Iran’s Two-Edged Bomb (NYT op-ed)

New York Times ^ | February 9, 2010 | Adam B. Lowther

[reaganaut1]

Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.

WITH Iran having notified the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency on Monday that any day now it will begin enriching its stockpile of uranium in order to power a medical reactor, we should admit that Washington’s approach to countering the Islamic Republic is leading nowhere. What’s needed, however, may be less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb. (I’m speaking for myself here, and in no way for the Air Force.) Five possibilities come to mind.

First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.

Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump.

[reaganaut1]

I wonder if this article reflects the thinking of the Obama administration. The author, God help us, is "a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute".

[Shady]

Applying logic to the insane has for us into trouble faster than anything in this world. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable period.

[Malone LaVeigh]

This clown needs to put the bong down.

[pacific_waters]

A little research about the author seems to indicate that he is not simply an obama shill. He is opposed to unilateral disarmament. However his recent article seems more like wishful thinking than an analysis.

[Vermont Lt]

Yeah, its good to have a rabid pitbull living in the house next door. I guess I never thought of it that way.

Idiot.

[nuconvert]

“(I’m speaking for myself here, and in no way for the Air Force.) “

Thank G*d because you’re INSANE

[JasonC]

"...less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States"

I don't believe it, but I do believe we have another coward. Who is keeping score? Coward, coward, coward, coward, coward, oh hey look, a coward, coward, cowards, there's a coward, and there's one, and there, and there...

[okie01]

The author, God help us, is "a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute".

Mr. Lowther is clearly a member of "the dreamer school" of foreign relations.

Not to mention the "cross your finger school" of national security.

[mojito]

These are the stupidest views on the Iranian nuclear question that I've ever read.

And published in the New York Times, no less. What a big surprise.

Now we're being told that Iranian nuclear weapons are a good thing? Is there nothing that liberals can't convince themselves of?

[highlander_UW]

Do they let this nut job out on weekends or something?! Progressives are dangerous to the world and the world and they would all be safer if they were institutionalized.

Hey, pinhead...if Iran obtained nukes does it occur to you that they'd use it?! Honestly...lock this lunatic up somewhere that has plenty of padded rooms.

[naturalized]