Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let Iran Go Nuclear? The latest really bad idea
National Review Online ^ | January 10, 2006 | James S. Robbins

Posted on 01/10/2006 7:09:08 AM PST by billorites

A friend at State says there is a buzz at Foggy Bottom — low level, but growing — that maybe it would not be so bad if Iran went nuclear. After all, deterrence kept us free from nuclear conflict through the Cold War, and India and Pakistan haven’t pressed the big button yet. If the mullahs in Tehran get the bomb, so what? If they use it, we will destroy them. They know that; thus, they will not use it. In fact — so the buzz goes — a nuclear Iran might help stabilize the region — Tehran and Tel Aviv can face off in a Middle Eastern mini-MAD, both armed to the teeth and each afraid to blink. Nothing says peace and stability like a Mexican standoff.

As I noted in a recent piece on Iran, stability is chimerical, and seeking it cedes the initiative to those who desire change. The belief that there is an upside to a nuclear-capable Iran is a rationalization of perceived impotence; those who suppose we are unable to prevent this from happening seek to make a virtue out of necessity.

Of course, one might ask, if nuclear weapons do not confer advantages, why do rogue states want them so badly? Hmmm…well, that is explained away by saying the up-and-coming states do not really understand what they want, or seek nuclear weapons chiefly as status symbols. No worries though, they will be deterred.

I am not concerned about whether or not the Iranians will be deterred. I am worried that the United States will be deterred. Even if the Iranians never use their nuclear weapons, they will have made themselves immune from attack. That would be just fine if they were likely to mind their own business. However, Iran has a long track record of fomenting instability in the region, particularly through terrorist surrogates. Furthermore, the regime in power has made it clear that they are intent on increasing the threats to their neighbors, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia. They do not like us very much either.

Now add nuclear weapons to the equation. Forget the “nuke Tel Aviv” scenario, that is child’s play. Which is not to say they would not do it, in time they probably would. But the proponents of Middle East MAD are much too focused on the high end of the equation. Nuclear weapons are not most effective when lobbed between nuclear powers; they are best used as leverage to augment military actions in the conventional or unconventional realm by arming countries with the threat of escalation.

Let’s look at some examples.

Scenario One, very familiar to U.S. war planners. Tehran closes off the Straits of Hormuz and subjects the world to energy blackmail, an “access denial” strategy. Currently the Coalition would respond by sending a flotilla to force an entry, probably accompanied by a punitive air campaign against every available worthwhile target in Iran. At present the regime would have no effective way to respond to that. But if they had nuclear weapons, particularly with long-range missiles or other delivery systems, our war planning would be immensely complicated. How close would we risk sending a Carrier Battle Group? How punitive would we pursue an air campaign, knowing that when we bomb Tehran the Iranians might have the capability to strike back, perhaps against domestic targets using terrorist surrogates? Can we count on our allies if Iranian missiles can reach Europe — they cannot now, but if they have nukes, how can we stop Iran from developing longer-range weapons?

Scenario Two. Iran launches a ground invasion through southern Iraq and into Kuwait, then, not making the mistake Saddam Hussein made, drive right on into Saudi Arabia. They would control four of the top five oil reserves in the world. Iran makes no further demands, and keeps the oil flowing. How would we respond, knowing that Iran would have recourse to nuclear weapons if the fight got too tough? Would we even take action and risk shutting off most Middle Eastern energy exports? Would we really care whether Arabia was under the sway of Wahabbism or Shia Fundamentalism — and if we did care would it be worth the risk?

Scenario Three. The long-awaited democratic revolution begins to develop in Iran. Massive crowds turn out in the streets demonstrating against the increasingly harsh laws imposed by the radical government. Students, liberal oppositionists — even joined by some army and police units — begin to coalesce into a true revolutionary force. The regime sends in the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guards, the only instrument left they can trust, to put an end to it. In a Tiananmen Square-style crackdown, tanks roll in to crush (literally) the revolutionaries, who plea for Coalition intervention. If it happened tomorrow, we could give the uprising enough air and other means of support to at least stave off catastrophe, maybe to tip the balance in their favor, and do so with majority support of the international community. But if the regime had nuclear weapons, would we risk intervening? Or would it be Hungary 1956 all over again? Moreover, say the liberal revolution looked like it would succeed without anyone’s help — would we be as eager to see the current regime destabilized if the endgame for the mullahs was a last-minute Armageddon-style nuclear launch when they were going down and had nothing to lose? Wouldn’t we tell the democratic opposition to cool it?

