Going Nuclear Over Iran

If you have been following the news lately, it is hard to miss the consternation arising from Iran's nuclear program - what most reasonably believe to be a nuclear weapons program. Some argue that it is hypocritical for the U.S., which has a gargantuan nuclear arsenal and has expressed strong desire to develop new forms of tactical nuclear weapons, to be criticizing Iran (or any other nation) for attempting to develop nuclear weapons. But, even conceding an element of hypocrisy, the fact remains that nations in the developing world are more likely to use nuclear weapons if they have them and, with their less stable governments, pose the risk that even a responsible government will lose control of its nuclear arsenal.

When the Bush Administration announced its policy of preventive warfare, I speculated that the policy might result in what I call BIRP (Bush-Inspired Rapid Proliferation). Rather than intimidating nations into abandoning "WMD" programs, my assumption was that they would instead accelerate their development. Granted, nations like North Korea and Iran were developing nuclear weapons prior to the Bush Administration's pronouncement, but I think the threat of "preventive war" likely resulted in the acceleration of those programs while diminishing the probability of successful diplomatic efforts to terminate those weapons programs. I am not sure to what extent the past two years have proved me right, but they certainly haven't proved me wrong.

Yesterday's New York Times included an editorial, The Mullahs and the Bomb, which states what I believe to be obvious - Iran may make all sorts of promises and representations about its nuclear program, but it can't be trusted either to tell the truth or to keep any promise to terminate its nuclear program. The editorial suggests that the West should impose economic pressure on Iran to encourage it to abandon its program, but I am not sure that such pressure would work. Granted, it is fear of economic sanction which has led Iran to "cooperate" with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but if Iran were facing economic sanctions despite making those concessions it might have simply chosen to miss the deadline. If London's Guardian is an indication of European sentiment, their editorial, Iran has made its promises. Now the west must, too, argues that it is through expanded economic interaction that we can resolve Iran's nuclear aspirations.

It is interesting to contrast the Guardian's editorial with today's piece in the Washington Post, Iran's European Bargain, which suggests that France and Germany are "gloating" over a successful defeat of the Bush Administration's hard-line stance toward Iran. (Is anybody else tired of media potshots at "old Europe"?) I will grant the Post this: I agree with their ultimate conclusion that Europe, the United States, and Russia should work together to achieve verifiable action by Iran. I just don't think the constant second-guessing of Europe's motives is helpful - after all, even when the observation is true, no small part of Europe's presently cautious and sometimes resentful attitude toward the United States (and, for that matter, the rest of the world's similar attitudes) results directly from inept U.S. diplomacy.

While Iran, which is high on the Bush Administration's list for "preventive" intervention, probably does fear military consequence, it is no doubt aware that the U.S. military is in no position to simultaneously occupy both Iraq and Iran. I fully expect it to exploit that fact, and to attempt to complete its nuclear weapons program under the noses of the IAEA inspectors, such that it can be relatively certain of deterring any future U.S. invasion. It isn't, after all, difficult to comprehend why Iraq, a caged beast, was targeted for attack, while North Korea, with perhaps the most reprehensible government on the planet and which poses a clear and present military threat to its neighbors, gets diplomacy. At the same time, the loss of life that would result from a war with North Korea would likely be appalling - a military option remains, but the probable consequence would include hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths as well as military casualties at a level which would likely shock the American public.

As with so many things in life, and particularly in issues of international conflict, there are no easy answers. Sorry if I rambled - obviously, I should be asleep right now.

Comments