In a NYT op-ed today, Barry Posen, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argues that
An Iranian nuclear arsenal, policymakers fear, could touch off a regional arms race while emboldening Tehran to undertake aggressive, even reckless, actions.
But these outcomes are not inevitable, nor are they beyond the capacity of the United States and its allies to defuse. Indeed, while it’s seldom a positive thing when a new nuclear power emerges, there is reason to believe that we could readily manage a nuclear Iran.
A Middle Eastern arms race is a frightening thought, but it is improbable. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, among its neighbors, only Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey could conceivably muster the resources to follow suit.
Israel is already a nuclear power. Iranian weapons might coax the Israelis to go public with their arsenal and to draw up plans for the use of such weapons in the event of an Iranian military threat. And if Israel disclosed its nuclear status, Egypt might find it diplomatically difficult to forswear acquiring nuclear weapons, too. But Cairo depends on foreign assistance, which would make Egypt vulnerable to the enormous international pressure it would most likely face to refrain from joining an arms race.
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has the money to acquire nuclear weapons and technology on the black market, but possible suppliers are few and very closely watched. To develop the domestic scientific, engineering and industrial base necessary to build a self-sustaining nuclear program would take Saudi Arabia years. In the interim, the Saudis would need nuclear security guarantees from the United States or Europe, which would in turn apply intense pressure on Riyadh not to develop its own arms.
Finally, Turkey may have the resources to build a nuclear weapon, but as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it relied on American nuclear guarantees against the mighty Soviet Union throughout the cold war. There’s no obvious reason to presume that American guarantees would seem insufficient relative to Iran.
So it seems that while Iranian nuclear weapons might cause considerable disquiet among Iran’s neighbors, the United States and other interested parties have many cards to play to limit regional proliferation. But what about the notion that such weapons will facilitate Iranian aggression?
Iranian nuclear weapons could be put to three dangerous purposes: Iran could give them to terrorists; it could use them to blackmail other states; or it could engage in other kinds of aggressive behavior on the assumption that no one, not even the United States, would accept the risk of trying to invade a nuclear state or to destroy it from the air. The first two threats are improbable and the third is manageable.
Would Iran give nuclear weapons to terrorists? We know that Tehran has given other kinds of weapons to terrorists and aligned itself with terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah in Lebanon. But to threaten, much less carry out, a nuclear attack on a nuclear power is to become a nuclear target.
Anyone who attacks the United States with nuclear weapons will be attacked with many, many more nuclear weapons. Israel almost certainly has the same policy. If a terrorist group used one of Iran’s nuclear weapons, Iran would have to worry that the victim would discover the weapon’s origin and visit a terrible revenge on Iran. No country is likely to turn the means to its own annihilation over to an uncontrolled entity.
Posen’s entire essay is predicated on the idea that Iran is run by rational actors—and fails, likewise, to take into account the international pressure not to retaliate in kind should Iran take aggressive action.
Once again, this is an example of an intellectual refusing to take at their word the threats of his enemies. Could the world live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Well, the answer is, it might well have no choice, provided something isn’t done to curtain such a scenario.
But to suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran is less likely to use aggression—while always holding the nuclear card—is, it seems to me, quite optimistic. That, and it flies in the face of what Iran has said it wishes to do with nuclear weapons once it manages to gather them.
Most of the people of Iran don’t fall in lockstep with the mullacracy running the country; but that mullacracy—and the religious fervor of its current President—make Iran uniquely likely to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, which they will regard as doing God’s work.
But who knows. Perhaps beneath the theocratic bluster beats the pragmatic heart of global statesmen. The question is, are we willing to find that out?
(h/t Allah)
****
Related: “U.N.: Iran To Expand Uranium Program”:
Iran plans to start setting up thousands of uranium enriching centrifuges this year even as it negotiates with Russia on scrapping such domestic activity, a possible pathway to nuclear arms, the U.N. atomic watchdog said Monday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a confidential report made available to The Associated Press, also suggested that unless Iran drastically increased its cooperation with an IAEA probe, the agency would not be able to establish whether past clandestine activities were focused on making nuclear arms.