There are scores of similar scenarios that do not involve actually going to nuclear war but all of which demonstrate that deterrence at the nuclear level does not translate into stability at lower levels of conflict. In fact, it leads to permanent instability as regimes pursue conflict by other means, relying on their nuclear insurance cards to deter the U.S. or any other power from settling things decisively. This is why the United States had to withdraw from Vietnam rather than invade north and risk a Soviet or Chinese response; it is why the Soviet Union was unwilling to impose its will on Afghanistan by invading Pakistan and risking a U.S. response. Consciously allowing the Iranian regime to assume the mantle of a nuclear power would be an act of strategic negligence that would make the world a much more dangerous place.

And by the way, these scenarios assume the Iranian leaders are “rational actors” who won’t just wake up one day and decide that they don’t want to live in a world with New York, Washington, D.C., or a variety of other cities. They send their surrogates out to punish the Great Satan, and the rest is God’s will. Or maybe terrorists or a radical faction within the government get hold of the weapons and use them without permission. Would you gamble your life against the bribe level of an Iranian nuclear-weapons manager? Let’s hope we don’t have to.

James S. Robbins is author of the forthcoming Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point and an NRO Contributor.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abombs; deterrence; iran; irannukes; middleeast; nuclearweapons; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 01/10/2006 7:09:10 AM PST by billorites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billorites
Saying we will "let" Iran go nuclear implies a level of control or influence which is absent.

If you think Congress will declare war on Iran to prevent this, which is what is required, you are out of your mind.

2 posted on 01/10/2006 7:11:21 AM PST by Jim Noble (Fiat justitia, ruat coelum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites

MAD only worked with the Soviets because they didn't, deep down, want to die.
Unfortunately the Iranian mad mullahs and their nutjob president are crazy enough that they want to - death looks good to them because of their religious beliefs and that whole 72 virgins thing.

You can't have a standoff when one side craves martyrdom.

LQ


3 posted on 01/10/2006 7:16:09 AM PST by LizardQueen (The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
"A friend at State says there is a buzz at Foggy Bottom — low level, but growing — that maybe it would not be so bad if Iran went nuclear. After all, deterrence kept us free from nuclear conflict through the Cold War, and India and Pakistan haven’t pressed the big button yet. If the mullahs in Tehran get the bomb, so what? "

So WHAT?......Well "SO WHAT" is , these same Mullahs published a statement not 2 weeks ago saying ( paraphrase) The muslim world can ABSORB a nuclear exchange, after all we have the numbers to repopulate.

Thats The "SO WHAT" . Theres no inherient respect for life, M.A.D. only works if your oponent is at least half as rational as you are.

State, just seems to have its head burried in rosey sand.

4 posted on 01/10/2006 7:17:12 AM PST by Kakaze (I'm now a single issue voter.....exterminate Al Quaida)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Congress will declare war if Scenario One or Two happens.


5 posted on 01/10/2006 7:17:38 AM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen

You are exactly right. The nutjobs in Iran would WELCOME a nuclear holocaust.


6 posted on 01/10/2006 7:20:00 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen

I agree with you.

However, have you ever noticed how none of the martyrs are ever any of the leaders? Funny how martyrdome is only a good idea for the entry-level followers. Guess they never heard of "leading by example".

The leaders of the USSR knew that there was a pretty darn good chance that at least some of them would be vaporized, along with the populace in the event of a nuclear strike. My believe is that the Iranians think that we will never call their bluff, and even if they use weapons, we would never have the stomach to retaliate.

They're probably right, unfortunately.


7 posted on 01/10/2006 7:20:33 AM PST by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants


They want to bring everyone down to their level of civilization...a nuclear holocaust does this, which is why a islamofacist country with little or no economy and/or infrastructure such as IRAN should never be allowed to possess such a weapon.

Declare War Now. The US has precedent to do so on its own.


8 posted on 01/10/2006 7:25:28 AM PST by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Ooh, cool, a new Custer book to sell. (Like that stream will ever dry up...)

Take the worst scenario possible - Iran develops one nuclear weapon and uses it not in a terrorist attack in New York, but instead in the territory of another enemy, Saudi Arabia. Mecca is nuked.

The news would follow like this.. Radical US went and did it - nuked Mecca with the cooperation of the Saudi government. If we thought the Islamic world was against us before, you ain't seen nothing yet. Add to it a good portion of Europe, the former Soviet bloc, the Russians and probably Canada. An anti-US economic embargo is something that is not impossible to happen, and Europeans would be only too happy to seize foreign US deposits for reparations to the Islamic world.

Iran could bowl over the 'US puppets' in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, and Afghanistan, and probably half of the 'stans south of the Russian border. The US government could squawk all it wants, but likely every media outlet in the US will be with the Europeans in condemning us. The denial wouldn't gain any traction at all.

Sure, worldwide economic collapse would follow, but hey, they'll sell newspapers, sip French wine and enjoy their Italian pasta.

