The invasion of Iraq and subsequent U.S. military threats against Iran have actually intensified the Iranian desire to get nuclear weapons to keep the superpower out.
Unbelievably, a belligerent Bush administration is trying to rattle the saber again against Iran, because of its defiance of the United Nations Security Council’s resolution against Iran’s nuclear program. In the long-term, such blustering by a superpower is only likely to speed the efforts of Iran and other countries with nuclear aspirations to get atomic weapons.
Stopping or slowing the spread of nuclear weapons has been a primary foreign policy goal for both Republican and Democratic administrations. During the Clinton administration, for example, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright explicitly gave the policy a very high priority. U.S. policy has always focused on three tactics to stop nuclear proliferation in other countries: banning the materials and technology needed to develop nuclear weapons, punitive economic sanctions, and military action. Although banning materials can slow nuclear proliferation, economic sanctions and military action are counterproductive. A “rally around the flag” effect against these external threats usually makes getting atomic weapons popular, even if the populace is fed up with their country’s regime — as in the case of theocratic Iran.
Military threats or actions can cause countries that are developing nuclear technology to accelerate their atomic program and shroud the location of the facilities to protect them from bombing. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent U.S. military threats against Iran have actually intensified the Iranian desire to get nuclear weapons to keep the superpower out. Iran has hidden and buried nuclear facilities and put them in populated areas, which would be difficult for the United States to bomb without causing an international outcry. U.S. intelligence is unlikely to know the locations of all of the Iranian nuclear facilities, and Iran may even have a separate parallel set of facilities unbeknownst to the international community.
Both liberal and conservative U.S. advocates of non-proliferation policies pay too little attention to the effect U.S. interventionist foreign policy has on the acceleration of nuclear proliferation around the world. Countries interested in developing nuclear technology saw the respect that a nuclear North Korea got from the United States as well as the absence of respect that a non-nuclear Iraq received. Many conservatives neglect this intervention-proliferation causal relationship because they believe U.S. military interventions overseas are necessary for the promotion of the national interest. On the other hand, some liberals minimize this relationship because they advocate military interventions for “humanitarian” purposes. Both camps, however, should realize the long-term effects of U.S. military interventions on the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world.
If threats are unlikely to dissuade Iran from rapidly acquiring nuclear weapons and will instead persuade it to do so, what can be done? The United States needs to propose a grand bargain with Iran — such as that offered to North Korea and accepted by Libya. In exchange for ending its nuclear program, Iran would be offered a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and Israel and full economic and diplomatic integration with the world. Although Israel considers Iran its main threat, Iran considers the Israeli nuclear arsenal of hundreds of warheads a major threat as well.
With the U.S. and Israeli threats neutralized by the non-aggression treaty, the Iranians just might feel secure enough to scrap their nuclear program. But even with that offer, Iran, which lives in a dangerous neighborhood, may still elect to proceed with its quest for nuclear armaments. Nuclear powers, such as the United States and Israel, are hypocritical in denying other countries this ultimate guarantor of national security. Besides, the United States, with thousands of nuclear warheads, could easily deter an Iranian nuclear attack with only a few warheads. The United States deterred other radical rogue regimes when they obtained nuclear weapons, including the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and Maoist China in the mid-1960s.
Although the Iranians support terrorist groups, Iran has a home address that can be threatened with nuclear retaliation; the terrorists do not. More than likely, the Iranian government would be reluctant to give nuclear weapons, which are expensive to develop, to unpredictable terrorists groups that might be traced back to Iran — thus putting a bull’s eye on Iran.
Because the United States has no viable military solution against the Iranian nuclear program, it should offer Iran a grand bargain. If that fails, the United States may have to accept a nuclear Iran — an outcome far from optimal, but not catastrophic either.
Stop selling them stuff!
I think we should attack Iran before they develop nuclear weapons. Beat them down like the bad children they are. That way we really will provoke a long war against the Islamic world and my shares in Locheed Martin will go through the roof.
We’ll also completely bankrupt the federal government into the bargain, and they will finally be forced to do away with all those nasty social programs that help people.
God Bless America and hail victory.
test
"More than likely, the Iranian government would be reluctant to give nuclear weapons, which are expensive to develop, to unpredictable terrorists groups that might be traced back to Iran" Okay, we now return you to our regularly scheduled reality, already in progress. WAKE UP! Iran is run by a maniacal, fanatical lunatic who would not hessitate to use nuclear weapons against a country like Israel, who he has said publicly should be "wiped off the map". A "grand bargain" will only allow Iran to continue developing nuclear weapons in secret, and morons like you are going to be sitting with a nuclear warhead in their livingroom wondering what the hell happened. Get a clue.
Not catastrophic?? Who are you kidding? This scenario is only true if you believe that the Iranian mullahs have the same rationality and mindsent as the Russians and the Chinese. It's hard to know with any certainly how they truly think, but I believe it to be far less likely given the jihad mindset and willingness to die that are exhibited by islamofascists. Communism is an earthly philosophy, unlike that of Jihad. An autocrat or communist with a nuke is actually far safer than a doomsday religious fanatic because an autocrat or communist is trying to achive earthly goals that require their survival. Basically, what I'm saying is that MAD only works when dealing with those that fundamentally value the preservation of thier civilization above destroying others.
As another commenter points out, this article completely fails to address the fact that Iran's president has threatened Israel's obliteration with regularity. The United States and it's allies must not sit back and allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran has a long history of hostage taking and would indeed hold the world hostage if it had the ability. And I believe Iran would make good on it's often stated, evil intent toward Israel.
" Nuclear powers, such as the United States and Israel, are hypocritical in denying other countries this ultimate guarantor of national security." I'm not even sure how to respond to this statement.. Both President Bush and former candidate John Kerry have agreed that nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat posed to this world. While the devastating power of these weapons is one reason why they are significant assurances of protection for a government, and why they are attractive, let's get a reality check, here! We are not hypocritical in attempting to prevent theocratic, dictatorial, oppressive, and murderous governments from having the power to obtain these weapons, and that is the difference! For Iran, the threat of them having nuclear weaponry cannot be understated. Their president has called for the absolute destruction of Israel and the western world, including our focus on consensual, rational governance and personal liberties. Freedom does not exist in his state, unless it is allotted by his conservative interpretation of Islam, which he and others wish to impose on the rest of the world. Haven't his rantings conveyed enough? He has lied about the existence of the Holocaust, the greatest human rights violation of the twentieth century. And he expects us to believe that his purposes are peaceful? I support keeping all options on the table, and confronting this threat in the most significant way possible. If Iran obtained a nuclear weapon it would not merely be "unsettling" but reflective of inexcusable appeasement by a superpower which is afraid to confront a great evil in the world. When it is discovered that Iran has created a nuclear arsenal, it will be a testament of our lack of willingness to act, like the appeasement of Munich, when Europe failed to confront Hitler's growing reign. In addition, for Iran, a conservative theocratic Shiite government which kills dissenters and non-Muslims (Sistani, Iraq's Shiite leader with ties there, recently called for the torture of and a fatwa against gays), nuclear weapons would only serve to insure that their form of tyranny and fear would continue to reign for decades if not centuries to come. We should not take the easy path with Iran by offering economic incentives unless we can be certain that they would willingly dismantle their program. We must act in a way which does not further alienate the world's Muslim community. But we must not underestimate this threat. The previous century taught us the human costs of failing to confront evil and tyranny.
" Nuclear powers, such as the United States and Israel, are hypocritical in denying other countries this ultimate guarantor of national security. " I have no problem with other countries - like say, Iceland - getting a few nukes to protect themselves, but Iran is not just another country; it wants to wipe Israel off the map, and calls the USA "Satan" and promised it would send terror attacks if the USA helped defend Israel. Imagine a couple in divorce court and one of the party has a long criminal record a long history of insanity bouts and he starts screaming death threats at the other party; would it be hypocritical of the court to refuse to let that menacing party have a weapon? If policemen can have weapons, then why can't a foaming at the mouth rabid threatening criminal lunatic have them too? Right ? It's all about treating every body as equal …right? What is hypocritical is to pretend that Iran is equal to other countries like say, Iceland.
My previous comment has vanished?!…