Nuclear Iran Not the End of the World

A danger the U.S. and the rest of the world can live with

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Nuclear Iran Not the End of the World
by Jordan Michael Smith
12-Nov-2011
 

United Nations inspectors released new documents containing what is supposed to be a bombshell. “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report is the most damning the agency has ever issued.

Unsurprisingly, hawks have jumped on the news to argue that America needs to attack Iran. “If we are in a position where Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon, then action needs to be taken,” declared Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. “A nuclear Iran poses a challenge to U.S. influence that cannot be tolerated,” argued Commentary magazine’s Jonathan Tobin. Liberals and leftists, by contrast, claim the report is not as harsh as what is being reported. The report will “not likely” contain a “smoking gun,” wrote Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation.

Dreyfuss is right that the report doesn’t contain unequivocal evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program — but so what? If an Iranian nuke was not containable and a major threat to the United States, then America would be justified in destroying the program before it was fully realized. But it is neither. And it is unwise to overlook those points in favor of obsessively following the daily shifts of Iranian nuclear progress like traders scouring the Dow Jones. History and strategic logic say that a nuclear Iran would not represent a major threat to the U.S. or its allies.

The logic of Mutually Assured Destruction holds that a country with nuclear weapons will not attack another nuclear-armed country because it will itself face retaliation in the form of nuclear destruction. Destroying the enemy becomes a way of destroying oneself. MAD, as the policy came to be known during the Cold War, is unsettling but has proved 100 percent effective in preventing war between nuclear-armed states.

Iran is unique, argue the hawks of Washington and Tel Aviv. Unlike with every other country with nuclear weapons that has preceded it, this form of deterrence will not work with Iran, they say. The Iranian regime is distinguished by the radical Islamist ideology of its leaders, who believe death in the service of Allah is desirable. As a result, it is unlikely that “deterrence can be successful with religious extremists who regard life and death differently,” argued Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. For all the horrors of nuclear menaces from previous eras like the Soviet Union and Mao’s China, hawks claim, they were atheists committed to sustaining life on earth and hence subject to rational deterrence.

Objections to this argument are twofold. First, there is no indication the Iranian regime is committed to martyrdom at all. Consider its actions, not its words. Iran promised repeatedly that it would destroy Iraq in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War — and accept destruction itself — rather than accept a cease-fire or end hostilities. It even used human waves to clear minefields and declared the war a sacred jihad, promising to resist until victory. Nonetheless, in 1988 Iran sued for peace and accepted a compromised end to the war that left the country in no more of a favorable position than when the war began.

Moreover, the Islamic regime in Iran has not invaded a single other country, instead relying only on the low-risk strategy of supporting proxy groups like Hezbollah. According to the prizewinning book “Treacherous Alliance,” by Iranian-born scholar Trita Parsi, Iran also had extensive dealings with its sworn opponent, Israel, throughout the 1980s. If the religious extremists who lead Iran are prepared to commit national suicide, they have never displayed it. Just the opposite, in fact. They have shown they prize survival above all else.

Second, singling out the Iranian regime as particularly unstable and untrustworthy romanticizes challenges from the past. Far from predictable, the Soviet Union and Chinese governments that developed the bomb were totalitarian, expansionist and far more threatening to the United States than Iran has ever been. The same hawks who claim Iran cannot be trusted are ideological descendants (sometimes literal descendants) of the individuals who wrongly argued that the Soviets were gaining strength on America in the 1970s and were determined to destroy it.

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s infamous warning to the Western world that “we will bury you” was far more threatening to America than anything that Iran, with its third-rate military and economy, could ever do. Similarly, Mao Zedong, who developed China’s nuclear capabilities, was every bit as aggressive with his rhetoric as the Iranians are: “Let us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a little higher it could be half … I say that if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people again,” he said. And China, unlike present-day Iran, was a country with a huge military capacity and had matched Americans directly on the battlefield, on the Korean peninsula.