“The report, leaked a week early, is setting the scene for a bleak showdown at the Security Council,” says CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk, “because the evidence is not coming from the U.S. but from Mohamed ElBaradei, the nuclear watchdog agency’s chief, and because Iran has shown only defiance of its agreements to suspend the nuclear programs.”
The report, prepared by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei for a March 6 meeting of the agency’s 35-nation board of governors, could help determine what action the U.N. Security Council will take against Iran.
What will we do when the new Iraqi government wants nukes?
A nuclear armed Iran means that conventional military pressure on Iran becomes useless, unless we are willing to see a nuclear attack somewhere within whatever delivery range Iran develops.
Having said that, I’m less worried about this than some. Iran is at least somewhat democratic, and the democratizing forces are going to force moderation; you can’t keep revolutionary fervor whipped up forever, and people are going to be less than thrilled with a government that bans Kenny G rather than improving the lot of its own citizens.
Naturally, we worry about Iran making a nuclear attack on Israel, but I wonder how realistic a threat that is; Israel is a tiny country, and the people Iran purportedly wants to help live immediately adjacent to Israel. How does it help the Palestinians to have Israel destroyed if the Palestinians are covered with fallout and the land they desire is an uninhabitable, radioactive ruin?
Of the things I have faith in, Iran not waiting even a week to nuke Israel once they acquire the weapons is at or near the top of the list.
Our honored host wrote:
The answer to your question is: what are we willing to do about it if we are not?
The Israeli air strike on Iraq’s nuclear program worked because Saddam Hussein had put all of his eggs in one basket; the Iranisns learned, quickly, not to do that, and to harden what they did have against conventional strikes.
If Iran is simply unwilling to bargain, our options become pretty limited: to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, the way that they are hardened, would require either an invasion (for which we are simply not prepared) or nuclear strikes against Iran’s facilities. Who here thinks that President Bush really wants to order fourteen nuclear strikes against Iran?
Actus,
What will we do when the new Iraq government wants nukes?
Can’t say for sure, but if your dearest dream comes true and a clone (or wife) of Bill Clinton is in office, well then, by gum we’ll just give ‘em to them.
This is my stop on the int’l relations think-y train, and my stop is called “Be Thankful the Israelis Have an Airforce and Know When to Blow Stuff Up” station.
That’s how they used to name stuff; I admit it’s a mouthful.
President Bush may not want to, but I SURE DO.
Turing word, “reason” as in “I just look for any reason to fire off over a dozen nukes.”
Hey, push comes to shove, we could live under the Shar’ia, too.
Doesn’t mean we want to. I’m just sayin’—shar’ia is an option. Just because it’s not what we’re used to doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
While I realize that it’s possible that Iran will act rationally once they get nukes, The Hermit’s observation is dead on: we have to take them at their word when they say they will destroy Israel. When it happens, everyone who pointed this out should bitch-slap the fools saying that they never saw it coming. You have been warned in no uncertain terms (by the very people who intend to do it) what is about to happen.
Yeah, the most aggressively anti-American country in the region whose leaders have repeatedly mentioned they would be willing to absorb a retaliatory strike for wiping out Israel is about to get nukes. Not a big problem!
How about this: If Iran gets nukes, the US may be able to manage them because the Iranians may not be completely batshit insane. Hopefully. Where’s my op-ed space in the NYT?
Could an unintended consequence be that, once the Mullacracy has nukes, the young, pro-democracy Iranians we keep hearing so much about, fearing nuclear retaliation from any number of sources, finally and openly revolt against the Mullahs?
Once again, however, the question is “are those dice we’re willing to roll?” If I’m an Israeli, then no fucking way. I might be a bit more open to the suggestion being an American living approximately half a planet away. I personally am not one of those people, but remember there are people like John Kerry in the U.S. Senate.
Turing word: As already mentioned, no fucking way.
I do believe sir, your title is an oxymoron.
And Iran is willing to see a nuclear, or other, devastation visited upon it. I don’t think that’s a safe assumption to make.
Sounds good. I mean, we wouldn’t let an unfriendly regime be installed in Iraq.
Since we take them on their word about other aspects of their nuclear program.
Damn hippies.
Actus,
What will we do when the new Iraq government wants nukes?
I don’t know, say let’s ram a rubber fist up your ass to find out. Ok?
I like TODD’s idea.
