Should Iran Get the Bomb?

I just got around to reading the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, even though it had the attention grabbing headline: “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb,” an article by Kenneth Waltz. Waltz takes the somewhat controversial position that a nuclear Iran may actually bring more stability to a very unstable region. His pragmatism is admirable. His basic thesis is that Israel, as the lone nuclear state in the Middle East, begs for balance. It has so far stopped every attempt by other Middle Eastern nations to develop nuclear capabilities, even if it meant Israel had to resort to force, as it did with Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.

Waltz goes on to cite India and Pakistan as examples of two hostile, non-superpower states, that have successfully managed to coexist, even though both possess nuclear weapons. He also mentions that China became less bellicose geopolitically, after its nuclear detonation in 1964. Waltz clearly has a good handle on the situation, and understands its complexity. Despite the recent successes of diplomatic sanctions, he brings up how sanctions do not necessarily retard nuclear development. North Korea, for example, persists with its nuclear ambitions, and even detonated a nuclear device in 2006, despite harsh economic and diplomatic sanctions. Indeed, sanctions may cause countries like Iran to latch onto their nuclear dreams even more tightly. Sanctions by definition, impose a sense of isolation on states. Consequently, hard-line rhetoric, and stand-offish language become more prevalent. An isolated Iran may feel more need to weaponize, in order to assert its independence, and to satisfy hard-line political elements domestically, who agitate for a weaponized nuclear program.

Waltz essentially argues for nuclear deterrence in the Middle East, but despite the historic precedents, I find myself disagreeing with his analysis to a large extent. To be sure, history has demonstrated that nuclear states tend to deter each other, one assuring the other’s destruction. On the surface, a lone nuclear state in such an unstable region, seems liable to throw the whole system into convulsion. Seemingly, a nuclear Iran to balance a nuclear Israel makes a lot of sense. Except it doesn’t. Deterrence may have worked in the past, but that is no guarantee that it will in the future. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R sat on pins and needles, waiting for the other one to strike. Several times, a wayward weather balloon, or an errant bird, or a military exercise, brought the nuclear giants to the brink of Armageddon. Of course this is to completely gloss over the Cuban Missile Crisis as well. While on the surface, this might be a stable system, it’s a false stability. An alpine slope looks flat, peaceful and beautiful. Until the one day, that one bit of snow melts, and starts an avalanche.

Deterrence is a completely irrational response to a very difficult problem. Nuclear proliferation is not an easy beast to tame. It’s a many headed hydra, with three more problems springing up as soon as one seems tamed. But deterrence is the response of someone resigned to the status quo. It can be hard to think outside the box with regard to geopolitics. Certain balances of power, and scenarios are “givens.” The United States would like to see nuclear disarmament (at least for everyone else), and global stability, but even very powerful countries can rarely impose their will on the world order with impunity. There are just some things that we cannot change. Henry Kissinger, a statesman I respect very much once wrote: “In foreign policy, a nation’s highest aspirations tend to be fulfilled only in imperfect stages.” Kissinger is correct in asserting that nations cannot merely impose their strategic vision on the world. There are frameworks that are very powerful, that constrain and mold the behavior of even the most powerful of states. At the same time, we need to recognize those frameworks as just that, man made constructs. They can be broken down, and even transcended. It just requires some imagination, and political idealism.

Deterrence shows a distinct lack of vision that has become endemic to politics today, especially in the United States. But if we analyze it rationally, we realize the folly of deterrence. How could it possibly be desirable to bring more nuclear weapons into the world? Even worse, in a very unstable region. I understand that Iran has drawn an inordinate amount of flak from its president’s remarks, especially about Israel. And indeed, Iran has made strides to be more accepted within the international community. For instance, they have pledged that their athletes will compete against Israeli athletes at this years Olympics. But the fact remains, that Israel and Iran are antagonistic nations, and throwing more weapons of mass destruction into the mix cannot be the answer. A nuclear Iran might balance Israel, but it could set off a cascade of nuclear armament. If Iran armed, the Arab countries would still be without nuclear deterrent. Saudi Arabia would likely press the U.S. for aid in developing, if nothing else, a nuclear defense system, further straining the America’s image in the Middle East, as well as its treasury.

