On Deterring Iran

"We just have to get used to a nuclear Iran." Because of Chatham House rules, I am not allowed to inform you who said that. The rules permit quoting what has been said at a meeting, but forbid indicating by whom or naming the group that hosted the event. The Council on Foreign Relations, the Nixon Center and quite a few other groups in Washington conduct their meetings in accordance with these rules, named after the highly respected London think-tank credited with first introducing this form of deliberation. Trust me, the person who made this statement was a high ranking adviser to one of the leading presidential candidates -- someone likely to make it into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Behind this simple phrase looms an important and influential foreign policy thesis; namely, that a nuclear-armed Iran could be reliably deterred from employing nuclear weapons. After all, we are often reminded, despite the dire warnings of scores of experts, scholars, and peace activists (myself included), quite a few nations have acquired nuclear arms over the last several decades, and none have employed them. What explains this nuclear restraint, we are told, is that nations who possess such deadly arms fear that if they strike, they will be wiped off the face of the earth by the retaliatory strikes sure to be launched by rival nuclear states.

This thesis that nuclear deterrence can be reliably achieved through the threat of mutual destruction, so called 'rational deterrence theory.' attained a prominent place in American security policy at the height of the Cold War. Indeed, it worked well; the superpowers did not come to nuclear blows -- though on several occasions they did come dangerously close to the brink.

Over the years, this rational deterrence theory gained popularity in Political Science and International Affairs departments as well as in the military. Some scholars have even advocated the proliferation of nuclear weapons in developing nations as a way of bolstering security. For example, in the early 90s, the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer pushed for encouraging a newly independent Ukraine to maintain an arsenal of former Soviet nuclear weapons. And, in 2000, he pushed for encouraging a nuclear-armed India. In both cases, Mearsheimer argued that nuclear proliferation would enhance security, because "Simply put, no state is likely to attack the homeland or vital interests of a nuclear-armed state for fear that such a move might trigger a horrific nuclear response."

The same rational deterrence theory suggests that even rogue states, such as a Kim Jong Il's North Korea or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad's Iran can be counted on to act rationally regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Former CENTCOM commander John Abizaid believes that "nuclear deterrence would work with Iran" since "Iran is not a suicidal nation." "We can live with a Nuclear Iran," Barry Posen, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, assures us, because it knows that "to threaten, much less carry out, a nuclear attack on a nuclear power is to become a nuclear target."

I am one of those who holds that the opposite is true; that many states--Iran, among others--have leaders who are very capable of acting in ways that are profoundly irrational, hence posing a serious threat both to other countries as well as to their own. We now have a new report that says volumes on the limits of rationality of heads of state.

George Piro, the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Hussein over several months, has just revealed what he learned about the Iraqi dictator's mindset leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. It turns out that Saddam did not expect that the U.S. would respond to his WMD posturing with a full-scale ground invasion. Saddam "told me" Piro says, that "he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack...He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." This was not merely some minor tactical "misunderstanding" or "miscalculation" on Saddam's part; it turned Iraq into an occupied land, caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, a regime change, and, ultimately, his execution.

(One reason Saddam opened up to this rather low-ranking agent was that he believed that the agent was a direct emissary from President Bush. This suggests how gullible even heads of state can be -- not exactly what we'd consider rational.)

The conclusion is not that the next American president should refuse to talk or negotiate with the likes of Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. After all, we talk even to mental patients. However, to dismiss concerns about verbal threats made by such leaders, especially when they are backed up with nuclear arms, is nothing but irrational.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) Email him at [e-mail]
www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[brainuser]

On another front, Indonesia has dropped out of OPEC, is going nuclear, and is full of Muslim hotheads. Where are the safeguards there? In fact, where's the news coverage?

[NABNYC]

The neocons will do anything to prevent peace from breaking out. Imagine the billions that would not be paid to the defense corporations if we simply stopped manufacturing wars against third world countries. Imagine the billions that would not be sent to Israel if the people of the U.S. finally realized that we're paying for the Israelis to have a better standard of living than most Americans have, better benefits, a more peaceful and safer society, while our own country goes down the toilet.

Iran is not our problem. Iran has not attacked us or anyone else. Israel and the U.S. have been unrelenting in their attacks on Iran for years now. I think we know who is trying to start this war, and it's not Iran. Israel has 150 nuclear weapons pointed at their neighbors. If Israel has nuclear weapons, then I guess the neighbors should too.

If Israel wants to become a part of the middle east, rather than just try to use the U.S. military to invade, attack, destroy their neighbors, then they should get busy trying to make peace. Because the things going on right now, and the drum-beats against Iran, will only provide temporary relief.

Make peace or leave. The U.S. needs to stop funding this insanity in the middle east, and needs to pull out completely. U.S. Out of Iraq, U.S. Out of Israel.

[Hass]

Incidentally, by "giving" nuclear technology to India, the United States violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The same NonProliferation Treaty that it accuses Iran of violating.

And I won't even get into whether Israel really is a democracy or not -- suffice it to say no democracy claims that people of one religion are superior to others.

[outnow]

You mention that India has been given nuclear technology to make the region safer. Israel has such weapons. You assume that all the leaders in these two countries will act rationally. Hm... very interesting assumption. I hope it turns out to be true. Much is made of Iran's presumed intent and much credit is given to the bonafides of the United States. However, much of the world opinion is now against the idea that these "democracies" are so well-intended. By dividing the world into "good and bad" actors with WMD, you are making a logical error called "black and white" thinking. Handling the shades of gray is the difficulty. There is nothing genetically wrong with Iranians. Religions, maybe. But to conclude that only certain peoples can handle nukes begs the question whether any should have them because we are all 99.9999 percent the same. Maybe 100%. The problem is politics and religions and the nature of the human being, not that Iranians are evil. I prefer disarmament because of religions which are not rational. The Soviets were rational because they rejected religion. Therefore they could be deterred.

[Dap]

Eloquently expressed outnow, I'd like to take a bounce off that which you've expressed.

Psychologically speaking, until mankind clearly is made aware and gets it into their psyche that *this* (the here and now) is the only space-time any one of us will ever occupy we create more problems for ourselves, needlessly. We, have enough and especially more pressing problems to focus our common attention on. Disarmament among them. We could spend half as much human energy, resources and time have a better world, by changing our antiquated paradigms.

[argeec]

The best way to discourage Iran is to eliminate their primary motivation for acquiring nukes - Israel's own stockpile.
The US should press Israel to join the NPT, open all doors to the IAEA, and join Libya and South Africa in foresaking nukes.

[KillTheMessenger]

"I am one of those who holds that the opposite is true; that many states--Iran, among others--have leaders who are very capable of acting in ways that are profoundly irrational, hence posing a serious threat both to other countries as well as to their own."

The US is indeed the best example for your thesis. But in comparison to us Iran has been acting highly rationally these days. That is what really frightens me.

[Hass]

I just love it when these articles start out with the racist assumption that we're rational but no one else is rational.

Bush has explicitly threatened Iran with nuclear first strikes. We have formally adopted a first-use of nuclear weapons against even non-nuclear-armed countries, in violation of our Negative Security Assurances of the past as well as International Law. We have LIED about WMDs to invade another country, again in violation of international law. We have armed Saddam with chemical weapons and looked the other way as he gassed his own people (and sent Rumsfeld to shake his hand) and now we are designing a new generation of more "user friendly" mininukes.

So, objectively speaking, who is the real irrational threat to the world?

[Hass]

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Sheesh. Stop with the assumptions that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran is not only implementing IAEA safeguards, but has gone beyond them by offering to open its enrichment facilities to multinational investors in order to further ensure that the program can't even theoretically be used to make bombs.

I wish people would not conflate and IAEA-monitored, civilian, nuclear energy program with nuclear weapons by using vague terminology like "a nuclear Iran"

Because if civilian nuclear technology is the same as being nuclear-armed, then guess what! Argentina and Brazil are "nuclear armed" too, and Namibia and Uganda will soon join the nuclear arms race.

[S1m0n]

...Just as the rest of the middle east has had to get used to the idea of a Nuclear Israel.

[cabotati]

Henry,

Israel does not and never did deny the right of Iran to exist.
It does not support terrorist activities against Iran.

[Henry]

Cabotati,

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and other countries did vote against the state of Israel on the U.N. Res 181. It would be a little awkward for Israel to deny the right of Iran to exist, eh? Does Damascus belong within the state of Israel? The settlements are stolen property, you can pretend otherwise, but if you think a little, when you militarly procure the land of others is drives them into acts of terrorism. You think indigenous peoples always majored in terrorism as a viable modus vivendi? Or do you think they were driven to it? There is nobody who aspires to terrorism.

