If Iran gets an atomic weapon, will they use it?
I think we can safely dismiss Iran’s insistence that their purposes are entirely peaceful. If this were the case there would be no need to display the equipment that is necessary to build weapons and not necessary for the deployment of reactors for peaceful generation of electricity. Why, then, should Iran seek to possess nuclear weapons? What advantage would the actual use of nuclear bombs afford Iran?
Is seems to me that, as with Pakistan and India, and the US and USSR, the possession of nuclear weapons is a bargaining chip in world diplomacy and may be actually a deterrent to their use. In the Cold War, the two nations had so much destructive capability as to assure their mutual destruction (and the rest of the world with them.) With Pakistan and India, the use of nuclear weapons is essentially stalemated, too. It is the possession of the weapons that is key and not the actual use. The fact is that no one, US or USSR or anyone else who has ever had them has ever used them in 65 years. This is not to deny the possibility or that a terrorist could obtain one and use it for some horrific political demonstration. We live with this always now. No one in leadership of any established country, though, could use them without the expectation of total annihilation. We count on this sensibility. In addition, the weapons represent too much political power to be for sale or transfer to anyone other than the possessor.
Let’s examine the practicality of Iran using atomic bombs. If Iran uses a nuclear weapon against Israel the fallout carried by the prevailing winds will surely ruin Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran, itself. It would be more likely that Iran would export their capability to be used somewhere else, such as the United States or Europe. On the other hand, since the US knows where Iran is, and the US possesses 1000 times the nuclear destructive force that Iran ever will, does it seem prudent to threaten us with a bomb in New York or Washington, DC when retaliation is most assured even without our using atomic weapons in turn? We would surely retaliate even with conventional resources. The Gulf Wars have demonstrated that we cannot be defeated on the open battlefield and we will have no reason to want to ‘democratize’ Iran after the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles. What would be Iran’s benefit from the actual use of a nuclear weapon?
It is common knowledge that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. It has also enjoyed the unconditional support of the US. It is also in the history books that Israel will launch a military attack on any perceived threat in any country in the region. It is also history that Israel will take and annex any land it feels it can take with impunity. Given this history, is it any wonder that one or more countries would want to act to counter this threat to them? How would you recognize the intentions of Israel if you were a country adjacent to them? It would seem to me that Iran wants to tip the balance of power in the Middle East.
The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would blunt the ability of Israel to strike. We have believed that through sanctions and penalties the US can ‘incentivise’ Iran to drop its nuclear program. Not likely, though. On the contrary, when the Iranians have a nuclear weapon, Iran can incentivize the US to force Israel into earnest negotiations with its Middle East neighbors or, at least, neutralize the one-sided situation that has existed since 1948. I am not naïve, however. I do not believe Iran is acting for the good of its neighbors. We will see how this plays-out in the future.
Anyone else have any ideas?
