Every one of us has been a front line soldier since 1945. This argument, put forward by Christopher
Hitchens, reminds us of the totality of nuclear weapons. Pundits, politicians and war hawks tell us
that nuclear weapons have, and will continue to, keep us safe. The example they
always point to is the Cold War. These
O’Reillys, Krauthammers and other neoconservatives portray that tumultuous
period of history, which nearly brought humanity’s denouement, as one of peace. It should be shocking to anyone who lived
through that period or who studied history to hear that practice in revisionism. However, when Iran comes close to actualizing
a nuclear program, the same prophets of the splitting atom suddenly apostatize
their faith in the ICBM Princes of Peace.
Is this newly implemented deal between the US and Iran really about Iran
developing nuclear weapons, as that has been the topic of the public debate of
the deal, or about Iran reaching energy independence? Would possessing a nuclear weapon be adventitious
for Iran?
Firstly, did nuclear
weapons prevent a direct military confrontation between the Soviets and the
US? The answer is a most likely
yes. Though it is impossible to give an
assured answer to what if scenarios, we can accept this answer as well within
reality. However, a second question
follows. Was the Cold War a time of
peace? The answer is an emphatic
no. In the place of a single cataclysmic
third World War, several smaller wars took place, with use of the word smaller to
denote their relative size compared to a theoretical US-Soviet War. The proxy wars of Korea, Vietnam, and the
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan combined lasted 33 years with casualties around
four to six million, not counting the other displaced millions. Also thrown into the mix are the numerous
covert actions done by CIA or KGB and the tactic support of corrupt tyrannical
governments or bloodthirsty death-squad employing rebels. How can anyone call that state of affairs
peaceful, with even the most liberal application of the term? Nuclear missiles do not stop war; they make
war by proxy and shadow.
Now, we come to where
nuclear weapons play into our post Cold War Epoch, in the place of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and their journey into the infamous club of atom splitters. To understand fully the context of the Iran
nuclear deals, one must start with the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi
Freedom. OIF changed the balance of
power between Iraq, the Iranian/Syrian/Arab Shi’i alliance, and the Gulf States. Before, Iraq served as a volatile bulwark for
the Sunni Saudis against the revolutionary Shi’is of Iran. With the removal of Saddam and his
predominantly Sunni Ba’ath Party government, the US removed the only real check
to Iran’s regional power. At the writing
of this post, Iran has a significant hold on three foreign capitals: Damascus,
through their ally Bashar Al-Assad, Baghdad, by the Shi’i dominated government that
turned to Iran for support against the terrorist army of ISIL and Beirut by
their satellite organization Hezbollah.
Yemen, engulfed by civil war, could also fall into Tehran’s hands.
What does this
have to do with Iranian nuclear deals? A whole awful lot. The discussion has been for the past ten or
more years about allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Interestingly, for those past ten years,
experts have always claimed the Islamic Republic to be merely six months away
from obtaining a functioning bomb. Well,
the nuclear cat is out of Oppenheimer’s bag, as demonstrated in Pakistan’s
Kahuta Project success under the leadership of black market nuclear arms
profiteer Abdul Qadeer Khan. The
question is no longer how to stop a nuclear Iran, but how to handle a nuclear
Iran. They have the people, they can get
the resources and the knowledge is floating in the tangible ether of science.
That begs the
question, what does Iran have to gain from a successful nuclear weapons
program? The answer is, not a lot. The Obama administration said that it would
take no options off the table in dealing with a nuclear Iran, a sentiment
shared with the previous administration and most likely the next one. Iran’s favorite rhetorical straw man, Israel,
would respond to a nuclear weapon armed Iran the same way it dealt with
Saddam’s Osirak nuclear research facility in 1981, by bombing it. Any nuclear weapon facility would face the
full wrath of Judeo-Christian principles.
Without possessing a single missile, Iran is already poised to dominate
the region. What the deal is actually
about is nuclear energy. Iran must use
its domestic oil supply to fuel its growing energy demands, leaving little for
export. However, if it could harness
nuclear energy, that frees up vast amounts of its oil to be exported. That potential money is Iran’s concern.
It is important to
mention also that the Iranians could make the reactor waste weapon ready. This places them with Japan in category of
nuclear ready. Nuclear ready means that in
the course of six to twelve months Iran could have a handful of bombs. If they wanted to use said bombs, they would
of course need delivery systems. Iran
does not possess ICBM capabilities.
Israel would be in range of a potential Iranian strike, but finding a
target would be difficult. Jerusalem
would be completely off the table, as home to many Palestinians and the Dome of
the Rock. Any strike conducted by Iran
against Israel would be a suicide via counter strike. Israel would launch its entire arsenal,
speculated to be around 200 warheads, along with help from the US against Iran.
Did nuclear weapons prevent a direct military confrontation between the Soviets and the US? The answer is a most likely NO. The closest we came to a nuclear exchange (hopefully) was the Cuban Missile Crisis. If nuclear weapons had not existed in 1960, the American missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union and the Soviet missiles in Cuba aimed at the U.S. would have been only curiosities. ICBMs made no military sense without nuclear warheads. It was far more cost-effective to drop bombs from aircraft than to launch expensive and less accurate ICBMs.
ReplyDeleteWas the Cold War a time of peace? Certainly not. But it is important to remember that, with the exception of the American war in Afghanistan, the proxy wars were almost entirely optional. That fact is no comfort to the families of the fallen, but it is a fact that is rarely valued fairly. I'd take several smaller wars over one cataclysmic war any day.
What does Iran have to gain from a successful nuclear weapons program? There is a big difference between conducting a nuclear weapons program and detonating a nuclear device. The first gets Iran instant international attention and secures the government's standing with the Iranian people. It gave Iran powerful bargaining chips in the international community. Actually detonating a nuclear device amounts to showing your hand and cashing in your chips. It guarantees that sanctions would be continued for an indefinite period. It brings the possiblity of instant war, which would expose how unprepared Iran is for war, especially a nuclear war. It would have the effect of uniting most of the world against you, expecially the Sunni Arab world. That would include Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons.
Bill Millard