In retrospect, it is clear that nuclear weapons actually moderated China’s sabre-rattling, but that was hardly obvious at the time. Released documents showed that John F. Kennedy’s administration very seriously contemplated a strike on China’s nuclear program, as did previous administrations with the Soviets. The worst fears of hawks that China and the Soviets would deploy their nukes against the United States or its allies never materialized. And had America struck either China or the Soviet Union, the result would have been unmitigated, unnecessary disaster. The same is true of Iran today.

None of this is to say that an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon is a positive development. It isn’t. Nuclear proliferation in any region is problematic; in the chaos-ridden Middle East, it is simply dangerous. But it is a danger the United States and the rest of the world can live with. What America cannot afford is another unnecessary, poorly considered attack on a Muslim country in the heart of the Middle East. If only we had a reliable deterrent to prevent against that.

First published in Salon.com.

AUTHOR
Jordan Michael Smith has written for the New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
alimostofi

War with Taliban in Iran is

by alimostofi on Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:09 PM PST

War with Taliban in Iran is very logical. ........

Let me remind all. If the same description for The Taliban is used for The Hezbollah Party network in the various countries, then the world would not be annoyed about hitting Hezbollah sites in Iran or anywhere. The US and UN would never had attacked Afghanistan. At first the culture and identity of Afghanistan was preserved, then they labelled, branded got the publicity sorted out for The Taliban. Now no one minds Taliban getting bombed. The same can be done for the Hezbollahis as we call them in Persian.

Ali Mostofi

//twitter.com/alimostofi

 


  •  
alimostofi

War with Taliban in Iran is

by alimostofi on Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:06 PM PST

War with Taliban in Iran is very logical. ........

Let me remind all. If the same description for The Taliban is used for The Hezbollah Party network in the various countries, then the world would not be annoyed about jitting Hezbollah sites in Iran or anywhere. The US and UN would never had attacked Afghanistan. At first the culture and identity of Afghanistan was preserved, then they labelled, branded got the publicity sorted out for The Taliban. Now no one minds Taliban getting bombed. The same can be done for the Hezbollahis as we call them in Persian.

Ali Mostofi

//twitter.com/alimostofi

 


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Bahmani

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 14, 2011 02:18 PM PST

How about we take a much simpler path and start by ourselves. If we stop using Iran for IRI it will cost nothing. It will be a good start and put the idea out for others. 

I never come up with ideas which are to grand to work :-) Simpler the better. There are about 1 million Iranian Americans. If we all decided to remind people that IRI is not Iran it will go a long way.

But of course we are not going to get everyone to do it. But a small start will go a long way. What do you think?


  •  
bahmani

VPK: IRI vs Iran

by bahmani on Mon Nov 14, 2011 01:12 PM PST

The degree that which the IRI has disgraced the word and good name of Iran, is evident in the use by non-Iranians. When a non-Iranian mentions us, it is always, "Iran" did this or that or the other. I will of course, immediately stop referring to the IRI as Iran, when the rest of the world does. This might take a while.

There is no way to differentiate the IRI from Iran unless we are willing to hire an ad agency from 5th avenue and undertake a massive anti-IRI, pro-Iran PR and product differentiation campaign.

Since you and I are most probably the only ones willing to fund this, a Google ad is probably all we can afford.

Actually, that might be an effective way to counter the bad press.

Imagine every time anyone searches for the word "Iran", our ad would pop up with a short counter argument to differentiate the IRI from Iran and re-brand Iran as an inherently positive term.

Hmmm?

To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Bahmani

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 14, 2011 04:38 AM PST

 

Great post but some disagreements. Specially on how you make IRI and Iran be the same. Iran does not "think" anything it is IRI that does. Iran is not the same thing as the IRI as so many people like to claim.

  • Our "Principles" will not be a guard. Instead it is better to rely on deals and alliances. Nations will act based on interest not because someone has principles and moral high ground..
  • Also I would not refer to IRI as Iran. Alimostofi is right we should not perpetuate that misconception. IRI is not Iran but a occupation regime.

