Iran and the Bomb: A Fabricated Threat

John Glaser, June 20, 2012

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Kenneth N. Waltz argues “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” The article is a welcome example of calm and sobriety in what is mostly a sea of irrational pro-war hysterics. Waltz argues that the apocalyptic rhetoric railing against Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon (which is not imminent) on the grounds that they would use it in a first strike against Israel or use the deterrence it would afford them to be more aggressive with proxies like Hezbollah is way off the mark of what we would expect to see from a nuclear Iran.

[E]very time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.

Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge.

As we’ve reiterated over and over again here at Antiwar.com, the international hysterics over Iran’s nuclear program are way overblown. First and foremost, there is no known weaponization going on in Iran. Additionally, the chances that Iran would become more aggressive with nuclear weapons or use them against Israel are essentially zero. As Waltz writes, “Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by ‘mad mullahs’ but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders.”

Furthermore, there is so much talk about Iran’s role in destabilizing the region and how a nuclear Iran would fuel a destructive arms race in the Middle East. Yet there is very little talk about Israel’s nuclear weapons and the role they are playing in fueling an arms race and, indeed, provoking certain Iranian postures in the nuclear context.

Almost always absent in the mainstream analysis is what Iran’s current posture actually is. Again, Waltz explains precisely what I have been writing about for the past year:

[One] possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice.

Such a breakout capability might satisfy the domestic political needs of Iran’s rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security) without the downsides (such as international isolation and condemnation).

This is another vital piece of the story which should, if policymaking were rational, warrant the reduction of the garrisoning of Iran’s surroundings, the constant threats and intimidation, the crippling economic warfare, the sabotage, extrajudicial assassinations, etc. Yet these have not ceased.

Importantly, Waltz describes a few policies now being followed by the US and Israel which are likely to result in exactly the outcome they claim to be trying to prevent. Israel’s “risky efforts at subverting Iran’s nuclear program through sabotage and assassination,” Waltz writes, “could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks.” Similarly, “the current sanctions on Iran can be dropped,” Waltz argues, since “they primarily harm ordinary Iranians, with little purpose.” Sanctions could also lead to an emboldened, nuclear Iran, as opposed to their “official” stated purpose, which is to prevent an Iranian bomb.

One has to expect that the Obama administration is aware of all this, yet the pressure, sanctions, and intimidation continue unabated. The reason seems to be that Obama is fearful of appearing weak, and so keeps up this counterproductive belligerence. The other reason is that Washington doesn’t give a hoot about Iranian nuclear proliferation. Rather, it is important to them to keep Iran weak and without nuclear capability, so as to leave open “avenues for regime change.” If Iran has a deterrent, US dominance is jeopardized.

Update: Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations says the argument that a nuclear Iran wouldn’t be destabilizing is the general consensus among political science scholars. See here for more expert and academic opinions on that.




12 Responses to “Iran and the Bomb: A Fabricated Threat”

  1. [...] Read Entire Article [...]

  2. Obama "fearful" of appearing weak? Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it for me. The man has absolutely no qualms nor hesitation in sending people to their deaths. Nor does he quibble over trifling matters such has due process or that pesky annoyance "The Constitution". Which, I'm certain, is akin to a dead albatross about his neck. To an imperial, and delusional, president appearing weak isn't even on the radar.

  3. Iran committed the mortal sin of all sins – it held a summit on the Holocaust. Nobody, certainly no nation is permitted to doubt the Holocaust. In some EU countries, including Germany, you are put into prison for expressing doubts about the existence of the Holocaust. Iran must pay for its sin. You can commit mass murder and torture, displace millions of people, rape children, but you cannot express doubt about the Holocaust.

  4. Rather, it is important to them to keep Iran weak and without nuclear capability, so as to leave open “avenues for regime change.”

    I'd say that Washington certainly wants to leave those avenues open but not actually travel down that road as I argue here:
    http://voices.yahoo.com/article/9580970/to-secure….

    It's all about freezing in place the basis for a mini Cold War against Iran as a supplement to the Pacific Pivot.

  5. By now it should be clear to everyone that we can't count on our so-called "leaders" to rerpesent our interests. We kind of expected that in the US, at least when it comes to Israel, but now Europe is also getting on board.

    It is time we ourselves prevent the next war by (nonviolently) increasing the cost of an attack on Iran.

    Sign the pledge to BOYCOTT ISRAEL IF IT ATTACKS IRAN:
    http://www.divestfromwar.org

    Let's PREVENT the next war, for a change, instead of protesting it after it starts!

  6. Waltz knowingly or unknowingly is working for the mainstream by taking for granted that Iran may be interested in getting a few nuclear weapons (and as a result becoming supposedly unassailable, which is highly questionable) .Thus ignoring that there is not the least bit of evidence and it contradicts repeatedly stated Iranian policy on the issue. In other words the author may be an agent provocateur for the bomb Iran crowd.

  7. If I were a betting man, I'd wager this entire 'crisis' would disappear if the US and the other nations of the world demanded that Israel match Iran signature-for-signature on every nuclear control protocol and every inspection regime. Why hasn't this been done already? Why hasn't the issue of Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons been brought up each and every day in the UN and other international forums?

    WHY IS EVERYONE SO AFRAID OF ISRAEL?

  8. Many people who are sick of USraeli bullying tactics – wish Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei step-down from his moral high-ground (WMDs are Haram in Islam) and like North Korea produce a few nuclear bombs as deterrent against Iran's Zionist enemies. Otherwise, no matter how much Tehran tries to "cooperate" with the P6+1 (US, France, Britain, Israel, Russia, China + Germany) – nothing will satisfy USrael until Tehran stop supporting Hizbullah and Hamas and start taking dictation from Israel like the US administrations do.

    All future P6+1 and Iran talks are doomed because USrael doesn't want peace with Iran – but a regime change in Iran.
    http://rehmat1.com/2009/12/13/israel-behind-us-ir

  9. The US constitution is supposed to protect Americans first, but OSSAMA resorts to extra-judicial executions of American citizens around the world. This is not just the US law that is violated – he's trampling upon all international laws that the US has signed!!!

    Emperor G.W.Bush II is even worse than emperor G.W. Bush I

  10. [...] This clears up what seems to be a mystery of why the US would impose supposedly punitive sanctions on Iran despite the intelligence consensus that they have no nuclear weapons program and have demonstrated no intention of getting one. If Iran can ever quickly develop a nuclear deterrent through know-how and technological capability, this constrains Washington’s power to overthrow the regime and replace it with an obedient client (not a first in the case of Iran, of course). That is an unacceptable amount of power to afford an adversary. The threat to Israeli security and the notion that Iran would use nuclear weapons for anything other than to deter aggressive adversaries is quite simply a manufactured concern. [...]

  11. [...] leaders are rational, respond to incentives, and value self-preservation. As renowned academic Kenneth Waltz recently wrote in Foreign Affairs, “Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian [...]

  12. The reason seems to be that Obama is fearful of appearing weak, and so keeps up this counterproductive belligerence