September 27, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Some Say Deterrence Is Enough…
…but two can play at the deterrence game.By Saddam Hussein*
ear Madam President Clinton:
As you may have gathered by now, the nuclear device exploded over the Nevada desert today came from the mighty arsenal of the Republic of Iraq. We sincerely hope that the device did not injure anyone; its purpose was simply to show that Iraq has acquired a nuclear capability.In fact, we are proud to say that we have manufactured many such weapons. Nearly a dozen of them are now in place in major American cities. We certainly do not want to have to detonate them, and we see no need to go that far, if you accede to several reasonable requests that essentially amount to a permanent disengagement from the internal affairs of the Middle East:
1. Immediately end all sanctions against Iraq.
2. Permanently withdraw all American troops and military advisers from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and all other Muslim countries, and agree not to become involved in any military action by one Middle Eastern country against another.
3. Stop all governmental assistance, military and otherwise, to the Jewish Entity, and all trade by American companies with it.
4. Extradite to Iraq the traitors, spies, and saboteurs that you are currently harboring as supposed "dissidents" and "opposition leaders," as well as the blasphemer Salman Rushdie, who we believe is currently visiting your country.We recognize, of course, that your nuclear arsenal vastly exceeds ours, and that you have threatened to attack any country that detonates nuclear bombs within your boundaries. Should you attack Iraq with your nuclear bombs, you will doubtless be able to kill millions of innocent Iraqis, as well as probably killing me.
But if you do so — or if you invade Iraq using conventional weapons, or assassinate me — then this will only assure that my trusted agents will detonate, one by one, the bombs that are currently planted in your cities. Because the bombs are located near ground level, their detonation will regrettably cause not just immediate damage, but also a considerable amount of radioactive fallout. You, Madam President, would then be responsible for the deaths of millions of your fellow citizens, for the damage done to your allies (especially your Canadian allies) as some of the fallout settles in their territory, and for the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis.
Americans recognize that you would not be morally justified in killing innocent Iraqis through a retaliatory attack. After all, your actions during your campaign in Afghanistan show that you do not take civilian casualties lightly, even when they are incidental to attacks on military targets.
And of course such civilian deaths will only lead to a righteous desire in the Islamic world for further acts of vengeance against Americans. As many of your own country's eminent thinkers pointed out when you were debating a preemptive strike against Iraq in 2002, the last thing America needs is to create still more people who want to harm it. Even your praiseworthy refusal to attempt any preemptive action against Iraq shows your wise concern about preserving life.
Now perhaps you doubt that I will make good on my threat. After all, your foreign policy since 2002 has rested on the assumption that if Iraq acquires nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from using them, because its leader is rational. Perhaps you think that I will not detonate the weapons that I now control on your soil, because that would be irrational on my part.
On the contrary; I am being quite rational here. I am in my seventies, and I have relatively little fear of death. In fact, now that I have committed myself to this plan of action, I fear more the dishonor that I would bring on myself if I retreated like a coward.
Trust me, I am deeply, deeply concerned for the possible suffering of my countrymen, but I proclaim that all of them will happily run the risk of martyrdom for the greater glory of Allah and the Arab nation; and in any event, I believe that this risk will not materialize, because I believe that my strategy will preserve them from your retaliation.
And the upside of my gamble is that I will be able to achieve what many in the Arab world have long dreamed about, and will thus glorify Allah and the Arab nation and bask myself in the reflected glory of that deed, for now and for centuries to come. Saladin is still remembered nearly a thousand years after his death; Hussein would be remembered for a thousand years alongside him. This is, I realize, a highly risky strategy on my part, but I think that it's a calculated risk. And even if you think this is an irrational plan, trust me at least that it is a sincere one.
In fact, I am counting on your rationality. Will you kill millions of your own people, and millions of others? Or will you save their lives, and your own consciences, by acceding to our reasonable requests? I am sure that you will find the answer easy, and that the United Nations, your European, Canadian, and Arab allies, and your own citizens will breathe a sigh of relief when you give that answer. Choose peace, Madam President, rather than a devastating war.
Sincerely Yours,
Saddam Hussein
*This speculation was written by Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law at UCLA School of Law.