Good grief, actus, there’s no way you can imagine that Iran might simultaneously lie about one thing (the details regarding the current state and intenetions re. their nuclear program) and be forthright about something else (desire to wipe Israel off the map)? We can’t selectively believe what the Iranian government says?
If GWB tells the truth once, does it mean he’s ALWAYS truthful? If John F. Kerry or Al Gore lie once, are they always liars? Wait, don’t answer that. We all pretty much know the answer.
Actus you can even call Todd to borrow his.
I suppose they could say “We’re not planning on using the nukes we get.” But they might be winking while they say it.
Actus,
you will have to wait, Lou borrowed it for his Brokeback party….
Don’t feed the trolls.
OK, we don’t have to take them at their word because they’ve been <sarcasm>so forthcoming in the past</sarcasm>, which I believe was your point. My point is we DO have to take them at their word when the consequences are, well, significant to the very lives of millions of people.
Tell you what, actus, try this hypothetical: you have a kid and, when said kid threatens to “take your motherufucking gun and shoot in the head with it when you’re asleep”, go ahead and do nothing. After all, he was lying when he said he didn’t take that twenty from your wallet. Damn liar.
What I’m saying is I’m going to act the same about the gun even if the kid says “I would never do anything wrong with your gun.”
Would Iran give nuclear weapons to terrorists?
And this guy teaches at MIT? ….not the sharpest tool in the shed…
Ok Actus I’ll play your retarded game. When Iraq says they want nukes we say no. Hell, no. That of course assumes that the situation there is similar to what it is now. In the future it is possible that things may change to the point that it would be tenable for Iraq to have nukes (isn’t that what this whole thing is about? Turning Iraq into a pluralistic, liberal democracy? One that could be trusted with nuclear weapons). Especially if Iran is sitting next door armed with nukes.
No, there is no hard and fast rule about when to believe and not believe Iran (or anyone else for that matter). However, when an avowed enemy indicates a desire to destroy a close ally (and yourself for that matter) it makes sense to take them at their word even though it is possible that it is bluster. On the other hand when they are discussing state secrets that it would behoove them to keep secret it makes sense to assume they are probably lying. Especially when you find proof that they are lying and the consequences for revealing the possible secret could be severe.
Now you answer my question please, what is your fucking point?
Anyone who doesn’t believe that Iran wants Israel destroyed has forgotten the word Hezbullah, or else just doesn’t understand the connection.
There is no choice BUT to belive them on this.
So what are you going to do about the gun? I don’t see that answer anywhere. If you’re really for making sure Iran doesn’t get nukes, why didn’t you just SAY so, instead of engaging in all of the Iran/Iraq sleight-of-hand?
TW: You were just being obtuse, I guess.
In that case the kid would be lying twice (stole the twenty, isn’t going to do anything wrong with the gun), which totally misses the point of the hypothetical and takes the focus away from your earlier retarded statement being referenced above. Also it doesn’t make any sense in the context of Iran and what we are discussing. Please clarify.
Well, we can wait and see if Alamoonbat really means what he says, while the forces of democratization gather in Iran. For some reason, probably because the forces of fanaticism have all the guns, it has been a long wait.
I wouldn’t bet my life that the people who hijacked our embassy, and supported the forces that have attacked us dozens of times in the past few decades were “just kidding” about the 12th Mahdi or whatever.
There is not much future in in ignoring credible threats from people with the means and motive to carry them out. I say take them out, first, and lose not a nights sleep over it. Because the alternative is ugly indeed.
The police don’t wait until an armed lunatic proves his threat is credible. Same principle, larger scale.
Here’s a little something to help Actus:
1. Iran says it’s not seeking nuclear weapons.
A) We believe they’re lying when they’re not: Iran doesn’t get nukes
B) We believe they’re lying when they are: Iran doesn’t get nukes.
C) We believe they’re telling the truth when they’re not: Iran gets nukes.
D) We believe they’re telling the truth when they are: Iran doesn’t get nukes.
2. Iran says they want to wipe Israel off the map.
A) We believe they’re lying when they’re not: Israel gets wiped off the map.
B) We believe they’re lying when they are: Israel is prevented from getting wiped off the map
C) We believe they’re telling the truth when they’re not: Israel is prevented from getting wiped off the map
D) We believe they’re telling the truth when they are: Israel doesn’t get wiped off the map.
