Lawyers, Guns and Money: What Leverage Does a Nuke Earn Iran?.
Bob Farley from LGM wonders about the real effects of a nuclear Iran. The context here is that a US President might feel constrained when contemplating military action in the Middle East if Iran has the bomb. He points out a comparison to Pakistan:
Another way to think of this is to look to the example of Pakistan. The Pakistani nuclear deterrent hasn’t prevented the United States from overthrowing Pakistan’s client in Afghanistan, continuing the fight against that client for nine years (as the fight destabilized Pakistan’s border regions), and even launching a long campaign of attacks within Pakistan’s borders. It’s almost enough to make one doubt that nuclear weapons actually provide any serious leverage in ordinary diplomatic and military disputes.
I think that leaves out the fact that the US $11 billion in aid to Pakistan since 2001, 72% of it in military aid. It’s not that the people of Pakistan don’t harbor strong anti-America feelings, exacerbated with every drone strike in the tribal regions, but the leadership and military needs the aid to counter a perceived threat from India. They play along with us as best they can, within local political constraints.
It seems unlikely to me that a nuclear Iran would use a weapon against the US forces or Israel. They lack ICBM capability to get a weapon to the US. They have regional capability reminiscent of the Pershing missile system I worked on the Army long ago and far away. In any case, I believe we have such an overwhelming advantage in conventional forces that we could, if we choose to, take out what they have rather quickly. The question is at what cost?
They would cut oil shipments through the Straits of Hormuz and that would have a crippling effect on the world economy. And exactly how many foreign wars can our military support at one time anyway? If they really did lob a nuke at US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan or at Israel our retaliation would leave them looking like a large glass topped parking lot. I don’t think any US President could afford to not retaliate in a major way.
Some would say “but their mullahs are crazy and want a war with us”. That may be true, but it’s certainly debatable. Perhaps some do a want a war with the west, but I don’t think many want a war that would result in the destruction of their nation, people, holy cities, etc.
I think much of what we coming out of their leadership that we see as crazy is directed primarily at their domestic audience. They don’t want appear weak to internal opposition. It’s mostly empty chest thumping, IMHO.
Is there a threat from Iran? Yes, but I think it takes the shape of supplying anti-American groups like Hamas is Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Iraq. I don’t think there’s any percentage in it for them to provoke an American response to an Iranian nuclear strike. We may have economic repercussions but their very existence is at stake.
People like John McCain, Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol are simply wrong to seek an American military response to Iran’s nuclear program and intervention in the recent protests against the Iranian election results. I don’t think you can stop the spread of the underlying technology, Pakistan and India have certainly proven that point. What we can do is make it crystal clear that use of a weapon will meet with certain destruction. Ah the good old days of the Cold War and “Mutually Assured Destruction” are making a comeback.
As for recent protests and the ensuing reactionary crackdown in Iran, events don’t lend themselves to American meddling. The best way to kill the hopes of Iranians who want change is our involvement. That offers an excuse for worse behavior by the Mullahs. Repressive regimes need outside enemies to remain in power. Giving them something to use isn’t helpful. There’s something happening in Iran that’s uniquely theirs, our “help” isn’t needed or useful.
