The main use of nuclear weapons in recent times has been to serve as a deterrent against foreign aggression. The theory of mutually assured destruction has to an extent stabilized conflicts between global powers since WW2. On a regional scale, nuclear weapons have kept India and Pakistan from open warfare. So what makes the situation in the middle east different? Would the counterbalance of Israeli ( and US) military power with a nuclear armed Iran actually cause a decrease in tensions? If Iran did have a fully functional military arsenal, would they still resort to backing terrorist groups to exert their will? Or would the introduction of the bomb nullify their need for this lesser form of intimidation?
Furthermore, is it even necessary for Iran to HAVE a nuclear bomb in order to use nuclear annihilation as leverage? Even with the level of development their nuclear program has now, militant groups allied with Iran could be supplied with materials necessary to make a "dirty bomb". Is this significantly different from Iran being armed with a Nuclear missile? If Iran chose to do so, they could have a weapon of this sort on the way to Israel right now. The amount of damage possible with this less advanced weapon would still be devastating and destroy any chance of a peaceful resolution to Middle East conflict in the foreseeable future. The only reason I can fathom that they haven't yet unleashed such an attack, if their rhetoric is to be believed, is because they are rational enough to know that it would mean the destruction of their government / country. How would this situation change if they had a different form of atomic weaponry?
It seems to me that in many ways it's almost preferable for Iran to just flat out have a warhead to tout. This way, negotiations within the region between Israel and Iran would have to be made on a more balanced level. If Iran had a bomb, then there would be much less need for them to actually use it. If the feelings of encroachment by western powers is lessened in Iran by possessing the bomb, then perhaps the domestic politics would move away from such militant rhetoric. The use of terrorist groups would not be as necessary a vanguard for the Iranian interests in the region.
The end goal when dealing with Iran shouldn't be the subjugation of the country, but rather the normalizing of relations with them. The fact that they are branded as outsiders by the western world only enforces these views among the ruling class. By developing nuclear technologies, Iran will become comparable in capabilities to the other regional actors, lessening the need for extremism as a tool of political will.
Related article: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb
No comments:
Post a Comment