NOVEMBER 23, 2009

FEATURE PRINT | TEXT SIZE

| EMAIL | SINGLE PAGE

What If Iran Got the Bomb?

It would be time to calm down.

BY ROBERT FARLEY | JULY 7, 2009

In 1969, tensions between China and the Soviet Union came to a boil over a border dispute near the Ussuri River. Heavy firefights broke out along the border in March and August. In the background of these skirmishes lay the specter of a Soviet nuclear attack on China. Chinese nuclear forces at the time did not have secure second-strike capability, and a preemptive Soviet attack could have eliminated China's ability to respond. In spite of the strong incentive for both sides to launch a first strike, calmer heads prevailed.

There are profound differences between the Islamic Republic and the People's Republic, and 2009 is not 1969. Simply because the PRC survived a superpower confrontation, several chaotic leadership changes, and a Cultural Revolution without ever using its nukes doesn't mean that Iran poses no threat. However, it does suggest that nuclear deterrence may be as robust as advertised and that deterrence applies even to states led by people who say and do crazy things (like refraining from Western neckwear).

Given Mao's penchant for bizarre behavior, earlier concerns that China might recklessly employ the nuclear weapons it was seeking in the late 1950s were probably even more legitimate than such concerns over Iran now. Nevertheless, China has acted as a responsible steward of nuclear weapons, even in situations of existential danger. So, rather than preparing for war against Iran, or believing that unconditional talks will eventually succeed (a nice hope, but unlikely), or offering a green light to a nervous regional ally convinced that nukes in crazy hands will inevitably lead to their use, perhaps American policymakers should take some comfort from history. Why not let Iran cross the nuclear threshold and spend time and energy focusing on how to make the deterrence of a nuclear Iran effective? After all, that now seems to look like the only realistic option.

In short, the best lesson for the West may be this: Calm down.

PREVIOUS 12

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

Flickr user Pierre J.

Robert Farley is assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky.

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

STRYD3R

9:30 AM ET

July 8, 2009

Being Calm is the Wrong Response

Though this article provides an interesting history of the PRC's pursuit of nuclear weapons, it does not establish a sensible argument as to why the West should "calm down" with regard to Iran's stated goal of creating a nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Farley begins his article with sarcasm and ridicule, clearly mocking the legitimate fears of what could happen should Iran posses the bomb. He follows with a leap of logic to say that because the government controlled by Ahmadinejad has made outlandish statements, therefore all Iranians are "different, weird, and threatening." This could obviously be no farther from the truth.

I would suggest that Mr. Farley read the Preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which it states that America (the representative of the West) plotted against Iran. The Preamble continues to delineate the manner in which the new government will be established - that is to say, the government will practice strict adherence to the laws of the Qu'ran. Now, anyone who has read the Qu'ran (as Farley clearly has NOT) knows that it states numerous times that the unbeliever must be destroyed and that a Jihad (Holy War) must be waged against those who wish to harm the believer.

Obviously, the more modern Muslim understands that the words of the Qu'ran are not to be taken literally; they are metaphorical, just as the Torah and the Bible are mostly metaphorical. However, fundamentalist Muslims - namely Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his lackey President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - interpert the Qu'ran quite literally. As such, they have both stated publicly on numerous occassions their desire to harm both Israel and America.

The concern is not what the government of Iran will do with nukes. It is fair to say that very few people believe that the state of Iran would be stupid enough to employ weapons against America, Great Britain, or pretty much any other country as that would no doubt incite a third world war. However, there is legitimate concern over the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists - such as Usama bin Laden - who may be less hesitant to use such devastating tactics.

The fear of Iran supplying terrorist groups is very real. The 9/11 commission found significant links between Iran and Al Qaeda, and it has been long known that Iran supports other groups such as Hezbollah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC.

So, Mr. Farley, perhaps instead of telling the world to "calm down" through illogical arguments and exaggerations, perhaps it would be wise to educate people as to the real threat and allow countries (such as Israel) to protect themselves from a very real threat.

DARTH1

7:30 PM ET

July 16, 2009

Being calm is wrong strong

Peace throught strenght. At one time I subscribed to this magazine. But issue upon was demonstrated that this magaizne is nothing more than a mouth piece for the left and pacifisits as is evident is this article.

To the editors, grows some nuts and regain your objectivity.

JACKBOURASSA

7:25 AM ET

July 17, 2009

Oh the irony

You realize Darth, that if it weren't for George W. Bush Iran wouldn't be going for nukes now. Iran hadn't shown much of an interest in developing nuclear weapons until the US began invading all of its neighbors and then making proclamations that Iran would face a similar fate being that it was a full-blown member of this "axis-of-evil." Once we became bogged down in Iraq, the Iranian government seized the opportunity to build these weapons to DETER an American attack against it.

Thus, here we are now, the ultimate consequence of Bush's failed mid-east policy.

Not really Bismark are we Darth? Like in chess, in order to succeed in foreign policy one must anticipate several moves in advance. I don't think the Bush Administration anticipated one or two such moves much less several.