It looks like Iran is going all out on the “I do what I want!” strategy of international relations. Not exactly a bad choice for them, seeing as they aren’t looking to improve relations with us and are on the other side of the globe. If you’re going to declare that most of the world is infidels and wish death on them it’s probably a good idea to build nuclear weapons instead of try to make friends.
The question here is, what can we do about it? It’s obviously not in the interest of most nations to have a bunch of religious crazies with The Bomb. There’s the argument to be made for the freedom of soverign nations, but that’s another discussion, let’s assume we have no moral qualms about doing what we can to ‘fix’ the problem.
- Bomb nuclear research facilities. Assuming they’re not underground we can take them out, probably flare up hostilities in the area and perhaps provoke some terrorist attacks here. Best case, we set them back a few years in development and they move underground where we can’t bomb them. Worst case, we don’t accomplish anything and now we’re in open war with them.
- Skip to the open war part first. Move in and liberate the country Iraq style. Cue indefinite occupation, destabilized country, chaos, American casualties,and maybe add half a trillion dollars to the national debt. Nukes problem is solved, new problem is worse.
- Destabilize the country CIA style. May or may not work, it certainly looks like we’ve been trying at this for a while with minimal success. Seems to have the fewest downsides of the options. Worst cases, either nothing happens, or the new government hates us even more (is that possible?).
- Do nothing. Iran successfully develops a small number of nuclear weapons and starts a MAD situation in the area with Israel. While MAD ‘worked’ between the US and the USSR it seems like tensions run a little hotter in the middle east and the situation may collapse badly. The prospect of real consequences may also cool down the constant simmer of conflict. Who knows when religion is involved though.
OK, so since I don’t have anything informed to say on the premise, let me question your assumptions. It’s not clear to me that actually becoming a nuclear power is a good idea for Iran, compared to sabre rattling re: nukes. Pre-nukes, Iran basically has an instant, easy way to goad Israel and stir up public sentiment; they just have to crank up some centrifuges. Post-nukes, their defensive position is pretty much unchanged (neither Israel or Iran is going to nuke each other, and Iran will still lose a conventional war to the US), but their sabre-rattling options are much more limited. The populist pro-nuke sentiment will turn to populist use-nuke sentiment, but the ruling class won’t survive a nuclear exchange, so they’ll be trapped.
What are your thoughts regarding similarities with North Korea on this front?
I’ve always thought that their main goal has largely been posturing and the appearance of power, rather than lusting after the power proper. I’m not entirely clear what their goals are supposed to be, but I could conceive that it’s largely a way to keep the population’s attention focused on North Korean foreign policy rather than its infrastructure.
Summed up: North Korea does this insane shit to keep its subjugated population psyched about being North Korean and serving the state, possibly without further goals in mind.
Harvey, you’ve got a good point about the advantages of just threatening to make nukes, but I’m not sure I’m ready to accept that actually getting them would hurt Iran. I think they’re legitimately scared that a hawkish US administration might roll right in like in Iraq and their threatening only increases the chances of that. We’ve made it pretty clear that nuclear weapons will make us think twice about invading.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1852