RSS Feed MenuAs the failed negotiations with Iran illustrate, we are starting to run out of real options. One of the few remaining options on the table would be for the United States to forgo the use of military force to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program and instead focus on containment. This is a terrible idea. Our experience with three countries illustrates the foolishness of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait to plunder the country of its oil. The U.S. Senate voted 52-47 to repel Saddam’s forces. Had the Iraqi President had nuclear weapons, this would never have happened: the danger that a madman would use them against Israel or another country was simply too great. (For these reasons, you can also be plenty sure that Syria would not have quite been so eager to sign on to the war and feel the wrath of a nuclear-armed Saddam.) To those who think this might seem a bit far-fetched, Kenneth Pollack’s The Threatening Storm recounted Saddam’s crash nuclear program to build one bomb and one missile if Allied forces “moved to depose him”. Why only one? So he could destroy Tel Aviv.
Similarly, North Korea’s nuclear weapons pose a constant deterrent to any real leverage we might exert over Kim Jong-Il. Pyongyang just threatened us with nuclear war only a month ago. Any war with the North would lead to the launch of a nuclear weapon at Seoul. And so, undeterred, North Korea shipped nuclear technologies to Syria, and runs arms to the Iranians.
The threat that Pakistan could dissolve and lead to its nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists has also drastically reduced America’s ability to defend itself. After overthrowing the Taliban in 2001, America was forced to watch and occasionally snipe from a Predator drone as al Qaeda rebuilt their attack capabilities and the Taliban strengthened its hand. If Pakistan did not have this nuclear deterrent, the Global War on Terror would look a lot different than it does today and al Qaeda would be a far weaker organization. (And of course, one can’t forget that the founder of the Pakistani bomb, A.Q. Khan also spread the information around to America’s enemies.)
An Iranian weapon would pose just as terrible a strategic consequence for the United States. Christopher Hitchens has suggested that Iran could make Bahrain their Kuwait, employing their nuclear deterrent to prevent other powers from intervening. Iran could also further its support for terrorists, confident America would not overthrow the regime. Equally troubling is the possibility that Iran could share the technology with other anti-American countries. Other Middle Eastern countries may well decide to pursue their own nuclear weapons, giving us a world where the Saudis, the Iranians, and the Israelis all have nuclear weapons; a recipe for any number of World War III scenarios. (Consider how close America and Russia came to nuclear war in 1962, and this without religious fundamentalism added to the mix.) And if the Iranian regime fell, any number of apocalyptic actors could get their hands on the weapons and use them in the United States or elsewhere, practically insuring that America become as committed to the stability of Iran as we are of Pakistan.
Military force should be kept on the table; but thankfully we still have some time to stave off the Iranian bomb without resorting to that option. It is time for the President to swear off the negotiating table with the mullahs, time for Congress to slap serious gasoline importation sanctions on Tehran with or without Chinese support, and time for America to offer real support to the dissidents yearning to breathe free of fascism.
balconesfault // Apr 26, 2010 at 11:21 am
The U.S. Senate voted 52-47 to repel Saddam’s forces. Had the Iraqi President had nuclear weapons, this would never have happened: the danger that a madman would use them against Israel or another country was simply too great.
I reject this – in fact, I believe that a nuclear country going expansionist would create a larger clamor for American intervention.
YuriPup // Apr 26, 2010 at 12:39 pm
So how do we do military intervention in Iran and how do we deal with those consequences?
What are the consequences of post-military intervention Iran? Do you think they will stop? Or start over again, with even more practical knowledge.
Do you think they would be more or less motivated to see a stable Iraq? Want to have better relations with Israel, or worse? And with us?
Our generals have already said striking Iran is as bad an option as them getting the bomb. At least with one of those options we won’t have sided against them yet again. (See 1953, Iran-Iraq war, etc).
thijsvn // Apr 26, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Good god, is the glass really half empty after all? I had no idea, but thank you.
TerryF98 // Apr 26, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Ok here is today’s useful idiot putting forth a rhetoric filled load of total BS. Please answer the following question.
Zac
I have asked this question of every person making these dumb criticisms of the Obama stance towards Iran. You are the fifth one to offer not one jot of a policy you feel that might work.
So I ask you what would you do to make Iran give up on obtaining a bomb? Please lay out a succinct workable plan that would not cause problems with China and Russia, and would not cause a major conflagration in the middle east and the oil chaos that ensues?
Sinz did suggest a total blockade of Iran. Not sure how serious that was!
I eagerly await your answer!
TerryF98 // Apr 26, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Sorry Zac you are now the sixth I have asked this question of with no response. How is it in Neocon land?
Carney // Apr 26, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Iran has been well aware of its vulnerability to gasoline importation sanctions and has been going all-out to prepare for the possibility. If applied today, they would have far less effect than just a few years ago.
Attacking Iran, while very possibly necessary, puts the cart before the horse. It will cause wealth-destroying spikes in the price of oil and a concomitant economic crash. We should have made ourselves immune from such oil shocks by mandating that all gasoline cars sold in America be fully flex fueled, that is, able to run equally easily on other liquid fuels made from alcohols such as methanol and ethanol. This rugged, reliable technology has been available since the early 1990s and costs automakers only about $130 per car to add. Our failure to make this a required standard like seatbelts, while pursuing pipedreams like hydrogen, is an inexcusable scandal of the first order.
It is more urgent than ever to make this policy a reality. Since about 10% of cars on the road at any given time are new that year, we will have a critical mass of alcohol compatible cars on the road in 3-4 years, big enough for most filling stations to set aside at least one pump for alcohol fuel, in order to avoid being undercut by their competition, especially since methanol is much cheaper (and that low price is scalable).
With drivers not being helplessly locked in to OPEC juice, an oil price spike resulting from actual military action against Iran would therefore have minimal domestic impact. That in turn makes threats to Iran more credible and makes a diplomatic solution more practically possible.
The Open Fuel Standards Act (S. 835 and H.R. 1476) would make a flex fuel mandate the law of the land. Both Obama and McCain promised to support this idea in their 2008 campaigns, but it has largely been forgotten. Only a groundswell of people contacting their Members of Congress can give it the attention and momentum it needs.
ottovbvs // Apr 26, 2010 at 6:19 pm
……Sorry Zac…..the Obama admin are not going to start a third major war in the middle east for exactly the same reasons the Bush admin weren’t prepared to start one……the results would be calamitous for US interests…..now I know these are not upmost in your mind but that’s how it is
How long for multiple oolong tea steepings? | Oolong Tea // Apr 27, 2010 at 1:46 am
[...] Time Running Out to Stop Iran | FrumForum [...]
merl // Apr 27, 2010 at 10:56 pm
I don’t quite understand what the fear is if Iran develops a nuclear bomb. I’m more worried about Pakistan and no one seems to care about that at all.
blowtorch_bob // Apr 28, 2010 at 12:22 am
Maybe Iran and whathisname will do something to clean up Wall Street.