The crux of the argument is in the piece's penultimate paragraph:
"It therefore seems unlikely that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would lead inevitably to war. But the regime would certainly be emboldened by its entry into the nuclear club. Its foreign policy would become more assertive, its sponsorship of regional and global terrorism more blatant. And of course, a nuclear-armed Iran would make every Middle East crisis more dangerous for the region and the world, raising the possibility that a miscalculation on one side or the other might end in catastrophe".
You could replace "Iran" in the penultimate paragraph above for "USA", "USSR", "Israel", or any actor, and could then note the consequences of "emboldened ... more assertive ... sponsorship ... crisis more dangerous ... miscalculation ... end in catastrophe", don't you think?
And couldn't you also come to the same conclusion in the final paragraph following?
"These are reasons enough to make sure that the <enter your chosen bad guy's name here> never, ever get their hands on the Bomb".
Well, no, I don't really think that. The United States and Israel are liberal democracies, which the Islamic Republic most decidedly is not. Russia isn't either, but it seems pointless to argue that it should not possess nuclear weapons. It has them already; who's going to take them away?
You make an interesting point about the domestic determinants of foreign policy, for which there is growing material on the period of American monopoly of nuclear weapons under Truman (and then Eisenhower).
But perhaps your more important point is if/when Iran possesses nuclear weapons, how do we rid the world of them? So far, we have signally failed to do so, with the exceptions of INF and START. With no arms reduction agreements on the horizon, I think nuclear politics will be determined more by multipolar conflict and cooperation than with the domestic ideology of the Superpowers.
Nuclear arms control was an artifact of the bipolar global order, when people assumed that what the US and the USSR agreed to would set the standard. In the twenty-first century, it’s as obsolete as the flintlock musket.
Arms control will be alot more difficult, as PRC may refuse to negotiate saying it can only destroy the world twice over while the USA and Russia can do so 20 times each. We have the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 as a potential case study in a multipolar world, but arms control can only indirectly avoid systemic war, and while war is inherent in the international system, what do we do to prevent nuclear war between the Great Powers, and limit conventional war when it does start?
Iran is a Regional Great Power already, so we may need to cool our ideological ardour and negotiate with it. Its better relations with PRC might be an avenue (but I doubt it, given PRC's track record of using North Korea, and the USA's poor relations with PRC), but otherwise our best bet is with Germany. And that may be the more likely way of either preventing Iran going operational with nuclear weapons, or having the motive to use them, than the American ethos of The Second Amendment.
I have this image of an Iranian T Boone Pickens riding a nuclear missile to its target—and can’t really imagine the Iranians getting there any other way. You can’t overstate the incompetence of this regime, and if the Israelis keep assassinating their “best”, it will only get worse. So the only real use they’ll have for a weapon is to fuel their empty bluster. And fortunately for them, that’s all it takes to frighten this US administration.
Israel has a second strike capability with its nuclear capable Dolphin Class submarines. A nuclear strike on Israel would almost certainly result in a massive nuclear attack on Iran.
I think the biggest risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon is the impact it would have on other nations in the region. A nuclear armed Iran would surely inspire Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps Egypt to at a least attempt to acquire their own nuclear arsenals. Pakistan will be happy to provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia (for a price). Turkey has the ability to develop and produce its own.
A nuclear armed Middle East, all thanks to Obama and Biden. Their horrific legacy will be cursing us for decades.
Israeli possession didn't lead to a United Arab Republic, Egypt, Jordan or Syria trying to get theirs. Pakistan's possession hasn't led to an Islamic Bomb.
There surely must be an underlying logic for nuclearisation: Libya gives up its Bomb and gets bombed; Ukraine signs away its nuclear arsenal, and is invaded. And yet Germany is not urgently investing €billions in its own Euro Bomb.
If North Korea has nuclear weapons - and South Korea would know if it did - why has one of the world's most advanced nations not contracted Samsung to assemble an arsenal? Taiwan, no less advanced, should certainly build a Bomb, as there can't be a country more likely to be invaded because it lacks one.
Then what about all those countries with nuclear power plants, and those building and planning to build them? And what about the countries that mine uranium?
Are these all the fault of Obama and Biden? Strike that question, of course they are :-)
It must be Election Year in the US of A, because JPCOA was an agreement made with P5 +1 +EU, not just by Obama, Kerry (America's chief negotiator), or Biden. Great Powers must transend ideology to make agreements.
A very substantive and well-informed article. Too bad the US govt has lost so much credibility with its previous wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Nice piece, as always.
The crux of the argument is in the piece's penultimate paragraph:
"It therefore seems unlikely that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would lead inevitably to war. But the regime would certainly be emboldened by its entry into the nuclear club. Its foreign policy would become more assertive, its sponsorship of regional and global terrorism more blatant. And of course, a nuclear-armed Iran would make every Middle East crisis more dangerous for the region and the world, raising the possibility that a miscalculation on one side or the other might end in catastrophe".
