When I first saw the headline in the current issue (July/August 2012) of Foreign Affairs -- "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb" -- I thought there was a typo. Surely it was meant to read "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb -- Not!"
But then I remembered that this bimonthly journal is not known for its typos -- nor, for that matter, irony.
On the contrary, this is arguably the world's most influential and straight-shooting publication on foreign policy.
The author of this particular essay, Kenneth Waltz, is no slouch, either. He is a prominent scholar and a founder of the neorealism school in international relations theory.
So I turned to the piece, eager to see if my own longstanding concern about an Iranian bomb was perhaps misplaced.
I was dumbfounded by what I read.
Here are a few choice snippets:
Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.
Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.... Should Iran become the second Middle Eastern nuclear power since 1945, it would hardly signal the start of a landslide.... No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today.
"Diplomacy between Iran and the major powers should continue.... But the current sanctions on Iran can be dropped: they primarily harm ordinary Iranians, with little purpose."
And then there's Waltz's closing line: "When it comes to nuclear weapons, now as ever, more may be better."
In essence, Waltz constructs his argument on two pillars.
He asserts the core problem in the Middle East is Israel's nuclear arsenal, which needs to be balanced by another power, in this case Iran.
Further, he believes such a balance of power inherently stabilizes the situation, thereby reducing, not increasing, the risk of conflict.
He could not be more wrong on Iran.
Iran does not fit the theoretical template, drawn from his research, that he seeks to impose on it, and the consequences of this misreading could be profound.
For starters, Waltz declares that Iran's leaders are rational, hence no need for concern about a nuclear bomb in their hands.
Really?
Just because Waltz deems them to be dependable actors who, he asserts, will behave like others moderated by their possession of a nuclear bomb (does that include North Korea's strongmen?), are we all now to go home and get a good night's sleep?
Is their Shiite eschatology, focused on hastening the coming of the Hidden Imam, not to be taken into account, as if there were no place for state ideology in the discussion?
Apropos, is it just possible that their vision of the "end of days" could be accelerated by a world without Israel?
After all, the former Iranian president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, famously declared "[T]he use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel would destroy everything."
Could that kind of thinking not prompt Iranian leaders, living in a self-imposed cocoon, to conclude that the risk might be worth the reward?
Was their recruitment of young Iranian boys as would-be bomb sappers in the eight-year war with Iraq, and armed only with plastic keys to enter "heaven" and the awaiting 72 virgins, the behavior of a "rational" government?
Was the plot to blow up a Washington restaurant and kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. the thinking of a predictable regime?
Second, Waltz's confidence that there would be no "landslide" of proliferation in the Middle East if Iran goes nuclear is belied by the facts.
He totally ignores the regional context. There is no mention of the critically important Shiite-Sunni rivalry. He inexplicably fails to note the panic in neighboring Arab countries, documented in Wikileaks and elsewhere, about the prospect of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Is it conceivable that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and, for that matter, Turkey would sit idly by and watch neighboring Iran become a nuclear power without following suit -- and with all the attendant consequences?
The prospect of such a neighborhood hegemon sends shivers up the spines of everyone in the region, save Iran's few friends, such as Bashar al-Assad's Syria, and those already too "Finlandized" by Iran's growing assertiveness to speak up.
And, speaking of proliferation, Waltz unconvincingly dismisses the possibility of Iran passing along its nuclear technology to terrorist groups, and entirely ignores the prospect of Tehran sharing nuclear tidbits with state actors, such as Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
Third, Israel's nuclear arsenal, believed to have been developed over 50 years ago, has not created the strategic imbalance that Waltz suggests needs recalibrating.
Indeed, that reported arsenal neither stopped Egypt and Syria from provoking war in 1967, nor launching a surprise attack against Israel in 1973.
Nor did it halt the PLO from waging its terrorism campaign.
Nor did it dissuade Hamas and Islamic Jihad from firing thousands of missiles and rockets at Israel.
Nor did it block Hezbollah from triggering a war with Israel from its redoubt in Lebanon.
Moreover, unlike Iran, Israel has never threatened another nation with extinction.
Thus, to put Israel and Iran in the same boat, as Waltz does, is utterly irresponsible.
And finally, Waltz calls for the continuation of diplomacy with Iran and the end of sanctions. Huh?
Drop the sanctions, as Waltz suggests, and we will have precisely the outcome he invites -- a nuclear-armed, chest-thumping Iran, convinced, not without good reason, that it had masterfully manipulated a gullible world. At that point, what useful purpose could diplomacy serve?
As the P5+1 faces the growing prospect of failed talks with Iran, there will doubtless be more calls from the likes of Waltz for some dramatic accommodation with Tehran.
Nothing could be more dangerous for regional and global stability.
And nothing would better prove our inability to learn the lessons of history than, to borrow from the title of Barbara Tuchman's book, such a march of folly.
Something a lot of people seem to miss: Israel and Iran were allies. Then, after its revolution, Iran threw it away, describing Israel as a cancerous tumor and "the little Satan", and sponsoring terrorism against its people. So how could changing the balance of power in their favor possibly lead to peace, when this is what they do with the power they have now?
The US and Israel are presently engaged in an attempt at regime change in Iran, probably to install another US lap dog.
And that's a good reason to start a war? Let alone call for a country's destruction and murder its people?
"The US and Israel are presently engaged in an attempt at regime change in Iran"
A baseless accusation, though it would be justified and rational to do considering what the current one is doing.
Nobody sane wants Iran to ever get nukes.
The only people who disagree with this are mentally ill people who, usually in their next sentence, reveal that their only motivation for this is hoping to make Israel weaker, or to erase Israel altogether.
You may not believe the Revolutionary Guard having nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to Israel, but most in Israel do believe this. It is their decision if the dreaded moment arrives, not ours.
Unfortunately, it will involve everyone and certainly drag the US and NATO into it.
I don't see NATO getting involved. France would block it. The US, only if its bases and ships are attacked.
Is their jewish eschatology, focused on hastening the coming of the messiah, not to be taken into account, as if there were no place for state ideology in the discussion?
oppps but they have nukes, that is why they are keeping the world hostage.
How can people like David Harris let themselves believe we don't see through them as to what they are.
Sweden, Russia, Norway, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, China, Hong Kong, Argentina, Austria, Spain, The Czech Republic, Greece, New Zealand, Ireland, and India.
Bringing up the rear, at 450, is the #1 University in Iran, University of Teheran. This for a country 10x the size of Israel.
http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp
This is based on the 2010 rankings.
And yet Israel el.ies on the world's largest welfare cheque. Pretty embarassing for such a high achiever don't you think?
"I’m against all foreign aid, and if we cut out all the foreign aid today we would cut out 7 times more foreign aid from the enemies of Israel."
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-12/ron-paul-cut-foreign-aid-unshackle-israel-leave-iran-alone/
I'd be very happy for the US to cut off all aid, Israel included. Israel would come out far ahead on that change.
And per capita, the Palestinians get a larger "welfare check," far more than what ISrael gets per capita.
"According to the study's findings, during 2009 and 2010 the PA's reliance on donations increased - with a 20% growth in donations, totaling some $3.96BN per year."
http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/palestinians-receive-highest-per-capita.html
Moreover, Israel's aid is 100% for military use, 77% of which by law must be used to buy overpriced US manufactured arms. By rights, US aid to Israel should be called a subsidy to US arms manufacturers.
Israel has no goal of conquering the ME, but the Arab countries have never given up their fantasy of conquering Israel.
But, I can see why YOU are not bothered and do not care in the least about Iran with nuclear arms. I guess, you do not live in Europe, Russia, or one of the Sunni Muslim areas.
The sound of another exaggeration ... but hey what the heck - its Israel and lying and/or exaggeration just goes with the territory and keeps everyone stupid
Israel's neighbors are:
Jordan
Egypt
Lebanon
Syria
Gaza
Israel is a threat to Jordan ? No
Israel is a threat to Egypt ? No
Both signed peace agreements and those agreements have been honored by both sides. A problem may come now with the new Egyptian Islamist regime which is racist and won't accept coexistence with Jews - or descendants from pigs and apes as they believe. But so far, there's no threat and if there becomes one its not Israel but the Arabs that are are threating.
Syria?
Most I suspect would prefer Israel to be more then a threat to Assad's Syria given the current murder rate of Assad killing his own people BUT no, Israel is no threat there.
Lebanon?
Only if Hezbollah fires rockets or missiles or mortars are mount operations against Israel. Otherwise the borders remain quiet as they've been since the last war that began because Hezbollah could resist firing rockets
Who 's the threat again?
Hamas?
Same problem with rockets as everyone knows
Israel defends itself and people like you call it a threat
So as usual reality is entirely the reverse of what you claim. Israel threatens no one. Islamists threaten everyone and you just want to reverse reality
The last 2 attacks on Lebanon had nothig to do with rockets fired from Lebanon.
1982 - attack followed the shooting of teh ISraeli ambassaor to London by Abu Nidal, who had no connection to PLO or Hezbollah (who didn't even exist then)
2006 - attack followed cross border skirmish wit Hezbollah in which IDF troops were captured. Israel does this with impunity, but no wars result.
>> Same problem with rockets as everyone knows
Npovemebr 2008 attack on Gaza had nothig to do with rockets.
It regularly invads Lebanese airspace and detonates explosives on Lebanese soil. The most recent attack on Lebanon was a week ago.
http://www.google.ca/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH3rcfNbMEhW0YqGD62Nxcdb1xnA?docId=a071e787331c488db7e124300ea67410
Israel currently occupies Syria by military force. Israeli military and israeli settlers shoot at Syrian farmers. israel is a threat to all THREE COUNTRIES. Israel regularly attacks fishermen and civilians on the beaches in Gaza. Causing deaths.
israel is certainly a threat to its neighbors. That is beyond doubt.
Logically, the only way to prevent a repeat of 1953 (when the US directed a coup that replaced a democraticly elected leader with a dictator), is to obtain sufficient nukes to prevent a US invasion.
I am not in favor of Iran getting nukes -- but its pretty obvious why they would think obtaining them is necessary.
I like your post, Raymond! Yes, we oldies used to think only good things of our fellow human beings, and some of us keep hoping that we are right.
I meant no disrespect of the elderly. Sorry for offending you. I am 70 years old, so I am in your group. I doubt that I am as sharp as I was at 30, and I mainly wanted to emphasize that Kenneth Waltz is out of touch with what is really going on, and "sclerotic."
"the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world."
".. allegedly with plastic keys to heaven around their necks."
Allegedly is right. This trope is derived from the film "Not without my daughter", filmed at GG Studios, Neve Ilan, Israel. The book and film were totally discredited by a Finnish documentary "Without my daughter":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_W2SUn1ZNU0
One wonders how much credibility can accrue to an article reliant on such blatant misrepresentation of fact.
That's not correct at all
"Not without My Daughter" is an American movie which was filmed in three locations Ankara Turkey, Atlanta Georgia and at the Golan Globus studio in Israel.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/
But I assume because you conveniently left out the Ankara and Atlanta location, you're trying to make this look like an Israeli film - its not.
And using a private film studio, Golan Globus, because that facility was the closest State of the Art facility to your primary location in Turkey is all about smart movie making and not connecting Israel to your little conspiracy theory.
Jeesh the nonsense some will stoop to
Iraq and Iran fought a bloody war, to our discredit, we supplied both sides with weapons. Regardless, Iran is a oppressive dictatorship with jails full of political prisoners, while supporting such great people as Assad and Nasrallah. Adding a nuke to their stockpile would only result in more instability in the middle east and probably more casualties.
But we have the moral highground because we support humanitarians like the House of Saud, Mubarak (until he ws overthrown), the FSA in Syria (who include Al Qaeda among it's ranks) and the Lybian government (who include Al Qaeda among it's ranks).
>> Adding a nuke to their stockpile would only result in more instability in the middle east and probably more casualties.
Casualties from what?
Iran is one of the very, very few countries whos population has suffered an attack with weapons of mass destruction. They showed unbelievable and unmatched restraint and patience during those years. Who can blame them for not wanting a deterrent. Particularly with all the saber rattling and threats spewing from gutless israel every day.