If you've heard nothing but alarmism about Iran's nuclear program, and would like to get some balance from another informed point of view (backed up by heavy hitters in the American and Israeli governments as well as nuclear regulatory bodies), I very highly recommend this five minute read.
Whether it changes your mind or not, it's an undeniable good thing to hear another side of the story, copiously referenced and logically argued. Even with our vaunted free press, we don't often get that sort of thing around here. And as Storks says:
"Given how easily the American public and media were manipulated into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, this moment should give us some pause. The disastrous effects of that $3 Trillion Dollar War are still being felt across the world. For those not interested in seeing a much-bloodier, costlier sequel, I offer this introductory course in intellectual self-defense. The only way to rebuff and dismantle propaganda is to be aware of the truth on which it claims to comment."
Note: have a look at the comments
Jim,
ReplyDeleteContainment is not an option. This is not Cold War Russia. Iran cannot be allowed to be capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
I can't say whether or not Iran has decided to develop nuclear weapons or how long it would take if they made such a decision. What is clear:
* They are developing and advertising missiles capable of carrying such weapons
* They have attacked Jews and US interests/allies around the globe and are sponsors of terrorist organizations/activities.
* They have shown in past wars and present beligerence in the face of sanctions that they care very little about harm to their citizens
* Whether or not they are able to deliver a nuclear strike against the US, a nuclear capable Iran is not only an existential threat to Israel it is also an economic threat to countries dependent on oil from the middle east.
The denial of these points in the article you reference doesn't give the other points much credibility.
I don't see the author arguing for "containment". Just the reality of Iran's sanity in light of the certainty of their potential destruction. Plus the statements from very credible sources that cast great doubt that weapons are even being built.
ReplyDelete------- "They have attacked Jews and US interests/allies around the globe and are sponsors of terrorist organizations/activities." --------
Sure. But that in no way heralds a suicidal nuclear first strike.
--------
"They have shown in past wars and present beligerence in the face of sanctions that they care very little about harm to their citizens"
--------
It's not reasonable (let alone credible) to fail to register a distinction between violent suppression of political dissenters and the blithe acceptance of the sure annihilation of nearly one's entire population.
---------
"Whether or not they are able to deliver a nuclear strike against the US, a nuclear capable Iran is not only an existential threat to Israel it is also an economic threat to countries dependent on oil from the middle east."
--------
The article addresses this. They are surrounded by countries with larger militaries. And those countries have vital national interest in preserving oil commerce (and are antagonistic to Iran, anyway, re: Shia/Sunni). Furthermore, after Israel's response with dozens of nuclear warheads, there will not be an Iran to wage the actions that would jeopardize oil commerce.
--------
"They are developing and advertising missiles capable of carrying such weapons"
--------
Building a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead does not augur a first strike. It doesn't even augur development of nuclear warheads. Many countries have both fully developed and stockpiled, and we're the only ones who've used them.
If Iran fires one at Israel, it will be annihilated. As Israel's military experts themselves say in the article, you'd need to be insane to perform a first strike within an equilibrium of mutually-assured destruction, and Iran's not insane.
Let's say that Iran won't attack Israel if they have one nuclear weapon. So Iran now develops a second, and a third, and perhaps an equal arsenal. Now their neighbors pursue nuclear weapons for "containment" parity, so there are nukes all over unstable countries. Eventually there is a nuclear weapon in the hands of Al Queda, or Hezbollah, or Hamas. Sure Israel can wipe Iran off the face of the earth, but if there is a nuclear detonation in Tel Aviv and there is less than 100% assuredness where it came from Iran, would Israel really obliterate the country that "probably" attacked? Could Iran calculate that their destruction is far from assured?
ReplyDeleteIran has not showed in any way that it is a rational actor. The author says Iran isn't developing a nuclear weapon--but don't worry if that's wrong because they won't really use it. Well, I worry.
North Korea can do exactly the same RIGHT NOW, as can Russia.
ReplyDeleteWide proliferation is inevitable, given the sovereignty deference we grant nations with nuclear arsenals. And it became inevitable in the Mideast the moment Israel got its nukes. The process can be slowed, but not halted, so it's not a viable solution for Israel to keep invading sovereign territory, whacking increasing numbers of moles. Doing so would be self defeating, as it would greatly heat the underlying dynamics which have given rise to the problem in the first place (though that's a reality Israel and its hawkish supporters prefer to ignore).
And, in any case, nobody is going to whack the North Korea mole, so the game has already passed any red line we might draw for Iran, which doesn't even HAVE nukes yet (and, again, even Israeli expert sources aren't sure that's their aim).
"Iran has not showed in any way that it is a rational actor."
I'm not sure you're understanding the term "rational actor" in this context. In terms of nuclear politics, it means a government that won't accept the annihilation of its own population as a reasonable consequence of the annihilation of another. If you imagine that's the case here, then we just need to agree to disagree.
Just like to remind people that Pakistan, one of Iran's immediate neighbors already has the bomb, and that relations between Pakistan and Iran are not very good. We always talk about the Iranian bomb as if it is about us, and Israel, and I am not going to suggest that that is inevitably part of the story. Yet Iran's interest in the bomb is not just about us, and if we keep that in mind we would have a saner Iran policy, even if the Iranian leadership does not want a saner US or israel policy.
ReplyDelete>> I'm not sure you're understanding the term "rational actor" in this context. In terms of nuclear politics, it means a government that won't accept the annihilation of its own population as a reasonable consequence of the annihilation of another. <<
ReplyDeleteThe Iranian SOP is to sponsor a terrorist action in another country, by another country. In this context, the irrational action I worry about is Iran getting some martyrs in Hamas or Hezbollah to detonate a dirty bomb in Tel Aviv and calculate that Israel's more humane leaders won't hold the the population of Iran responsible enough to annihilate the country.
They're not crazier or more malevolent than North Korea.
ReplyDeleteThat same risk is on line right NOW from North Korea (not to mention villains like Pakistan and Russia). Considering that the bucket's already full of bona fide holes, it's impossible to justify invasion to delay (can't prevent) possibly prospective ones.
And, again, there are Israeli military experts who don't believe it's even being developed.
How many suicide bombers have come out of North Korea?
ReplyDeleteI was responding to your point that the danger isn't of Iran using the weapons, but of their selling them to others, being so crazy they'd risk the doomsday blowback if they came to be used.
ReplyDeleteThere's enough crazy martyrdom in the region, plus the fact that West/Russia/China are driven by oil politics, I would say that the nuclear calculus is different.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, Iran has the means to use a proxy to detonate. My point is that they would calculate the likelihood of doomsday blowback as low enough by using a proxy and not a missile with a smoke trail to Iranian territory.