Iran and the Nuclear Scare
Something went by in the news today that I wonder if anyone caught. Today, Iran's oil minister, Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said to the Wallstreet Journal that they would NOT use oil exports as a "political weapon" in regards to nuclear development. In the same day, "Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said ... any attack on the country by the U.S. would be followed by retaliation against U.S. interests" (Bloomberg News, 04/26).
The disparity isn't all too confusing, the paradox can be resolved by what Iran is saying to the the US specifically and other nations in general. But it did pose some interesting thoughts on our current approach to Iran's interests in joining the nuclear fan club. A friend of mine asked me today: Does Iran have the right to develop nuclear power, at least as an alternative energy source?
This innocent question raised my interest particularly due to its wording-- many foreign policy experts more familiar with the subject than ourselves have thought about Iran, about whether Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear energy, about whether this is in fact its true intent. But the question above turns on the issue of "rights" and that seems to be an important factor in unravelling the ethical implications of the situation. First and foremost, the subject brings up the question of whether a nation is capable of possessing rights, something often relegated to autonomous individuals. If so, we would treat nations as entities capable of making ethical decisions or participating in a cooperative (egalitarian?) global system. But assuming nations have rights-- for the purposes of this discussion, let's say the right to liberty, such that it may choose its path as it sees fit -- have nuclear weapons changed the way we approach "rights" in the context of greater national sovereignty? That is, does any country have the "right" to develop these weapons? Of course, Iran is saying they only want to develop nuclear energy and will enrich uranium only to the point where it can be used for this purpose. But there's a lot to be said for the potential threat that this may not be true. This isn't to speculate on Iran's interests, but volatility in the region seems to suggest the agreement on mutually assured destruction need not apply here. Why do people create things if they do not intend to use them? Why build cars you don't intend to drive? Bombs if you don't intend to well... you know. Assume then that a nation's interests are exactly pertinent to building weapons of mass destruction-- do these rights exist and should they be dovetailed?
The disparity isn't all too confusing, the paradox can be resolved by what Iran is saying to the the US specifically and other nations in general. But it did pose some interesting thoughts on our current approach to Iran's interests in joining the nuclear fan club. A friend of mine asked me today: Does Iran have the right to develop nuclear power, at least as an alternative energy source?
This innocent question raised my interest particularly due to its wording-- many foreign policy experts more familiar with the subject than ourselves have thought about Iran, about whether Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear energy, about whether this is in fact its true intent. But the question above turns on the issue of "rights" and that seems to be an important factor in unravelling the ethical implications of the situation. First and foremost, the subject brings up the question of whether a nation is capable of possessing rights, something often relegated to autonomous individuals. If so, we would treat nations as entities capable of making ethical decisions or participating in a cooperative (egalitarian?) global system. But assuming nations have rights-- for the purposes of this discussion, let's say the right to liberty, such that it may choose its path as it sees fit -- have nuclear weapons changed the way we approach "rights" in the context of greater national sovereignty? That is, does any country have the "right" to develop these weapons? Of course, Iran is saying they only want to develop nuclear energy and will enrich uranium only to the point where it can be used for this purpose. But there's a lot to be said for the potential threat that this may not be true. This isn't to speculate on Iran's interests, but volatility in the region seems to suggest the agreement on mutually assured destruction need not apply here. Why do people create things if they do not intend to use them? Why build cars you don't intend to drive? Bombs if you don't intend to well... you know. Assume then that a nation's interests are exactly pertinent to building weapons of mass destruction-- do these rights exist and should they be dovetailed?
posted by Anonymous @ 3:14 PM
14 Comments:
I continue to find the Western response to Iran's 'good cop - bad cop' routine amusing.
Here we have a regime whose head (titular or not) has said "Israel should not exist, and it would be cool if they all died... oh, and we'd like nuclear capability."
This is the same regime that has absolutely no respect for anyone else's sovereignty! They have supported terrorists who have acted in numerous other nations, looked askance at the captivity of protected diplomats, and they are currently hard at work to subvert their neighbor to the west.
The Iranian regime does not accept the principle of sovereignty unless it's to their advantage, i.e. "we have rights to blow you up in any manner that suits us."
Pretend for a moment - just for a moment - that tomorrow Iran said "Canada should not exist, and all it will take is one swift rain of fire to end their hockey-playing ways." That would sound pretty insane, right? But since it's Israel and the U.S. rather than Canada, well, that's fine, isn't it? Iran's just letting off some steam!
So no, until Iran stops threatening to kill millions of people, they don't have any 'rights' to acquire anything.
And what an interesting real world it is. But what about the Iranians makes them crazier then the Soviets or Red China (or our Cold War perceptions of them)?