I believe the implications of this are pretty clear, but just to be explicit, the course of action Actus seems to be recommending provides in both cases at least a 50/50 chance of a grossly undesireable outcome, whereas the alternative doesn’t.
TW: And what evidence can be presented that these people can be trusted, anyway? Why do these people suddenly become credible when they’re looking down the barrel of American artillery?
Actus,
If the military had seen the planes heading straight for the WTC and had been told by AQ before hand that they were going to crash into them.
Should they have shot the planes down?
For those just tuning in, actus has once again, when confronted with a question about Iran, has answered with a question about Iraq. You’re an idiot, actus. QED.
Just for the fun of it, substitute “Nazi Germany” for all the references to Iran in Posen’s article. That trick clears the head nicely.
I’d be less worried about an overt move by Iran than one with deniability. The author of the first editorial, in assuming Iran supplying nukes to terrorists is too risky, is forgetting the very low estimate the world holds of our intelligence abilities right now, and our own doubts about our intelligence reports. Would we confidently trace the nukes back to Iran- confidently enough to basically wipe it off the map? Would we even be willing to retalitate against Iran with such a sledgehammer, or would they bet on the same failure of nerve Al Qaida is betting on now? (Or perhaps that isn’t the best way to put concern for all the collateral damage, especially to the “good guys,” the democracy movement held hostage by the mad mullahs and certainly given no voice in their nuclear plans?) Iran has shown itself willing to gamble recklessly, and I am pretty sure they would take all this into account when deciding whether getting rich off of giving weapons to enemies of the Great Satan is such a bad idea.
In short, DUH a nuclear Iran is a bad thing!
Another thread spiraling down, in this case, meaninglessly between any two of Farmer Joe’s options. But don’t worry, it won’t detonate.
It’s a fucking dud.
It’s just mendacity, folks, and it’s by design (but heaven help the sorry fool pointing this out, as I found out only too too well yesterday in the thread that would not die. Even the word freaks out some thin-skinned types. Anyway, Protein Wisdom now has private moderators named upyernoz and stacy who bristle when you call fools fools.
So let’s keep it civil folks, even when nuclear winter threatens, oh, a fifth of the globe or something. Like all leftists, actus is entitled to thread-shit, mindnumbing as s/he habitually is.)
New rules for Jeff’s place. Listen up, Jeff:
-Fools are to be abided;
-Calling bullshit is a one-way street;
-Mincing “nuance” is legitimate, even sacred, at least on the Left;
-Ditto goalpost-moving and condition-setting;
-You only mean what you say if you’re conservative, and;
-Absolutely no name-calling.
It’s not civil when you do stuff like that, see? Psychopaths must have their apologists and by God, we’d better like it.
tw: Running reason right into the ground.
My earlier statement is meant to point that we should not just go by statements, but other indicators of intention and power. I get the point of your hypo, and am using it so that you can get mine. Bombastic tatements are made for many reasons. We know that the harliners gain power by looking tough on Israel. We know that Iran loses power by saying it will be kind towards Israel. We also know they lose power if they’re wiped out.
The original post mentioned Iraq. A mistake which was corrected. It did bring into my mind the thought of when will Iraq be allowed to get nukes.
In some sense, that could be the ultimate indicator of our success there: that we trust them with nukes.
But being trusted with nukes is not related in any way with having them or even being ‘allowed’ to have them.
Japan is non-nuclear. So is Canada. Germany, too. Oh, and Italy.
Have we been unsuccessful in Japan and Germany? Is Canada not to be trusted?
There is no “ultimate indicator” to be found there, actus.
Oh. I’d say being trusted with them is related to being allowed to have them. Its not the end of the question. But certainly related.
I’m saying your idea that allowing Iraq to have nukes as some sort of ultimate indicator is pish-posh, actus.
There are 7 declared nuclear armed states, 1 of which we barely trust (Pakistan). India and Pakistan are both excellent example of countries allowed to have nukes only in the sense that nobody bombed their facilities after they found out about them.
South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and Taiwan are all formerly nuclear-armed (or pursing) states that could all be trusted but were dissuaded from keeping nukes.
