No Danger in a Nuclear Iran? Seriously?
No Danger in a Nuclear Iran? Seriously? — The Patriot Post.
Are you concerned about Tehran’s drive for nuclear weapons? Political scientist Kenneth Waltz isn’t. A senior research scholar at Columbia University and former president of American Political Science Association, Waltz writes in the new issue of Foreign Affairs that it’s time we learned to stop worrying and love the Iranian bomb.
Waltz’s piece — prominently featured on the cover of the Council on Foreign Relations’ flagship journal — is headlined “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” The US government and its allies in Europe, Israel, and the Arab world may regard the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran may as the gravest security threat the world currently faces. But Waltz, a leader of the neo-realist school of international relations, urges all of them to take a chill pill. Nukes in the hands of the mullahs would not be the worst outcome of the present crisis, he argues. “In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.”
In a nutshell, Waltz’s view is that what makes the Middle East dangerously unstable is that while Israel has nuclear weapons, its most fanatical enemies don’t. “It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis,” he writes. “Power, after all, begs to be balanced.”
But wouldn’t a violent and extremist regime like Iran’s — a key patron of international terrorism, a brutal suppressor of human rights, an exporter of jihad, and an open exponent of wiping Israel “off the map” — be even more dangerous if its ballistic missiles were topped with nuclear warheads? On the contrary, says Waltz: “History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action.”
Nor does Waltz lie awake at night worrying about a nuclear proliferation spiral should Tehran get the bomb. “Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply,” he assures his readers. “No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate.”
If Waltz’s breezy nonchalance (a condensed version was published under the headline “Iranian nukes? No worries”) strikes you as outlandish, you aren’t alone. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum calls it “the single most preposterous analysis by an allegedly serious strategist of the Iranian quest for a nuclear weapon.” To the American Enterprise Institute’s Gary Schmitt, a former staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, it recalls Alfred E. Neuman’s mantra: “What, me worry?” The notion that Israel’s nuclear capability destabilizes the Middle East is almost self-refuting: Would a non-nuclear Israel be less vulnerable to attack — or more so?
As for the calming effect of an Iranian bomb, that’s hard to square with the Arab world’s alarm at the prospect: “If Iran develops a nuclear weapon,” Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal has warned, “we will have to follow suit.”
Yet the appeal of Waltz’s view should not be underestimated, especially as the West approaches the ultimate red line — the moment when Iran’s nuclear facilities will be too far advanced to be taken out in a pre-emptive strike. Faced with the prospect of military action to stop an evil regime, there will always be those hungry for reassurance that everything will work out as long as we do nothing.
Waltz has been preaching his more-nukes-are-safer-nukes sermon for quite some time. “It’s been proven without exception,” he insisted in 2007, “that whoever gets nuclear weapons behaves with caution and moderation.” As far back as 1981 he was arguing that “the measured spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared.”
But Iran is not like Russia, India, China, or the other existing members of the nuclear club. Time and again Iran has called explicitly for the extermination of Israel, while making clear that it sees nuclear weapons as a practical means to that end. “The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything,” Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani baldly explained in 2001. “However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” Tehran still contemplates it. Just weeks ago, a news release from Iran’s FARS News Agency was headlined: “Top Commander Reiterates Iran’s Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel.”
Let a regime that hungers for apocalypse and genocide get the bomb? Welcome it? Even Dr. Strangelove wouldn’t go that far.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe. His website is http://www.JeffJacoby.com).
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
July 2, 2012 at 12:06 PM
“But Iran is not like Russia, India, China, or the other existing members of the nuclear club. ”
North Korea? Pakistan? Why am I not surprised to see mr. Jacoby conveniently omit the names of these two countries? To me, both are more unstable than Iran will ever be.
July 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Time and again you don’t get the essentials of the issue : Iran is the only state in the world who had threatened Israel by annihilation. After fifty years of yours of reading and studying interesting things- as you previously claimed- we should expect from you to dig this already. And don’t serve us your well known already propaganda that Iran was misunderstood, that the man bites the dog and that is raining when you are spilling on us right here.
When a state is threatening another state with annihilation then, the second state can and must deliver a preemptive strike on the first state . We call this : self defense.
July 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Well said, Luis.
In fact, Israel is the only country in the world where somehow that obvious fact seems to escape a great part of the world.
Then again, Israel qualifies as the “only country” on a host of so many positives that we’ve learned to shrug and accept the bad as the price of the good.
Our biggest problem always has been “hasbara.” However, I’m not convinced that the fault there lies only with our incompetence.
Antisemitism, whether straight forward like in Iran or disguised as anti-colonialism (leftist) or anti-Zionist (Islamic) plays a far bigger role in our failure in hasbara that most of us want to admit to ourselves.
Far easier to blame ourselves and believe we can fix it than accept irrational and unending undeserved hatred.
July 2, 2012 at 1:29 PM
iran is not interested that much in Israel,top of there list is the usa and uk followed by israel iran will use the bomb as soon as it has enough this article was written by someone most of us believe to be an idiot,as only a idiot in need of some very strong anti psychotic drugs could delude themselves to that level,israel will bear the brunt,it is time to lay waste to iran and all Israels enemy’s including the idiots that wrote this article
July 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM
“Iran is the only state in the world who had threatened Israel by annihilation.”
