Hold onto your on to your seat belts... this ought to raise the hair on your neck!
Nuclear Iran
Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired)
Every post-1979 American President has declared that they will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and immediately afterwards they crossed their fingers and hoped the Iranians would not finish on their watch, as each knew that the only effective deterrent was the threat of military action, a step few, if any, were willing to take.
Today, even the fig leaf of “threatened” American military strike has been stripped away so a nuclear-armed Iran is an imminent reality.
Being someone who (futilely) talked up the idea of a regional containment policy, we have to start thinking through the consequences of the brave new world that is about to dawn on us.
Putting aside the truth that we have failed in our stated purpose, there are a number of other shortcomings, misconceptions, even illusions that America had held on to in the face of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Let us just focus on the issue of nuclear proliferation and the intended target of Iran’s soon-to-be nukes.
From a bilateral point, most Americans do not care because they know Iran faces absolute and assured destruction, a certainty that will discourage any rational actor.
But Americans should not assume that simply because a direct nuclear war is a very remote possibility then we will not be adversely affected by a nuclear-armed Iran.
Many Americans recognize the larger concerns, but too often from another narrow bilateral perspective: A nuclear war between Iran and Israel. Having written earlier about this scenario, it makes no sense to repeat its points here; save to reemphasize that Iran will cease to exist as a state.
The problem is that a nuclear-armed Iran is far more destabilizing than simply increasing the risk of a war with the United States or Israel or both, as terrible as that may be. A nuclear-armed Iran will redefine the world order in the worst possible way.
Given the lack of trust in the United States as a stable ally in the Middle East and the equally milquetoast messages coming from Europe, the Arab States are going to be forced into making very difficult and dangerous decisions.
For Saudi Arabia, the path is fairly straightforward: Develop their own nuclear weapons.
The other Gulf States, absent a credible U.S. containment strategy, will have to choose sides. An Assad victory in Syria will also bring Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan into play along with the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. The entire region will have to side with one of the two power blocs or develop amazingly deft diplomatic skills to maintain even a facade of nonalignment.
And what of Russia?
It is also utterly foolish to think that Egypt would not be entangled in the regional nuclear arms race, but more importantly, Turkey will be forced to act as well.
The challenges facing Ankara are especially concerning. Should Turkey (NATO’s only Muslim member) remain in the Alliance and lose the necessary ability to act unilaterally when faced with nuclear-armed neighbors who are openly hostile to each other? Should Turkey develop its own nuclear arsenal? Who could prevent that move in light of a nuclear-armed Iran? What will be the response of Greece?
How will Sunni-dominated Pakistan react to an aggressive nuclear-armed Shiite theocracy in Iran on its southwestern border? Will India feel the need to expand its nuclear arsenal? How would China react to that outcome? How would China’s neighbors react?
A nuclear-armed Iran, given current flaccid international norms and policies, will inevitably kick-off a nuclear-arms race and create a more dangerous and unstable world.
That gets to the big question: What will be the new policy of the United States to meet those threats?
We have a lot of questions, very few reassuring answers, and things are certainly going to get ugly.
Mike