You could replace "Iran" in the penultimate paragraph above for "USA", "USSR", "Israel", or any actor, and could then note the consequences of "emboldened ... more assertive ... sponsorship ... crisis more dangerous ... miscalculation ... end in catastrophe", don't you think?
And couldn't you also come to the same conclusion in the final paragraph following?
"These are reasons enough to make sure that the <enter your chosen bad guy's name here> never, ever get their hands on the Bomb".
Well, no, I don't really think that. The United States and Israel are liberal democracies, which the Islamic Republic most decidedly is not. Russia isn't either, but it seems pointless to argue that it should not possess nuclear weapons. It has them already; who's going to take them away?
You make an interesting point about the domestic determinants of foreign policy, for which there is growing material on the period of American monopoly of nuclear weapons under Truman (and then Eisenhower).
But perhaps your more important point is if/when Iran possesses nuclear weapons, how do we rid the world of them? So far, we have signally failed to do so, with the exceptions of INF and START. With no arms reduction agreements on the horizon, I think nuclear politics will be determined more by multipolar conflict and cooperation than with the domestic ideology of the Superpowers.
Nuclear arms control was an artifact of the bipolar global order, when people assumed that what the US and the USSR agreed to would set the standard. In the twenty-first century, it’s as obsolete as the flintlock musket.
Arms control will be alot more difficult, as PRC may refuse to negotiate saying it can only destroy the world twice over while the USA and Russia can do so 20 times each. We have the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 as a potential case study in a multipolar world, but arms control can only indirectly avoid systemic war, and while war is inherent in the international system, what do we do to prevent nuclear war between the Great Powers, and limit conventional war when it does start?
Iran is a Regional Great Power already, so we may need to cool our ideological ardour and negotiate with it. Its better relations with PRC might be an avenue (but I doubt it, given PRC's track record of using North Korea, and the USA's poor relations with PRC), but otherwise our best bet is with Germany. And that may be the more likely way of either preventing Iran going operational with nuclear weapons, or having the motive to use them, than the American ethos of The Second Amendment.
I have this image of an Iranian T Boone Pickens riding a nuclear missile to its target—and can’t really imagine the Iranians getting there any other way. You can’t overstate the incompetence of this regime, and if the Israelis keep assassinating their “best”, it will only get worse. So the only real use they’ll have for a weapon is to fuel their empty bluster. And fortunately for them, that’s all it takes to frighten this US administration.
Yes, if only the Israelis would be nicer to the ayatollahs, all would be well…
Israel has a second strike capability with its nuclear capable Dolphin Class submarines. A nuclear strike on Israel would almost certainly result in a massive nuclear attack on Iran.
I think the biggest risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon is the impact it would have on other nations in the region. A nuclear armed Iran would surely inspire Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps Egypt to at a least attempt to acquire their own nuclear arsenals. Pakistan will be happy to provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia (for a price). Turkey has the ability to develop and produce its own.
A nuclear armed Middle East, all thanks to Obama and Biden. Their horrific legacy will be cursing us for decades.
The world is full of paradoxes:
Israeli possession didn't lead to a United Arab Republic, Egypt, Jordan or Syria trying to get theirs. Pakistan's possession hasn't led to an Islamic Bomb.
There surely must be an underlying logic for nuclearisation: Libya gives up its Bomb and gets bombed; Ukraine signs away its nuclear arsenal, and is invaded. And yet Germany is not urgently investing €billions in its own Euro Bomb.
If North Korea has nuclear weapons - and South Korea would know if it did - why has one of the world's most advanced nations not contracted Samsung to assemble an arsenal? Taiwan, no less advanced, should certainly build a Bomb, as there can't be a country more likely to be invaded because it lacks one.
Then what about all those countries with nuclear power plants, and those building and planning to build them? And what about the countries that mine uranium?
Are these all the fault of Obama and Biden? Strike that question, of course they are :-)
I think you're right about that. And yes, for his Iran policy alone, Obama qualifies as one of our Worst Presidents Ever.
It must be Election Year in the US of A, because JPCOA was an agreement made with P5 +1 +EU, not just by Obama, Kerry (America's chief negotiator), or Biden. Great Powers must transend ideology to make agreements.
Too bad that the Obama/Biden administrations never heeded the warning about giving a monkey matches and dynamite.
If Iran gets nukes, how long will it be before Saudi Arabia acquires them too (Pakistan?)?
The mass that Obama made over Iran puts him on my short list of Worst Presidents Ever.
A very substantive and well-informed article. Too bad the US govt has lost so much credibility with its previous wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.