No, Iran with nukes is a horror story in the making, and anyone in Foggy Bottom who thinks that it can be permitted is just delusional and needs to be fired.
9 posted on 01/10/2006 7:25:33 AM PST by kingu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites

If the Iranian regime launched a nuclear attack on Baghdad or Tel Aviv, tens of millions of Iranians, whose only crime is being governed by a bunch of nuts, would probably perish in the retaliatory strike. This in addition to the death of much of the Israeli or Iraqi population, the radioactive material introduced into the atmosphere, etc. Do these people in the State Department really want President Ahmadinejad to have nuclear missiles? It shows how out of touch with reality some people at State are.


10 posted on 01/10/2006 7:26:58 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen

Yep, MAD only works when all parties involved are relatively sane.


11 posted on 01/10/2006 7:29:08 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joseph20

Scenario One or Two will only happen after they have tested nuclear weapons.


12 posted on 01/10/2006 7:37:13 AM PST by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: billorites

A nuclear Iran would stabilize the region just as a bolt of lightning would stabilize a pile of gas soaked rags with a lightning rod in it.


13 posted on 01/10/2006 7:41:07 AM PST by rfreedom4u (Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen

Bingo....

War deaths worldwide plummeted 82% from 1950 to 1995. When both sides don't want to die, neither side will purposefully start something when they know the other can annihilate them in response.... when one side doesn't care if they live, its a totally different problem...


14 posted on 01/10/2006 7:42:25 AM PST by eraser2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: billorites

The rumor that Foggy Bottom supports letting Iran go nuclear is only too probable.

There is no madness of which the State Department is not capable, especially when the Arabists are in charge. And we have been told on good authority that Condi has decided to defer to the Arabists in that area.

Great. Any administration that lets the State Department run its foreign policy is, as my youthful friends used to say, "cruisin' for a bruisin'."


15 posted on 01/10/2006 7:42:36 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babyface00

If I were president....

Isn't that a beautiful glow rising from Tehran?


16 posted on 01/10/2006 7:43:21 AM PST by rfreedom4u (Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: billorites

I've been saying for the last week or so that I think Israel is a red herring, and that Iran's goal is to take Saudi Arabia (and Mecca, by extension), and then control all that oil. They could control the oil fields, point a nuclear gun at the head of Europe, and then slowly bleed the West into economic catastrophe. OPEC would dissolve overnight, and a country like China would be very keen to a military alliance with nuclear Iran in exchange for favorably priced oil.

They don't have to fire a single nuclear weapon. They can have Mecca, and all that oil, AND they can get the payback they want from Iraq since the Iran-Iraq War. For us, this would draw our forces out of Baghdad, and force us to confront the Iranians in the South if they made such a move. Responding conventionally, any thoughts of withdrawing troops from Baghdad over the next 12-24 months is going to have to be shelved. If Iran moves quickly, we won't be able to base in Saudi Arabia, relying on long range bombers from Turkey, perhaps - IF we leave Iraq and have no base of operations to work from in that region.

Although all the talk is about wiping Israel off the map, my gut is telling me that's a little too obvious, and a little too certain a net negative outcome for Iran if they tried to make Tel Aviv glow. They could literally be the arbiter of world economic policies if they controlled Saudi Arabia. We musn't forget the possibility/probability that Osama bin Laden is in Iran. Bin Laden has spent most of his adult life trying to overthrow the house of Saud, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there are mutual interests crossing at some point between Iran and al Qaeda.

The sobering truth is that the West cannot tolerate this scenario. And if we can't attack quickly with conventional forces, decapitate the government, and spark a revolution I fear that we will have no choice but to attack Tehran with nuclear weapons. I pray this is not the case, but Ahmadenijad is the epitome of evil and willing to take a lousy bet on behalf of his people.


17 posted on 01/10/2006 7:44:12 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

A nuclear test would probably provoke Israel to strike. At that point, the mood in Israel would go from "cautiously concerned" to "all in". This would be the infamous "Crossing of the Rubikon" for the Middle East.


18 posted on 01/10/2006 7:50:24 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kingu
I suspect that the Mullahs have no intention of Nuking Israel.

In my experience, when someone says over and over what they will do, look to another path, they are trying to deceive you from their actual intention.

IMO, their actual targets will be Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

By doing so, they accomplish several goals;

• The World Economy crashes
• The Great Satan (US) loses its allies and bases
• Oil goes to $120.00 a barrel
• Since the War is between Islamic States, the world is told to butt out
• Iran can claim to be striking a blow for “true Islam”

Now mind you, I don’t believe this is either sane or rational, but then, no one ever accused the Mullahs of being sane or rational.

Cheers,

knewshound
19 posted on 01/10/2006 7:52:52 AM PST by knews_hound (Now with two handed typing !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: billorites

It seems a pity that Jim Jones is gone. Perhaps the State Dept. could have used him to convince all of us to join hands and drink the Kool-Aid.


20 posted on 01/10/2006 8:00:18 AM PST by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson