President Bush has stepped up the criticism of Iran in the past months. In fact, in the Petraeus hearings and in Bush’s latest speech about Iraq, Iran has emerged as one of the primary reasons why the U.S. cannot leave Iraq immediately:

“If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened,” Bush said. “Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region.”

Bush now mentions Iran in almost every speech he makes. He has labelled Iran’s largest military branch, the Revolutionary Guard, a terrorist organization. And he has repeatedly claimed that Iran has financed and equipped Iraqi insurgent groups, and therefore has been complicit in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq. Iran has denied the allegations.

Bush’s argument with Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is mainly over the nuclear issue. After the Iranian revolution of 1979, the new government halted construction of a nuclear reactor that the Shah of Iran had been building with U.S. aid and blessings. Work was resumed on the Bushehr site in 2002. Since then, Iranian representatives have claimed that they are only interested in nuclear power, not nuclear weapons, saying that is a natural right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. President Bush has repeatedly said that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and that Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear technology of any kind.

I’m not entirely convinced that a nuclear Iran wouldn’t be a huge problem for the Middle East and for American national security interests. However, I think it is useful to challenge conventional wisdom on the issue, especially as the drumbeat for war with Iran quickens. So let’s play a little devil’s advocate in four parts to answer the basic question: What’s wrong with a nuclear Iran?

The differences of opinion that crop up when discussing a nuclear Iran usually stem from a disagreement over whether Iranians want a nuclear bomb or simply nuclear power. However, it is worth exploring the basic Iranian assertion first.

Is Nuclear Enrichment a Fundamental Right?

It’s hard to answer no to that question. From a basic sovereignty standpoint, who are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do with regards to peaceful nuclear power? While some see the closely guarded “nuclear club” as a racist institution, allowing white countries to lord their power over brown ones, recent non-Western entrances to this nuclear society have been greeted with either acceptance or engagement, certainly not war rhetoric.

When India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons (not power plants, weapons) in 1998, they were both pretty much welcomed into the nuclear club. There was no talk of bombing India or Pakistan, and in fact the U.S. entered into a deal with India in 2005 which lifted the moratorium on nuclear trade between the two countries, allowing India to expand its nuclear energy program with U.S. backing. This was a complete reversal of the previous U.S. policy to cut off states that acquired nuclear weapons without approval.

Similarly, when North Korea tested a nuclear device in 2006, there was no talk of war. Instead, the U.S. and the international community responded with some of the highest level diplomacy the world has conducted with North Korea in decades. In return for abandoning its nuclear weapons and returning to nonproliferation, North Korea received energy assistance from five countries and the U.S. took North Korea off its list of states that sponsor terrorism.

So it seems that having nuclear weapons, or at the very least possessing nuclear power, is indeed a right of countries that the U.S. respects. The fact that the U.S. has tacitly endorsed Israel’s clandestine weapons program for years and regularly trades nuclear power technology with other countries only adds to this assertion.

If you then accept that Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes at the very least, the question now comes down whether Iran wants to produce nuclear weapons, or is simply satisfied with nuclear power, as it claims.

Does Iran Harbor Peaceful Goals?

While there is a history of countries using so called “dual-use” technology for both violent and non-violent ends, all signs seem to signal that Iran is serious when it says it only wants peaceful nuclear technology. In August, Iran agreed to open up its nuclear facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and to answer any questions the inspectors have. More recently, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, declared that there are no secret nuclear projects in Iran as he continues to push for a diplomatic solution.

ElBaradei seems to be making historic progress in making sure Iran’s nuclear ambitions are above board and completely honest. While Americans are rightly distrustful of some of the things Iran’s top diplomats say, we have no reason to distrust ElBaradei. Our trust in him should be great after taking into account the fact that he was 100% correct when he stated that Iraq had no nuclear weapons in March of 2003, days before the start of the Iraq war.

In short, we have every reason to believe Iran is telling the truth when they say they only want nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. So far at least, they have tried to deceive nobody.