[ByrdtheStampede]

I don't think the case has been proven whatsoever that if Iran were to have a nuke that it would be used at all. What's often forgotten is that Iran has been almost completely a rational actor on the world stage for the last few decades. Why? The mullahs that actually run Iran's foreign policy (it is NOT, repeat NOT Ahmadinijad's Iran in any real way) have a great deal of power. They want to maintain this power at all costs. That means diverting an attack that ends up in their getting blown to smithereens either by the US or by their own people in rebellion against their leadership. They walk a fine line in this, needing to rail against the "Evil Westerners" to seem tough while simultaneously not railing too much to provoke an attack. What you prove early on in your piece is that nukes will not be used by rational actors, and if Iran even had a weapons program (they don't by most accounts, which makes me wonder why this is even a topic for discussion at all), toppling the regime itself (which we probably don't have the force to do anyway) would only put the weapons in the hands of irrational ones.

[musing]

This article is dead on when it comes to fanatics of any religion shape or form.Reagan proved that a strong nation can talk but you must have the power to back it up. These rogue nations continue to rub the democracie nose in it,simply because they all have the Chamberlain complex. the example of Afghanistan where NATO cannot get their members to make a concerted effort.
Peace would be world wide if the Western democracies and Russia took strong action and just for once realized that it is in all our interest to have peace . Compete in trade not in arms before it is completely out of control and some nut like the leader of Iran drops a bomb on a neighbor and then it will be too late.What ever happened to the U.N? it is more like the Geneva Convention members. all for peace as long as the other country does the tough hauling.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Peace would be world wide if ..."

That is a very strong statement that is not supported by history whatsoever. The Romans already had a similar political idea they called "Pax Romana" and the best they could do about it is to build a wall around their borders to people who did not believe that Rome should impose their laws and culture on them. In the end Rome failed and the people they could not conquer, after a thousand years of darkness, became the new rulers of the world. The British Empire had pretty much the same idea about exporting its lifestyle and it failed in a long agony that lead to such constructs as Iraq and Pakistan. Now you are asking the world as a whole to repeat the mistakes of half a dozen empires in the past. I wouldn't give a dime for that idea. I am, however, prepared to accept that different parts of the world will converge at different speeds towards what one could call "universal humanity". In some places like Europe it can be achieved faster, in others, like the Middle East, it might take centuries longer.

[Dap]

Dear Professor Etzioni,

Another fine piece of work, you have in fact covered the issue well. It's a really brain twister without question. Although, I do find myself opposed to your point of view, especially because I believe all of G-d of Abraham believers to be quite irrational by clear objective truth-in-fact, in others words " Those that live in glass house, should not throw stones." Agape(Love in fellowship of our shared fragile Humanity)

[Dap]

P.S.

Professor, Can you justify this:

Israel deny Children Hope.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/30/us-withdraws-gaza-fulbrig_n_104292.html

Exactly, President Carter's point...

Peace *NOT* Apartheid,

[Dap]

Dear Professor Etzioni,

So it is clear, as I am sure everyone thinks I speaking to those Palestinian Children in the linked post, I'm not, I'm speaking to *HOPE* for Israeli Children as well.

When I first started commenting here on Huffington Post some three years ago now, in some of my rants, I tried to explain about how very fast our technology is progressing, and that nuclear weapons will become obsolete, (not that they will not be as powerful) but, there are going to be weapons just as destructive that cannot be kept out of others hands, and for this reason, humanity had better change their paradigm.

Now and I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm talk out of my arse, believe me, I am speaking to an objective case in fact, and it's the truth-in-Fact.

And that's the reason, I keep pushing for a change of paradigm, we (humanity) have to let go of our old antiquated ideas time to grow up. This is something we have to all work on together the poking one another with sticks in our sore spots has to stop, and ASAP !

Especially as the technology I speak to has all ready arrived, and there will be more on the way, that will not be stopped, we are going to have to find a way to live with it...
TOGETHER. Agape.

[PADDYWHACK]

We have an irrational leader,even he has not used nukes.I see them as defensive weapons to be used as the country is being wiped out since total obliteration of the user is as certain as can be.I think Israel's stockpile fills the same purpose.We don't want anyone to have these deterrents since they might preclude conventional destruction of our next third world bogeyman/Hitler.

[jhamm1]

From an administration which has not only decided to shelve any further efforts to pursue non-polifration agreements, but has fused its custom brand of international "tough talk' with military contracts for an entirely new gerneation of 'nukular' weapons, who the hell are we to decide who should and shouldn't possess nuclear weapons?

And secondly, I refuse to take PIro's contentions at face value without consulting any actual documnetatrion of the interrogation itself, as his depiction of Saddam's state of mind not only sounds far-feteched, but tailor made in accordance to what the Bush administration wants us to think.