From the end of the World War II, the threat of nuclear arms has hung like a cloud over top of an uneasy world, the only thread of hope being the idea that none of the states actually possessing these weapons would actually risk the total annihilation not only of their own state, but of the entire globe, by using them. Unfortunately, as the number of states who have joined that club increased, the world has also been faced with certain, less - er... - rational players. Two specific players, however, have shown themselves to be decidedly less rational than others: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.
We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.
So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?
In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.
In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.
So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?
This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Man, I've been neglecting this place.
You want to know something?
Somewhere, in the Pentagon, or the White House...there's a general or a foreign secretary or a president on his knees, praying like a saint, that Iran fires a nuke at Israel or the United States.
You know there is.
Think about this: America's got thousands upon thousands of these nice little missiles, each with the power to level a province. Hell, fire 'em all, and what you'll have is a bona fide apocalypse.
But they can't use them.
Can you imagine if they fired first, unprovoked by any remotely proportional threat? The balance of power would be destroyed and, for all the US' bluster about WMD or terrorism or whatever, the current international order is working out more or less okay for them. Who wants alliances crumbling, or massive civil unrest, when your army's demoralized and stretched thin?
So aside from being the biggest case of blue balls in history, it's a weapon that's purely defensive, essentially.
Still, isn't there a part of you that wouldn't like, more than anything, to stride on down there, take a deep, grinning breath, press that little red button and unleash the greatest destructive power in history? Don't tell me there isn't.
Now, on some level, our boy Ahmedinajad knows this.
Now, buddy is a wanker. He is. He's a wanker, a dictator and an all-round unpleasant guy.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps he is a liar as well?
So Ahmedinajad says he wants to wipe out Israel. So what? Why would he do that? He doesn't want Israel gone, just like Assad in Syria doesn't want it gone, or Mubarak or Kadaffi.
Can you imagine if all these little tin-pot dictatorships woke up to a world without Israel? They'd be screwed. They've been using that state and its marvellous little 40-year brutalization of their fellow Muslims as a cynical distraction from their own brutalities since 1948, depending on the country. Without Israel, the people of Syria and Iran would breathe a sigh of relief, wipe their hands and say "right, the Great Satan's gone...where's all those human rights and democratic reforms, then?"
Supplying Hezbollah (if indeed, they are doing so. I wonder about that sometimes) is all very well and good, but Hezbollah is never going to defeat Israel outright, and as far as Iran is concerned, it isn't meant to. It's meant to bleed them, as it did in summer 2006, when it provoked Israel into flailing against them like an angry child without achieving anything other than destroying Lebanon...again.
So Ahmedinajad won't give 'em nukes, nor will he use them himself, for one reason: The moment a mushroom cloud goes off, that'll be it for him.
Remember those blue balled generals at the Pentagon? Oh, baby.
Ahmedinajad may have serious communication problems, but he knows, like Kim Jong-Il knows, that to actually use his little toys would mean annihilation. And, anyway, the Americans have more toys than he does and, unlike him, they actually have the reach to hit him without him having a hope of retaliation.
So, Ahmedinajad wants nukes? Big, bright, shiny, hellish expensive nukes that he can never use in a million years?
Hell, he can go nuts. But I'm not going to waste time being afraid of him for it.
I do see your point re: Ahmedinejad being a right bastard, and that his stance towards the west is exactly that - a stance. I also see how a rational man would say that even if Iran were to possess nuclear weapons, that they would never use them, for precisely the reason you've given.
That being said, there are only two ways to look at leadership acting as Iran's leadership is acting and posturing: that they are lying in their intentions, and that they are telling the truth in their intentions.
You do raise a valid point in saying that Iran cannot (and knows it cannot) afford (and therefore will not) use nuclear arms against another state either directly or indirectly. A rational mind would certainly think that.
That being said, based on Ahmedinejad's reactions to western pressure to stop their nuclear program (including threatening to blow up Saudi, Iraqi, and other states' infrastructure in the event of ANY attack by ANY nation on their nuclear program) - are not the reactions of a rational man. They are the reactions of someone who is so desperate for power, and so desperate for the potential leverage of nuclear blackmail, that he would go to any lengths to achieve it - including military strikes against his own, non-belligerant neighbours.
The fact is that, when faced with such threats as are being made by this man, and when faced by the possible consequences of those threats, one can either take them seriously, or not. Can we afford to ignore the threat that is presented - that of a rogue state, led by a power-hungry maniac with nuclear weapons and the capacity for nuclear blackmail, who has shown over the past to have no compunctions about killing civillians?
The clear answer, in my mind, is no, we cannot. We are faced with the possibility of being wrong whichever path we choose to go down. In cases such as this - where a power-hungry maniac could, potentially, possess nuclear strike capability - it is far better to assume that the threat is real and act accordingly, than to assume that the threat is nothing more than empty words and act on that. Either way, we risk being wrong - in one case, however, the consequences could shake the world.
Post a Comment