And as I said, Japan and Germany do not have nukes, would not be encouraged to pursue nukes and yet are very trusted nations. I would say the US was quite successful in rebuilding them, and if Iraq gets to the point of either of those nations it will be a much better indicator of success than your crazy Iraq-nuke-success theory.
Its not a necessary condition. But it is a sufficient one.
Actus:
I believe that particular question has been moved back quite a few years thanks to a certain action taken recently. You might have heard about it in the news.
You really stuck the landing on that bit of verbal gymnastics, actus.
Actus –
I’m assuming that Iraq would fall under the protection of the same nuclear umbrella we currently provide to the Turks. And that would certainly be the easiest and cheapest option for the Iraqis. They obviously know we are on their side vs. Iran.
An interesting thought experiment would be to ask whether Saddam would currently be seeking nukes to counter Iran had we dropped sanctions and no-fly zones (which I think would have happened by this time, I couldn’t see that going on for 15 years). Something like that might have been available via Pak, NK, Libya, or the same place in former soviet states that everyone assumes AQ could buy them from.
I’m pretty sure Iran would be at nearly the same point nuke-wise whether or not we had gone next door.
What will we do when actus demonstrates a shred of intelligence?
call it an accident? or one of those broken watch things…..
Of course Posen thinks we can live with a nuclear Iran.
It ain’t like Boston is target one…
actus is a genius. All this agony is just a brilliant soft launch for to his very own blog. Jeff never saw it coming…and it was free!
actus a collectivist? My ass; the boy’s a guerilla capitalist.
This argument is extremely weak. One could replace the name “Saudi Arabia” with “Iran” and it could be a replay of what we were reading just a few years ago about why Iran wouldn’t go nuclear.
Except of course Iran wouldn’t seek a nuclear guarantee from the US, but Russia and China are always available.
The argument against Egypt going nuclear could easily apply to N Korea, which subsists almost entirely on foreign assistance. Yet Kim Jong Il has the nerve to use nukes as a blackmail to get more assistance from the US.
It’s as if history has never shown that irrational countries sometimes act irrationally, just because they want the nukes.
Next up, Barry Posen explains why its safe to assume teenagers won’t have sex: there are so many reasons not to!
Will Iran be rational or are they the complete lunatics they seem to be?
“But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?“
“Yeah, you can do it, but that don’t make it a good fuckin’ idea!”
— Chris Rock
That would be crazy.
No one doubts that islamic terrorists commit suicide. Nor that islamic leaders preach suicide. But what there does seem to be a dearth of is Islamic leaders that commit suicide.
Two weeks. Give or take a week, I’m thinking.
TW = “total”. The total package is coming, and that ain’t FedEx.
We’re gonna correct that disparity, yessiree bob. We’re gonna correct that disparity all OVER your kafir ass, boy.
Exactly. All talk. No action. Kind of like all hat no cattle, but for islamofascism, not the range.
One who talks another into becoming a suicide bomber IS taking action. I suspect you know this.
I would say there is a dearth of people who commit suicide in general.
Sure. But they’re not the suicidal one. I’m more of the belief that these leaders are a bit more opportunistic than moralistic when they tout the benefits of martyrdom: whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Interesting. If those that were so willing to spread this sort of hate would stop, then there would be no issue for us to discuss. They won’t, and under the norms of our society those that help to plan the crime are equally guilty of its commission. Again, I suspect you know this.
Which makes me wonder if you aren’t some ultra advanced disagree-bot. If so, you are very well designed considering what you have to work with (the basis for your arguments) is crap.
Because you’re all about winning the war.
You think i’m going to be able to be a chain smoking self-important ironic fag boy if we lose? no!
On the question of what we should do if Iraq wants nukes, my own answer is:
A) I’m much less concerned about stable democracies getting nukes then I am about other types of governments.
B) I think sooner or later every country that wants nukes will get them. (As the nuclear club grows, the technology will become easier to secure and ever more countries will want to secure it.)
C) You can pretty well guess what C is (hint: it concerns my preferred focus for US foreign policy).
TW: love. Ick! How did that get through?
IF IRAQ WANTS NUKES, WE WILL SIGN, STAMP, AND DEEEELIVER THEM TO BAGHDAD BY WAY OF ICBM!
Sorry, I just want any reason to nuke someone… anyone. I should not be president.