But - playing devil's advocate here - isn't there something top be said that, in each case of the U.S. fearing an unfriendly nation becoming a nuclear power, when the said nation (Russia, China) got the bomb, they also clamed down as a result of it, and were able to come to the table with the U.S., knowing that the playing field was a little more level? It's easy to say that the Iranians are crazy, and certainly their designs on pushing Israel into the sea cannot stand in a realistic world view, but Iran knows that Israel has nukes. They know that we have nukes. And they know that the tide of the region is being turned against them by outsiders. Again, I say that we bring them to the table on Iraq, as the Iranian influence would have a much greater stabilizing influence on the region than the American, but with America and Israel protecting their own interests as well, we could hopefully prevent the otherwise inevitable sectatian bloodshed. I may be dreaming, and I know that I might be playing Chamberlain here, but we know that Iran will build their nukes, one way or the other, and we know that we don't have the military capital needed in order to expand our forces there. I am more comforted by our easing them into the club - with a clear understanding as to where all the conflicting interests are - than with us over-exerting ourselves in a lost cause, and antagonizing the newest nuclear power in what will surely be seen by them as a "holy war."
I might be with PB, DA that he is, on this one.
The effects of nukes on international relations, whether they're inherently detrimental or whether they actually contribute to stability between nations, is an old discussion, most famously discussed by Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan in their The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. Basically, Waltz feels that deterrence works and that nukes contributed to the "long peace" of the Cold War (anyone else really dislike the lack of capitalization of Cold War in many places?) by raising the cost of all-out war to such levels that it increasingly becomes something to be avoided. While Sagan, instead, prefers to focus on all the things that could and almost did go very, very wrong, particular because of organizational politics, bureaucratic blunders, and individual human error. An updated version came out in 2003 and you can get a bit of review/synopsis
here.
Much of Waltz's ideas are best summed up with his statements that: "In a conventional world, one is uncertain about winning or losing...In a nuclear world, one is uncertain about surviving or being annihilated. ...When these are the pertinent questions, we stop thinking about running risks and start worrying about how to avoid them." And I think there's a good deal of truth to that. And while I don't like the idea of Iran with nuclear weapons, I don't know if it will necessarily make the world a more dangerous place (especially since I'm pretty sure Israel has a reliable 2nd strike capability).
As for whether Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons, I suppose, realistically, they have the right to get away with whatever they can get away with, with whatever the world will allow, as that honestly seems to be the rules of the game. Would I prefer them not to have them? Sure. But I think our years of not helping to carefully monitor and properly secure the USSR's aging nuclear stockpiles is a bigger threat (and Pakistan/Khan's wheeling and dealing behind that on the list).
Baker & Pascals,
I have to disagree that we should accept a nuclear Iran and seek to 'ease' them into our club.
1) There is the small matter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If we don't want everyone to get nukes, we should at least try to uphold it in this case.
2) I think the Cold War metaphor, like the Cold War itself, it out of date. The Soviet Union was interested in staying alive so they could inherit the globe and all this. Iran, on the other hand, has smiled upon suicide bombers, who, by definition, don't mind killing themselves. Now there's an equation I don't like: Suicide Terror + Nuclear Weapons.
The idea of nuclear parity was that it actually made the world safer (paradoxically) by ensuring no one would start a major war. Again, this assumes that both sides are rational actors. And who is the leader of Iran again?
And I definitely sympathize with that position, but if we can't fight a war with them (because we're stretched too thinly as it is) and we can't sit down with them (because they're irrational about compromise on their own ends) then what course of option is most optimal?
1) At least try - sure, I can handle that. However, I think some peoples might view the NPT as you view Cold War. So what can we give the Russians and others in order to better secure their cooperation?
2) Now this is the interesting one as far as I'm concerned. Yes, Iran has smiled upon suicide bombers. And that equation, Suicide Terror + Nuclear Weapons, scares me, too, as it should frighten all of us. However, what makes you think that they would give such weaponry to suicide bombers to utilize? What makes you think that we wouldn't simply flatten Tehran in response?
According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies and their Chemical & Biological Weapons Resource Page, Iran is no slouch in the chemical or biological weapons department. And according to testimony in 2000 by Robert J. Einhorn, Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation, "Iran's chemical weapons (CW) program is one of the largest in the developing world...we believe Iran's CW program continues and that it possesses a substantial stockpile of weaponized and bulk agent." And the CIA adds that "During the first half of 2001, Tehran continued to seek production technology, training, expertise, equipment, and chemicals from entities in Russia and China that could be used to help Iran reach its goal of having an indigenous nerve agent production capability." Yet, for all its support of suicide bombers utilizing conventional explosives, Iran has evidently not ever crossed the line of equipping any of the terrorist groups with which they sympathize with unconventional weaponry.
And I'm still not convinced Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is that irrational. Son of a bitch, yes, irrational, I'm not convinced.
All that said, Iran is likely several years away from weapons-grade enrichment and being able to create a nuclear device small and mobile enough for terrorists to utilize would not be the easiest of technological feats to overcome.
I say briefly: Best! Useful information. Good job guys.
»
Nice! Where you get this guestbook? I want the same script.. Awesome content. thankyou.
»
Great site lots of usefull infomation here.
»
Hey what a great site keep up the work its excellent.
»
Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»
Hallo I absolutely adore your site. You have beautiful graphics I have ever seen.
»
Hi! Just want to say what a nice site. Bye, see you soon.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home