Would a Nuclear Weapon Help Iran Strategically?

On top of their openness, Iran has claimed that not only are they not seeking nuclear weapons, but that even if they did posses nuclear weapons it would not help their security situation. According to Hossein Mousavian, a member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team:

It is incorrect to say that Iran’s nuclear activities constitute a response to perceived nuclear threats from other states, such as Israel, or to a strategic threat arising from the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is therefore also incorrect to adduce the existence of this threat as evidence that Iran is aiming at a nuclear-weapons programme. Naturally, Iran is concerned by the fact that Israel possesses a substantial nuclear arsenal, but Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would not reduce its fears on this score. Similarly, Iranian concerns regarding the US military presence in the region would in no way be allayed were Iran to possess nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons would neither conduce to Iran security nor in reality enhance the perception of security enjoyed by the Iranian people.

The argument above, though unconventional, is actually pretty accurate. Nuclear weapons historically have acted as deterrents on aggression. Any country that openly possesses the devices can ensure the destruction of any other country that attacks them. Nuclear weapons work not because any country actually uses them, but because they stop other countries from attacking them.

Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, yet they have never admitted it. Because they don’t publicly admit their weapons, they are not relying on a nuclear arsenal’s deterrent power. It is not unreasonable for Iran to assume that because Israel keeps its weapons hidden, it might actually use them if it felt it needed to. From that standpoint, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon would do them no good. If Israel plans on using its weapons, Iran can only ensure Israel’s subsequent destruction in a conflict, it can’t prevent war in the first place. And that’s not really a good reason to spend the enormous amount of money necessary to maintain a weapons program.

Secondly, against the U.S. arsenal, an Iranian bomb would be similarly useless. Iran would not likely have the fissile material for anything more than a few warheads over the coming decades, and their missile technology could hardly reach the U.S. or even Europe. So an Iranian bomb would do little to deter the U.S. from operating as it wishes in the Middle East.

So, though Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, there is little evidence that Iran is planning to build a nuclear weapon. On top of that, there is little reason for Iran to spend the time or money to do so. We have every reason to take Iran at its word, and there are few good arguments against allowing Iran to posses peaceful nuclear technology.

Could Nuclear Technology Fall Into the Wrong Hands?

The last argument against Iran obtaining nuclear power or weapons is the fear that nuclear materials, technology, or weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists like those Iran allegedly sponsors. This fear, too, is misplaced.

Iran is a functioning democracy of sorts, and has a well developed economy, social system, and government. The Iranian government may very well sponsor terrorist elements, but the U.S. has done so too when the circumstances benefited its national security. Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents can be seen as similar to U.S. support of the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980’s. To think that the Iranian government would turn over their most prized security technology to terrorist groups is just about as silly as imagining Reagan giving warheads to the Contras.

The fact is that the world has much more cause to worry about unguarded Soviet-era nuclear material falling into the wrong hands than Iran’s expensive and rare newfound weapons.

The Solution Is Carrots, Not Sticks

The solution to the Iranian nuclear argument is not war or diplomatic sticks, but international engagement and rewards. Iran, with its nuclear posturing, desperately wants to be taken seriously by the world community. It is in our best interests to engage them closely. In exchange for continuing nuclear inspections, the U.S. can offer Iran trade deals and strategic alliances to help ensure the security of the Middle East and Iraq. We can invest in their economy and infrastructure, and help them use their oil wealth to diversify their industries, turning Iran into a commercial hub in the region, much like the United Arab Emirates. If our experience with North Korea, India, and Pakistan has taught us anything, a new entrant into the nuclear club is not necessarily a call to war. Instead, it is an opportunity to forge alliances with overlooked countries that can help both sides progress into the future.

Your Turn:

How would you answer the four questions above? Is a nuclear Iran really a bad outcome? More importantly, is it worth going to war and spilling our blood over this argument?

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: