“You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs,” he said. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.” Israel, Netanyahu told me, is worried about an entire complex of problems, not only that Iran, or one of its proxies, would destroy Tel Aviv; like most Israeli leaders, he believes that if Iran gains possession of a nuclear weapon, it will use its new leverage to buttress its terrorist proxies in their attempts to make life difficult and dangerous; and he fears that Israel’s status as a haven for Jews would be forever undermined, and with it, the entire raison d’être of the 100-year-old Zionist experiment.
Jeffrey Goldberg’s The Point of No Return, The Atlantic September 2010

Contrary to Netanyahu’s cries, Iran is not a crazy state… Of course, Israel’s own nuclear arsenal should be sufficient to deter Iran… Israel will still have a larger arsenal than any of its neighbors, including Iran, for years if not decades.
Bruce Reidel’s If Israel Attacks, The National Interest September-October 2010

Imagine that at some point next year, Israel destroys Iran’s nuclear facilities. Video of explosions in Isfahan, Qom, and other sites are endlessly replayed for a stunned world audience to see. Almost immediately, Russia and China contemplate a UN Security Council Resolution condemning the unilateral attack. Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, who stand to benefit from Iran’s momentarily weakened nuclear program, vehemently denounce the bombings. The United States, aiming to quell the ensuing political fallout, carefully distances itself from any involvement while simultaneously trumpeting the benefits of Israel’s decision. Then something takes place that foreign policy hawks rarely contemplate.

Iran declares war on Israel and conducts a well planned counterattack. Through recent Russian and Chinese arms purchases, in addition to years of planning a counterstrike, Iran launches a wave of Shahab-3 missiles at Israeli cities. Hezbollah and Hamas then fire their own rockets in solidarity with Tehran.

While Israel battles Iran and its proxies, the U.S. now faces the economic consequences of its ally’s decision. A third war in the Middle East causes a dramatic spike in oil prices. Despite Saudi Arabia’s attempt at taming a panicked market, oil prices surge with the new revelation that Jerusalem has been hit by an Iranian missile. Israel now openly discusses the option of using its own nuclear weapons.

With a confluence of events unfolding at light speed, global stock markets plummet due to uncertainty. The small gains made in the U.S. economy are now erased as a double dip recession hits, this time worse than the fiasco in 2008. Because of the turmoil, pundits on television and radio openly debate whether or not being allied with Israel is a wise choice.

Could this nightmare become a reality?

The danger in claiming an existential threat to further foreign policy objectives is that it elicits enough emotion to overshadow facts. The facts are that nuclear powers don’t engage in direct military conflicts with one another. Kenneth Waltz, one of the greatest living international relations scholars and a world renowned expert on nuclear proliferation, explained to the Boston Globe his views on a nuclear Iran: ”The only thing a country can do with nuclear weapons is use them for a deterrent… and that makes for cautious behavior.”

But what if the reckless Ahmadinejad gives nuclear weapons to Iranian proxies like Hezbollah? John J. Mearsheimer, another prominent expert on nuclear proliferation, has also given his viewpoint on the matter: ”Iran is highly unlikely to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, in large part because they would be putting weapons into the hands of people who they ultimately did not control, and there’s a reasonably good chance that they would get Iran incinerated.” In other words, giving weapons to terrorists would be no different from launching a nuclear attack from Iran, which would result in an immediate nuclear counterstrike from Israel or the United States.

Then there is the issue of Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” However, if you think the Iranian leader is crazy, he just might be “crazy like a fox.” As Fareed Zakaria aptly pointed out in Newsweek several months back, Shia-dominated Iran fears the mutually shared security objectives of Sunni Arab states and Israel: “It’s clear that Iran fears this potential alliance, which is why Ahmadinejad has worked so hard to present himself as the chief spokesman for the great Arab cause of Palestine. By spouting his nonsense about the Holocaust and professing his support for the Palestinians, he’s trying to make it harder for leaders in Saudi Arabia to effectively take Israel’s side in opposition to Tehran.”

As Kenneth Waltz and other pioneers in thestudy of nuclear proliferationhave stated, mutually assured destruction does not achieve foreign or domestic policy objectives. The mullahs in Tehran, like Kim Jong Il in North Korea, want to keep the power they currently possess. Suicide would result in them losing wealth, prestige, and their “entire raison d’être.”

With nuclear weapons, the existential threat that Ahmadinejad poses to Israel or the U.S. is only as real as the existential threat Ahmadinejad poses to Iran. In addition, it’s doubtful that his boss, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would want to relinquish the reins of power he’s held on to since the 1980′s by engaging in a nuclear conflict. Ayatollah Khamenei was in the Iranian government during the Iran-Contra Scandal when we covertly sold weapons to Iran, so at least we know he’ll work with his enemies if it suits him.


Bookmark and Share