From GLORIA, January 31, 2007, by Barry Rubin ...
... This isn't a matter just of Iran possibly firing atomic-tipped missiles at Israel or more extreme officials handing such weapons to terrorists. These are extremely dangerous outcomes that might or might not happen.
What should be more compelling is what would definitely take place: a gigantic shift in the regional balance of power against Western interests and toward violence and instability.
The first and most obvious situation would be a big boost for Iran's campaign to be the leading power in the Persian Gulf or even in the whole region. For many countries and movements, having a patron with nuclear weapons will be incredibly attractive; for even more, having an enemy with them is too scary to resist. Overnight, Iran will become the most attractive sponsor for political subversion and terrorism in the region. Saudi Arabia will still have money but all those oilfields could--in theory--disappear in a very bright flash if someone in Tehran decided to do so. Is this going to happen? Unlikely. But could the Saudis take that risk by angering Iran?
The same applies to all the other small Persian Gulf Arab states. And if Iran has influence in Iraq now, what would it be like if Tehran had nukes? There is a question that every Arab state would have to ask itself: Can the United States be depended on as a protector? Will America credibly be ready to use its own atomic bombs to counter those of Iran even if it involves killing large numbers of people and getting involved in a terrible, bloody war? The point is that it is not the use of nuclear weapons but a credible willingness to use them--enough to convince rather extremist Iranian leaders--that brings strategic credibility.
If you were a Saudi, Kuwaiti, or Emirati, what would be your choice--to feel secure with an American promise of help or to be safe by yielding to Iranian threats? Suppose, then, that Iran tells Bahrain not to house a U.S. base, or Iraq to kick out American forces, or the Saudis to set an oil price to Iran's liking. Aren't the Gulf Arabs going to yield to their demand? Clear hints are just as effective as rude threats. The nastier the one is who possesses the weapon, the more persuasive the warning.
Then there is the equation's other side. Consider that you are a revolutionary opposition group, Islamist or otherwise, looking for a backer. For such needs, there was Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s, Syria in the 1960s and 1970s, and Iraq in the 1980s and 1990s. In the twenty-first century, however, no one can compete with Iran, as Hizballah and Hamas have already decided.... Tens of thousands of people will die as a result of their enthusiasm for the cause. And a lot of them might be in Europe.
Do you think that anyone will make peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict if they assume--no matter how wrong they turn out to be--that Israel is going to be either erased by Iran's nuclear weapons or intimidated into massive unilateral concessions by them? Do you believe the West will dare act effectively on any regional crisis in the face of Iranian opposition? Would Turkey protest firmly about Iranian involvement in Kurdish or Islamist subversion at home?
This is only the beginning of the problems arising from Iranian possession of nuclear weapons: a bolder, extremist Iran; coercion of the local, relatively more moderate states; a boost for terrorist and revolutionary groups with an upsurge of violence, and intimidation of the West.
And that's the optimistic scenario, without anyone actually using weapons of mass destruction. Keep this in mind as the crisis unfolds.
Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university.
No comments:
Post a Comment