No, it has not. It has said that the Zionist regime will disappear from the pages of history, and recently “threatened to wipe Israel “off the face of the earth” if the Jewish state attacked it”. In other words: As long as Israel doesn’t attack Iran, there is nothing to worry about. Having said this, both you and me know that Iran doesn’t have the capacity to ‘wipe Israel because it doesn’t have the nuclear arsenal that Israel has, and any attack on Israel will mean the annihilation of Iran.
Both the US and Israel, on the other hand, have threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike:
“Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states.[159] Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran[160] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that “All options were on the table”. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way.”[161]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
“By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency
Jerusalem —– June 24…… One of the best ways to ensure the world doesn’t get wobbly over Iran, is to make it understand that although Israel prefers to regard the rogue Islamic regime as an international problem, we will, if necessary, do whatever it takes to ensure our survival, including a preemptive nuclear strike.
====
July 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Renbe perhaps you should remind yourself what it says at the top of this blog – “Joseph Wouk reports from the Iran/Israel war”.
You’re really posting here trying to convince followers of this blog that Iran doesn’t want to destroy Israel???
July 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM
Mark…
Though I thoroughly disagree with most of what Renbe has to say here, I appreciate it at the same time. It is important for me to understand his perspective which is shared, sadly, by many people in the world.
He has avoided the extreme rhetoric and hate speech which I won’t allow here from either side.
I ask my readers to address the issues that Rembe raises if they differ but to avoid making it personal.
After all, each of us is just a bunch of English sentences to the others.
Mark, thank you for your intelligent input to the site over the last year. I, for one, appreciate it.
JW
July 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM
I try not to take it personally, JW. It just makes me sick when people defend evil regimes. I can’t imagine what it’s like to live in a country like Iran, you know?
July 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM
JW touched here a very important issue : ” hasbara ”, meaning how Israel can build a proper self image overseas. The fact that Israel needs that tells us that the legitimation of the Jewish State is not self explanatory. This is why the radical islam is fighting relentlessly against us; they even hope to succeed, eventually,” to eradicate Israel from the map ”. This is why anybody anywhere can bark antisemitic declarations, and no punishment he gets.
The israeli ” Hasbara ” is weak and too much transparent; its harder and harder to ” explain ” Israel overseas when the leadership here is so weak. Tough methods must be taken into consideration because falling in the public relations issue caused a surprise effect : the deterrence was also seriously diminished.
Israel needs today a ’67 like victory; this will be the best ” hasbara ” ever.
July 3, 2012 at 5:49 AM
Luis… I’ve been saying that for a while. I believe a “knockout” victory over Iran’s nukes would do the trick…
July 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Mark Says: July 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM
It just makes me sick when people defend evil regimes.
@Mark
I have never defended the Iranian regime, on the contrary. I am vehemently opposed to the theocratic oppression in Iran, and I hope the Iranian people will find a way to regain their freedom. The continuous threats by Israel and the US, however, strengthens the position of the mullahs. As with any nation that is under threat, the population rallies behind its government, now matter how despicable that government is.
The only point that I am try to make is that, no matter how abject the Iranian regime is, this can not be a reason to preemptively attack that country. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. Every gram of enriched material is accounted for. Every centrifuge is under IAEA surveillance. If Israel has any evidence to the contrary, it should come forward with that evidence.
As long as all the American Intelligence Agencies say they are sure that Iran has no secret nuclear weapon program, it will be impossible to create a “coalition of the willing” to attack Iran on the flimsy grounds of a non existent threat. And that is exactly the reason why Iran has been enriching to 20% for more than 6 years already, Fordow is a fact and Bushehr is almost fully operational. Iran has thrashed every ‘red line’ ever drawn by Israel and in spite of all the rhetoric an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not any closer now than it was 6 years ago, when Iran announced that it would start enriching to 20%.
July 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM
josephwouk Says:July 3, 2012 at 5:49 AM
I believe a “knockout” victory over Iran’s nukes would do the trick…
@Joseph.
Iran does not posses any “nukes”, so I guess you mean that a knockout victory over Iran’s nuclear facilities would do the trick.
I disagree. Iran’s dozens of nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country which is larger than the whole of West Europe combined.
Not only will it be impossible to destroy everything in one blow, but Iran will defend itself, as we have seen after Iraq tried to invade Iran, and in the eyes of all too many, Iran will be justified to do so.
No matter how many buildings Israel manages to destroy, it can never destroy the knowledge the Iranians already have. Neither can it destroy the Iranians capacity to rebuild their facilities almost as fast as Israel can destroy them. In case of an Israeli ‘knock out attack” I predict that Iran will immediately withdraw from the IAEA and move the remains of their nuclear program completely underground and then what? Will Israel move in and occupy Iran to the end of time?
There are many wise men in Israel, some of whom went public warning that a preemptive attack is the stupidest idea they ever heard. Listen to those people, and try to understand why they are saying this.
The full interview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57394904/the-spymaster-meir-dagan-on-irans-threat/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
July 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Renbe, if you think anyone blathering on the media has even a clue as to what Israel’s technology is capable of, then you must be kidding yourself.
Watch the last vid I made on Youtube entitled “I’m not scared.” for more.
July 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM
Mr Waltz may be ‘book wise’ but he lacks ‘common sense’.
July 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM
…which is bad.