a given patch of dirt, I'm thinking that they are a bad thing. Bad enough to overshadow the political differences and machinations of such frail creatures as ourselves who depend on this little bubble of green and blue floating in space for our sustenance.
Death to the U.S. and Israel? I live in the U.S. and frankly have noticed that the Jewish people have enough problems without yet another group wanting to annihilate them.
The entire population of North Korea is hostage to their leader's whims, they are starving and living in terror. Entire families end up in "re-education" camps. Do you really want to become North Korea?
The entire population of the US is hostage to the whims of their leaders as well.
Do i want to end up as North Korea? About as much as I dont want to end up as America.... or be that closely associated with them. There has been enough of that. I'd be most pleased if you'd take your marines and get the hell out of my country, thanks! (you could take my prime minister with you as she appears not to know whom she is supposed to represent!)
.
Behind the smokescreen of Iran, OWS, the Penn State scandal, and the GOP debates the Obama administration is stealthily expanding its military interventions and presence in the world: Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Australia. Now Kenya has asked Mr. Obama for military assistance to invade Somalia. Not a peep from the MIC, not a peep from Congress, and not a peep from CD which is asleep again. Only Iran resonates: bomb, bomb, bomb Tehran again.
Crowsnest,
You missed one. SE Asia, remember Vietnam? He's there now with Hillary stirring up shit, and the musical chairs continue
Thanks! And there may be places that you and I have both missed because they are top secret.