Tweet
Iran’s cheeky retort to Sec. of State Clinton’s accusations that the country is a military dictatorship which could potentially fuel a nuclear arms race in the middle east was clever, but didn’t address the issue at hand:
Those who have been the very symbol of military dictatorships over the past decades, since the Vietnam war until now, see everyone else in the same way.
But Iran’s Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, is horribly mistaken. American experts can’t even agree on how to perceive the threat that a nuclear armed Iran would (might?) cause.
I’d like to think I fall somewhere in between pundits calling for an all out military strike on Iran and those who seem think a nuclear armed Iran would be a good thing. A military strike would be irresponsible and probably impractical, but I have to take contention with the idea that Iran having the bomb wouldn’t threaten American lives. Even with short and medium range delivery capabilities, which Iran has, there are numerous American military targets in Iraq and Afghanistan that would possibly be threatened.
That being said, the results of a Nuclear Iran would probably be a lot less spectacular than people making both pro and con arguments realize. Israel will always have its second-strike submarine based arsenal, and attacking Israel wouldn’t further the Iranian agenda in any way. And as North Korea has found out, having a nuclear strike capability isn’t a golden ticket into the First World or make you the baddest kid on the block. Of course, all this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t keep trying to dissuade them diplomatically and economically from arming themselves.
8 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
A nuclear bomb or three might remove some restraint on Iran’s pressuring the Gulf States and might also start the Saudis toward getting some of their own
Spencer is assuming a level of rationality on the part of the Iranian leaders that is contradicted by their behavior. Why build the nukes if they have no defensive need? The only enemies Iran has now, are enemies only because of the nuclear weapons program.
The bombing of Iraq’s reactor, the small shots against Yemen recently, and the demolition of Syria’s nascent reactor a few years ago, all went smoothly without major international blowback.
A few well-placed explosives can put sand in the gears of a complex system.
Perhaps the question is a little different. Who can last longer if Iran withholds it’s oil from the world market – Iran or the rest of us?
1) I didn’t write this post.
2) Iran is never going to withhold its oil exports, since even crazy-ass nations have a self-preservation instinct.
3) You should take your “they’re irrational” critique further. Let’s say they are irrational. Let’s say they’re paranoid. Then they see American soldiers on one of their borders and American soldiers on another one. How would an irrational actor respond?
In any of several ways?
North Korea is an “irrational actor” that has nuclear capabilities. South Korea and Japan have yet to disappear off the map. I think you’re going a little far with the insanity charges. Iran isn’t screaming incoherently on the subway or something, their goal will always be first and foremost self-preservation and that’s hardly irrational.
So why have nukes in the first place? Probably for the same reason I took Pre-Calculus in High School…I’ll never use it, but I need it to get to the next level.
Syria’s so-called reactor was all speculation. Iran has been on the neocon’s radar for an awfully long time, long before they decided to build a nuclear reactor.
I think you’re right that Iran wouldn’t first-strike Israel with nuclear weapons. What is more likely is a nuclear Iran would be a more unabashed patron of Hamas and Hezbollah, either of which may eventually pull off a 9/11-scale attack on Israeli soil. With ~3000 dead Israelis in Tel Aviv, two nuclear-armed states and the Manichaean Middle East become a problem that is decidedly more than local.
I’m not convinced the Iranians even want the bomb. They’re doing just fine militarily without it and having it only gets everybody on the same side against them. What works better is to say you want it, take steps towards getting it, convince the world you’re serious, and then negotiating it away for something else.
They’re not irrational. They know what they’re doing. They’ve spent the last 30 years setting themselves up to take over the world. Since they currently control a shit load of oil of their own, as well as big fields in Iraq through proxies, and can easily influence how the rest of the Mid-East oil gets to the Persian Gulf they’ve got the cards they want.
PS. The US can’t conceivably strike Iran or their nuclear sites. I mean we could, but we couldn’t afford the aftermath. Attacking Iran would result in a real war with them, and considering the other wars we’re currently fighting the American people don’t have the energy for it, the money for it, or the manpower for it. Attacking Iran would be a huge mistake.