How do we live with a nuclear-armed Iran?

In a comment to an earlier post of mine this morning Jeff Medcalf of Caerdroia, a friend whose opinion I’ve come to value and with whom I frequently see eye to eye (although we often articulate our views rather differently), asked me “Can we live with nuclear-armed Iran?” and I attempted an answer.

Basically, although we don’t have them now I think we’re going to have to develop the means to live with a nuclear-armed Iraq.

I think that from a military standpoint there are only two effective alternatives: invade Iraq in force or exterminatory bombing. Anything else, as I suggest above, is an extremely poor gamble. I don’t think that either is politically acceptable under the present circumstances.

Do we have the military capacity to invade Iraq in force right now?  If we’re willing to divert  our forces from Iraq to a new conflict with Iran, the answer is yes.  I think that would prove both politically and emotionally difficult.

So, one does what one must and what’s politically possible.

What are those means? I don’t know. They certainly include a very robust deterrence program (we don’t have that now).  This would include actually convincing the Iranians that we have the will to respond to an Iranian nuclear attack.  On a related note Jules Crittenden recently posted:

If in fact we find an actual nuclear weapon, or one explodes anywhere in the world, the Iranians — and the North Koreans as well — need to know that we will assume it was theirs, and act accordingly. This may encourage them to turn their intelligence agencies and terrorist networks to better use.

If we are going to sit down and talk to the Iranians as the Iraq Study Group is expected to recommend, then this is the message that needs to be signalled loud and clear.

What do we have to bring to the table in discussions with Iran?  I would assume that what the Iranians will want is acceptance of their nuclear development program.

Presumably, we will need a more formal acceptance of the Iranian regime. I think we need to recognize that Iran is the regional power. We need to get them to acknowledge that we have legitimate interests in the region, too.Rhetoric aside, I think that’s the direction we’re heading in. If you do not will the means you cannot will the end.

I’m open to suggestions on this.  I don’t find this alternative particularly palatable—deeply distasteful, in fact.  But I think it’s more practical than the other alternatives.

4 comments… add one
  • Yet another neocon steps up for what they like to call “expanded deterrence” and I call running with nuclear scissors.

    Jules even manages to distill the entire deranged exceptionalist egotism of the neocons into one clear paragraph.

    It doesn’t matter. Here’s the deal with Saddam. It holds for the Iranians, too. It’s a gun-toting American Wild West cowboy thing. You know how us Americans are. We’re crazy like that. When someone who is irrational, with a bad history, in a position to cause trouble, starts putting out that he is arming up and intends to destroy you or make you kneel down before him, you can start making assumptions. You can also start acting on them.

    Without ever considering for even a microsecond that other nations might feel the same way about American neocon-led irrational, troublemaking, arms-building, war-drum banging ways.

    Like for instance the AEI’s idiotic call to bomb Iran right now.

    Why do people give these neocon Wormtongues a continued opportunity, Dave? They’re already past their “three strikes, yer out!” stage.

    Regards, Cernig

  • I’m not sure how you’re using the term “neocon” here, Cernig. Is it as a synonym for “warmonger”?

    As the term is used in the United States neoconservatives are, generally, a group of formerly left of center thinkers who, on the foreign policy front, believe that America should “export democracy” by a variety of means that includes international institutions and, if necessary, removing autocrats by force.

    I am not a neocon.

    The policy that Crittenden is advocating as best as I can tell is completely consistent with U. S. nuclear deterrence policy. Here’s a snippet from a Democratic party position paper:

    Carrots are not enough:

    * Iran should be concerned that it has no realistic possibility of making its enrichment and reprocessing facilities operational.

    * Accordingly, Iran should understand the existential threat of a military response under some conditions.

  • Again I go back to my questions, because Cernig is a clear exemplar of one of the issues I was talking about. You want to convince me, use evidence, logic and clear reasoning. In matters of politics, historical parallels and arguing from analogy are excellent tools. But the kind of name-calling and refusal to make any statements other than “those guys are bad/evil, so we can’t trust them, and they won’t listen to us anyway, so why argue?” just turns me off.

  • “Why do people give these neocon Wormtongues a continued opportunity, Dave? They’re already past their “three strikes, yer out!” stage.”

    If I might answer:

    The reason is that the world does not run on monocausal explanations; specifically, the revisionist critique of all bad things in the world flowing from natural reactions to bad American policies, words, deeds – a view popular in many quarters – is simply a negative variant on exceptionalism.

    While the neocons have badly rattled the Europeans and while the Left loathes George W. Bush, if both disappeared tomorrow you would still have Ahmadinejad, his recurrent threats of nuclear annihilation of Israel and Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    This Iranian problem is not a figment of the administration’s imagination and it worries a lot of states that have no particular love for the United States.

Leave a Comment