  •  
bahmani

Question is Should Iran get snukes

by bahmani on Sun Nov 13, 2011 05:34 PM PST

While we all know Iran CAN get nukes if it wants to, and this retarded regime certainly seems to want one, the question really is, aren't Iranians better than this?

Is this what we have come to? Nothing more than a bunch of cold war poker players?

The idea that having nukes is a deterrent against attack is utterly outdated and demode. It would be far cooler, humane and civilized to let your principles stand guard for you. Iran should be bigger than this, bigger than to merely hold the entire world hostage.

Iran thinks it can hold a big stick in the playground behind it's back and walk up to the bully and dare him to hit it in the face.

You might have the stick, and you might even get one hit in, but you will most certainly be hit in the face by the bully. Showing him your stick will only make him angrier, and the sure beating you will receive even more severe.

Generally, being an all arrogant, annoying little asshole, as well as the school wimp too, makes it even more certain you are going to get it bad.

Iran today, is the greasy, skinny, annoying little bitch asshole in the schoolyard that doesn't know his place. The US is everyone's favorite high school football team, Israel is the Lacrosse team, and second favorite.

Both are cracking their knuckles and just waiting for the 3:30 bell to ring and the principal to look the other way for just 5 minutes.

Just 5 minutes.

To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

British Firm selling "protester-tracking" to IRR

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Nov 13, 2011 02:51 AM PST

 

We got to publicize this as much as possible. In USA we could pressure congress to cover it under export restrictions. It WILL impact UK bacause it will be "us" or "them". Congress is already chomping at the bit.

It will not be hard to get them to put anything in sanctions. Obama will sign anything as well. This is a no brainer. Then see how "Creativity Software" will deal with creative sanctions by USA. 

This has to be plastesed all over headlines. Make it clear where Britain stands. Who has been supporting iRI and why. I want to see this SOB Hague in front of a court in "The Hague". For assisting in crimes against humanity.


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

USA/UK ...

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Nov 13, 2011 01:57 AM PST

 

Thanks for the article it is very informative about British intentions. 

But USA and UK have different interests and policies. Once in a while they are aligned as they were when Jimmy Carter was in power. Other times they are at odds. It is naive to think they are always working in concert.

I have said a great many times that Iranian American may influence US policy. Which is the only nation that really matters. Let the American sanctions include the phone tracing stuff and we see how "Hague" deals with that. As USA tightens the sanctions it is harder for IRI supporters in EU to peddle thei poison. No I am not thinking American are on "our" side but there is more hope with them. 


  •  
amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

If

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Sat Nov 12, 2011 05:49 PM PST

anyone wanted the freedom movement to succeed they wouldn't be helping it kill and suppress protestors.  The Love for Islam runs very deep in the USA/UK/France almost as deep, but not quite as deep as their hatred for Iranian Culture and the Iranian Monarchy.

//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/william-h...

Look at this linkl if you care to know why those in Iran are so screwed today and why killing, capturing and torturing all protestors was like shooting fish in a barrell for the IRI, having friends in high places that are prepared to do anything to keep islam in power is good for IRI.

The Freedom movement has never been of any concern to anyone outside Iran, what they say on TV is the opposite of what they do in practice.


  •  
Kaveh Nouraee

Stupid Analysis

by Kaveh Nouraee on Sat Nov 12, 2011 04:53 PM PST

These talking empty heads delude themselves into buying the idea that the IR has no offensive aspirations.


  •  
shushtari

boro baba....

by shushtari on Sat Nov 12, 2011 03:55 PM PST

nice 'analysis' smith!

well if that's your opinion, why didn't carter let the shah stay???? wasn't he a zillion times better than these mullahs? 


  •  
xalephbet

IF

by xalephbet on Sat Nov 12, 2011 01:58 PM PST

Iran is attacked, the freedom movement will die..


  •  
hirre

If

by hirre on Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:40 AM PST

Iran becomes nuclear the freedom movement will die...


  •