Waltz also completely writes off what I see as the central problem of a weaponized Iran: terrorist acquisition of a nuclear warhead, and/ or delivery mechanism. He basically asserts that since no terrorist has yet acquired a nuclear weapon, it’s unlikely to happen in the future. Uh huh. This is called being the turkey. You see, every day the farmer comes out to feed the turkey. The turkey comes to see the farmer as his friend. Because he has never harmed him in the past, there is no possible way that he could in the future. That is, until one wednesday in November, the turkey finds the farmer carrying a meat cleaver instead of a bucket of feed. The point is, that we absolutely cannot extrapolate unpredictable future events from past data, or more closely, lack of data. Every day that goes by without a nuclear incident might make us feel progressively safer. The turkey felt that way too, but in reality, he was progressively in more and more danger, even as he became more and more coddled. We’d do well to remember his example. Furthermore, Iran has a long history of aiding and abetting terrorist cells outside its own borders, so it would be prudent to expect them to continue that behavior. Further, even if Iran did not intentionally provide extremist elements with weapons grade fissile material, Iran would still be subject to the same security breaches as any other nuclear power.

Finally, the whole argument for a nuclear Iran essentially rests on deterrence. Deterrence is a complex balancing act, but what if there was nothing to balance? Most analysts seem to take a nuclear Israel as a given, but to me, Israel is really to unbalancing aspect to this power arrangement. Now, we can debate the whole Israeli issue back and forth, and I don’t have the space to cover it here. I will say, that I think a non-nuclear Israel would lead to a much more stable Middle East. First, we know almost nothing about Israel’s nuclear capabilities. That’s a problem. We’re entirely in the dark on what they can and can’t do, and the unknown, breeds fear. A non-nuclear, or even a more transparently nuclear Israel might calm Iranian fears, at least to an extent. I realize that to make Israel a non-nuclear state would be a huge undertaking, but that type of big political thinking is what moves civilization along. I mentioned Kissinger’s pragmatism about statesmanship earlier, but he also defines statesmanship as “the ability to shape the future.” I’d much prefer a future with fewer nuclear weapons in an international hot-spot to more nuclear weapons, wouldn’t you?

Of course, there will be massive resistance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu has frequently stepped up his rhetoric against Iran, especially with regards to its nuclear program. Israel has historically had to fight for its very survival, and you can bet that point will be brought up as a reason it needs nuclear weapons. But it doesn’t. Nobody does, least of all a power in a region without any other nuclear states. Israel has shown itself to be more than capable of defending itself with conventional weapons. While I in general would like to see a reduction in U.S. military aid across the board, I would even support increased U.S. technology sharing, if Israel were to agree to substitute more advanced conventional military technologies for nuclear capabilities. With such a gesture of goodwill, the Iranians would face less pressure from hard-line elements in their own country. Such an atmosphere would foster better relations between the two countries, who are natural allies, as powerful non-Arab states on the border of the Arab world. Indeed, Israel and pre-Revolutionary Iran were actually quite close, diplomatically and economically.

It’s time for some new ideas, some outside the box thinking in geopolitics. I’m consistently shocked (and bored) by the lack of imagination America has displayed with regards to this issue. We need to reject the status quo, and take nothing for granted. Certain solutions may seem impossible, but like Christ turning water into wine, mankind has built its history on turning the impossible to the possible. Sometimes, it may seem like there is no room in global politics for dreamers, or idealists, and to an extent that’s true. Most dreamers get crushed in the ruthless machine, disheartened and disenchanted by entrenched ideas, and paradigms. But every so often, every once in an age, one slips through. These are our Washingtons, our Lincolns, our Wilsons and Mandelas. These are people who unite instead of divide, think instead of fight, our peacemakers, our heroes. Let’s hope some step forward in the fraught days ahead of us.