The Crisis of 2010

As Iran continues to develop a nuclear capability, we should ask a few simple questions. First, will it prove disastrous if Iran acquires nuclear weapons? Second, will the United States or Israel launch a preemptive disarming strike against Iran? Since negotiation and sanctions have clearly failed, what will the major players do? What is the likely outcome of this situation?

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, we do not know whether the Iranian leaders would use these weapons in an irresponsible way. Because of statements made by Iranian statesmen in the past, Israeli citizens have reason to worry. Because of America's open borders, and because America has been labeled "the Great Satan" by Iranian leaders, the Americans may also worry how Iran would use its nuclear arsenal. There have been books dedicated to the proposition that Iran is dangerous, and that it is unacceptable that Iran should acquire nuclear weapons. We know that dangerous totalitarian countries have already acquired nuclear weapons, such as the Soviet Union and Communist China, as well as North Korea. The world has not suffered a cataclysm as yet, though we cannot say what the future holds in this regard. Would adding Iran to the mix seriously endanger anyone?

There is no way of telling what will happen in the case of Iran. In 1949, when the Soviet Union got the atomic bomb, many feared the worst. But after sixty years, there has been no nuclear war. Of course, a nuclear war could break out tomorrow. And that is the kind of world we live in. It is a nuclear world, with the possibility of a nuclear world war. It is a problem with only one solution: to retain a sufficient arsenal to strike back, and thereby disarm any potential aggressor. If you hit a country's military infrastructure with nuclear weapons, it cannot wage war. It cannot benefit from its own nuclear attacks. The whole thing becomes pointless. And if you start flattening cities, it becomes even more pointless.

The argument has been made that the religious leadership in Iran cannot be deterred by these considerations because Iranian leaders are apocalyptic maniacs who care about the next world more than the one we are all living in. Supposedly, the Iranian clerics are ready to die in a nuclear fireball in order to eliminate the "Zionist entity" (i.e., Israel). More realistically, it is probable that the individual clerics would choose life. But as they are rulers, and form a group, their actions are not strictly determined by self interest. Groups are not rational in the way individuals are rational. One must be careful, however, in labeling Iranian leaders as "irrational." It is more realistic to describe them as trapped in the madness of their own groupthink (not unlike Western leaders). Furthermore, it is a more reactive dynamic than we may realize. Religious ideas act upon organized groups, and these ideas have long-term implications that often contradict expectations. Simply put, we don't know what the Iranians will do. In all likelihood, they will not attack Israel; but use their weapons to intimidate the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.

In light of this, what should the United States do? The problem with a preemptive strike on Iran, is that Iran hasn't attacked anybody. If the United States lost the good opinion of several foreign nations by invading Iraq, when Iraq was led by a military aggressor like Saddam, how will things stand if the United States bombs Iran? Once the United States begins a policy of preemptively striking newly forming nuclear powers, the United States assumes responsibility for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide. And one thing stands out in this; namely, that America is not institutionally or temperamentally equipped to assume such a role. From a practical political standpoint, the United States must not follow this path. Besides this, the American people will not support such a policy because Americans do not like war and are tired of interventionist policies. Perhaps it is desirable on some level for the United States to stop Iran from developing a large nuclear arsenal. But the Americans have no magic wand. More than a decade ago, it was desirable for the United States to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. But the United States was helpless in this matter. Therefore, for the same political reasons, and for the same strategic reasons, the United States is helpless in the case of Iran. First, because a military strike would do immediate damage to the U.S. international position. Second, because the American people will not stand behind such a policy for long.

Israel, however, is another matter. The Israelis have used military power to prevent hostile states from acquiring nuclear weapons in the past (e.g., in the case of Iraq). There is a different logic at work in the Israeli psyche. The Israelis have faced, and continue to face, the prospect of extermination. It is real to them, whereas Americans do not take this sort of thing seriously. So it appears that Israel is psychologically more willing to bomb Iran. Yet there is a complication here. The Iranians regard Israel and America as a united front, so that an Israeli strike against Iran may be treated as an American strike. The Iranians may be counted on to punish America and the whole Western world if Israel launches such a strike. This punishment would be accomplished by closing the Persian Gulf to oil traffic. It may also include air and missile strikes against U.S. war ships and U.S. positions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It should be noted that the Venezuelans and North Koreans are allied with Iran. Already the North Koreans are threatening missile strikes against U.S. targets. Tensions in the region are high after the sinking of a South Korean vessel . There are even indications that bordering Chinese military districts have moved to a war footing. Russia has also begun to improve its military position near Korea. These danger signs deserve our attention, because the next series of mistakes -- by either side -- could trigger a war. We must also entertain the possibility that North Korea is purposely distracting the United States from focusing on the Middle East at this time.

It is difficult to say what will happen in the next three months. The crisis might pass without event. Or there may be a shooting war on more than one front. The real danger, at this juncture, is that a miscalculation will occur and things may get out of hand. The economic and financial impact of such a war should be obvious. As I have written before, life is fragile and the same is true regarding the life of nations.

About the Author

jrnyquist [at] aol [dot] com ()