The 'Islamic Bomb'
The nuclear issue in Iran is not new and the information regarding the negotiations and developments of this issue are far from scarce. It therefore seems appropriate to re-evaluate one of the fundamental premises underlying this issue. That is, the view that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This is BY NO MEANS intended to imply that, contrary to current evidence, Iran is developing nuclear weapons!
more…
As seen in a previous post, Israel, a state who’s mere existence has caused historical and contemporary regional instability, is perceived as a threat by Iran and vice versa. I am admittedly simplifying a complex historical relationship, but the point is to establish the nature of the current relationship (or lack thereof) between Iran and Israel rather than to justify one or the other’s position. Israel, who, unlike Iran, has never signed NPT and yet IS known to have nuclear weapons, is a strong ally of and beneficiary of aid (economic and military) from the U.S. Iran, on the other hand, is an enemy of and subject to an embargo from the U.S.
Some might say that “it is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.” WW4
It should be noted than Iran distrusts the West, and the US in particular, as much as it is distrusted by the West.
If history is any guide to the future, and if we take into consideration the nuclear developments between two hostile states ( India and Pakistan ) and their current ( largely improving) relationship, it seems unlikely that Iran would use its nuclear capabilities as anything more than a deterrent or defence mechanism.
Although words are important and President Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric can be inflammatory, it can be assumed that the current Iranian government is, like most of those holding power in the world, fundamentally pragmatic. Presumably, the said government is well aware that any aggression directed as Israel will cause severe reprisals from Israel, the U.S., and, in the case of nuclear aggression, Europeans. To take the extreme case, if Iran detonated a nuclear bomb in Israel, Iran would be showered with nuclear bombs. Such a situation was known during the Cold War as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ (MAD).
As for the spreading of nuclear technology to ‘terrorist organisations’, a pragmatic Iranian government would be quite aware of the fact that they would, for right or for wrong, bear the responsibility of any use of nuclear material by such organisations regardless of whether Iran supplied the nuclear material or not.
We only have examples of nuclear force, when possessed by two enemies, serving to moderate potential crises. MAD served to keep the Cold War cold. MAD also brought India and Pakistan to negotiations. Admittedly, nuclear deterrence never brought the type of reconciliation witnessed after WWII between Germany and France but it also never led to direct confrontation between nuclear powers. I therefore wonder whether an ‘Islamic Bomb’ (as fearmongers refer to it) could not result in a rapprochement of sorts between Iran and Israel (and the U.S. by default).
Could the most extreme weaponry paradoxically be the best avenue to normalisation of relations between mutual foes?
more…
As seen in a previous post, Israel, a state who’s mere existence has caused historical and contemporary regional instability, is perceived as a threat by Iran and vice versa. I am admittedly simplifying a complex historical relationship, but the point is to establish the nature of the current relationship (or lack thereof) between Iran and Israel rather than to justify one or the other’s position. Israel, who, unlike Iran, has never signed NPT and yet IS known to have nuclear weapons, is a strong ally of and beneficiary of aid (economic and military) from the U.S. Iran, on the other hand, is an enemy of and subject to an embargo from the U.S.
Some might say that “it is the most absurd manifestation of irony that the single state who caused this single nuclear catastrophe in a twin attack on our earth now has assumed the role of the prime preacher in the nuclear field while ever expanding its nuclear weapons capability.” WW4
It should be noted than Iran distrusts the West, and the US in particular, as much as it is distrusted by the West.
If history is any guide to the future, and if we take into consideration the nuclear developments between two hostile states ( India and Pakistan ) and their current ( largely improving) relationship, it seems unlikely that Iran would use its nuclear capabilities as anything more than a deterrent or defence mechanism.
Although words are important and President Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric can be inflammatory, it can be assumed that the current Iranian government is, like most of those holding power in the world, fundamentally pragmatic. Presumably, the said government is well aware that any aggression directed as Israel will cause severe reprisals from Israel, the U.S., and, in the case of nuclear aggression, Europeans. To take the extreme case, if Iran detonated a nuclear bomb in Israel, Iran would be showered with nuclear bombs. Such a situation was known during the Cold War as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ (MAD).
As for the spreading of nuclear technology to ‘terrorist organisations’, a pragmatic Iranian government would be quite aware of the fact that they would, for right or for wrong, bear the responsibility of any use of nuclear material by such organisations regardless of whether Iran supplied the nuclear material or not.
We only have examples of nuclear force, when possessed by two enemies, serving to moderate potential crises. MAD served to keep the Cold War cold. MAD also brought India and Pakistan to negotiations. Admittedly, nuclear deterrence never brought the type of reconciliation witnessed after WWII between Germany and France but it also never led to direct confrontation between nuclear powers. I therefore wonder whether an ‘Islamic Bomb’ (as fearmongers refer to it) could not result in a rapprochement of sorts between Iran and Israel (and the U.S. by default).
Could the most extreme weaponry paradoxically be the best avenue to normalisation of relations between mutual foes?
posted by Germain at 09:59
15 Comments:
Dear guys,
I read with interest the arguments laid out around the ongoing IranAtom situation. Quite rightly, MAD kept the Cold War cold. Arguably, India and Pakistan are easing their conflicts partly due to their MADness.
That it might potentially lead to a relaxation of the situation between Israel and Iran is thinkable, too. However, I feel the argument becomes undermined by the change of the kind of "enemies" we are actually facing in a time well past the cold war.
The real danger, and in that respect surely one of the U.S. vastest fears is not, that Iran might go loose on Israel with a nuclear charge, but that a nuclear leak might be established. The resulting danger of a terrorist organisation - and here I don't refer to the Iranian government itself - in posession of a nuclear device is exactly not subject to MAD, which works on the principle of trying to protect on the basis of retaliation. Terrorists on the other hand, by definition, strive to cause damage, and are usually, but especially in the case of recent Islamist suicide style, not particularly bothered about their hunting grounds afterwards.
In that respect, it seems almost understandable that under no circumstances Iran should not have nuclear weaponry and to avoid it, best not to let them have any fission. However, the mutual distrust you mention is in no way helping the conflict, and will, if anything, push an Iranian government further from the Western idea(l)s.
On the note of these Western ideals, another question I have for you is, whether we should continue to argue for a world society kept at bay by (fear of) retaliation, or whether we should not instead seek a more integral approach? But maybe that's too idealistic...
I'm at work and can't say much now (in the middle of writing & editing a magazine). But I think your thinking on Iran would benefit from reading Winston Churchill's The Second World War, Volume 1: The Gathering Storm, which you can get on Amazon for less than $2.
The parallels are striking, gob-smacking even.
I agree that the argument I posted suffers from (at least) two weaknesses. 1) The terrorist network argument: true enough MAD does not work with so-called terrorists. On a side note, I assure you that if they had access to tanks and attack helicopters you would see a lot less suicide bombers. Nonetheless, it seems that IF Iran wants to develop a bomb, it will do so (external attack short of regime change will only embolden such efforts...the last regime change in Iran (1953) arguably lead to the current situation so maybe that’s not the best option either).
2) I do not have to read Churchill (though I will try to) to know the dangers of appeasement. But I believe that between a type of appeasement that allows one country (Iran) to invade another and aggressive threats (US rhetoric and possible UN sanctions) there has to be a middle road. And it is that road I am interested in.
In terms of Western ideals, I do not quite understand what you mean by an 'integral approach', but I think that we should stop trying to spread Western ideals to the rest of the world...this type of neo-colonial imposition of ideals only emboldens conservatives in targeted states. The refugee and immigration flows (although based on a distorted picture of our societies) are a testimony to the power of leading by example. Unfortunately, leading by example means you don't always get what you want when you want...China is not imposing its ideals on other sovereign states and it seems to be faring quite a bit better than the West in terms of approval in the developing world. We could stand to humble ourselves in the face of our ideals, if we take a look at ‘home’ the ideals we profess are also a distorted image of the reality we live.
Finally, the notion that we now face a new kind of 'enemy' is questionable, empire has always suffered attacks by peripheral nomadic groups; terrorism has existed in Latin America, Europe (eg France in the early 90s), Israel, and India/Pakistan for quite some time now. Things have not really changed all that much even if some people try to tell us otherwise. In 2003, 625 people died from terrorism, 3 million died of AIDS; 2.1 million people died of vaccine preventable diseases in 2002…are we fighting the right fight? Could the $200 billion spent in Iraq have been used for more noble ventures?
I would very much like to answer the question in the last paragraph with a 'yes'. That's also - to clarify my earlier statement - what I meant with the 'integral' approach. integral as in integrate. So I guess what I am really trying to say is, that if 'the west' and 'the islamic world' (or however you want to draw the camp-map here) are to settle in this world along side each other, co-operating, and peacefully interacting, then we need to dwell on the similarities rather than the differences. It won't help to spread the western ideals, quite right. We should aim to have them accepted as and when people see fit, just as we should maybe become a bit more happy to adopt some of the ideals from other regions of the world. 'The West' could very much benefit, for example, from a return to larger families. I entirely agree that the imposing (and in a recent $200 billion project in Iraq forceful) spread of 'our' ideals only emboldens those who seek to rally oposition, which is why I would like to see more interaction between cultures, which would indeed maybe help to clear up some of the gulfs between ideal and reality at home as well.
One final note on the change of the type of terrorism. Yes, regimes, empires and the like have always had enemies who aimed to strike where it hurt most. Sure, with attack helicopters you could maybe do away with suicide attacks. However, a suicide attak is not just a desperate act. It's also, in the hands of the master-mind of a terrorist organisation, always assuming there is such a thing - a weapon far more powerful than a tank. A tank you see a mile off. You can track it, shoot, that's it. A suicide bomber, to the naked eye looks just like your neighbour, the way he always does. You can shoot him, but you can't threaten him, because he has decided to die anyway. Building a nuclear bomb is not hard, certainly not a dirty one. The two combined I think are a real threat, one that must not be allowed. The way we manage not to allow it (we as in 'the world') will feedback into how much some will strive to establish that threat.
While I sympathise with the traditional, [socially] liberal viewpoint that cultures should be considered equally valid, different viewpoints welcomed, the West shouldn't impose its norms on other parts of the world, etc... I also find myself somewhat drawn to the more hawkish argument that if you really believe that something's right, you ought to be promoting it. Like, if you think people should have political rights such as choosing their leaders, and you see people without those rights, then perhaps you ought to look at ways of sorting that out for them. However I now find that this argument is insufficient to persuade me that it's right to go toppling foreign regimes... It doesn't follow in my head. I need to think some more, but my sense is that there actually are more important things than single minded pursuit of one's own ideals. TBC.
Peter has hit upon one of the central problems of our age, and one Germain and I have begun discussing several times without what either of us would regard as a satisfactory conclusion.
Namely, the "[socially] liberal" tenet of cultural relativism and its insufficiency. If one buys into it for its nicer-sounding attributes, like those Peter mentions, what does one do when one discovers it isn't quite what it was supposed to be? Which is to say, we can't be cultural relativists AND say we should do something about Darfur. We can't be cultural relativists AND say any regime is bad (including the Bush presidency). We can't be proper cultural relativists AND endorse a concept of human rights. Well, not if we want to be logically coherent.
A series of questions for Germain about "neo-colonialism": was it paleo-colonialism when Muslims spread algebra many centuries ago? Is it neo-colonialism when the World Health Organization spreads medical techniques around the world? If so, is labeling something paleo-colonialism, colonialism, or neo-colonialism supposed to prejudice it? Are we supposed to think anything with that label is bad? Is that why it was used?
Overall, I must say I'm astounded by the heroic assumptions in Iran's favor that Germain is willing to make and asks us all to accept. Especially given the price if he's wrong (again, c.f. WWII). Which is not even to mention that I have serious suspicions that if the U.S. and Europe fail in their attempts to get Iran to cease, Israel will act -- and that's probably not what any of us wants.
Chris Hitchens on point.
Christopher Hitchens is a smart guy. However he's clearly picked a winnable fight by criticising a guy who's trying to represent Ahmadinejad as some sort of moderate. What I find disturbing is Hitchens characterising his opponent as a "Muslim apologist." Does Hitchens really mean this? He's implying that the whole of Islam is essentially evil, and anyone who denies it falls into the David Irving category. Mental.
Well, that's not quite right, is it? Hitchens said Juan Cole was a "minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community." The implications seem clear: there is a Muslim apologist community in academia and Juan Cole is on the fringes of it (i.e. the extreme). I actually think that's quite generous. I'm not so sure Cole is on the extreme, but rather I fear he represents the mainstream of Middle Eastern studies professors, many of whom haven't met a regime for which they will not apologize save for those in North America and Europe.
Now, anyone who has read much Hitchens knows religions have no truck with him (especially Christianity), but I don't see anything in his remark that would sustain the accusation that he's calling the whole of Islam evil. What am I missing?
I associate the term "apologist" with people who attempt to make excuses for something which is in fact inexcusable. Thus "Muslim apologist" suggests that to be a Muslim is inexcusable. Hitchens could easily say "apologist for political Islam," or "Islamic fundamentalism apologist," but his phrasing distinctly implies that it's Muslims in general who he thinks are wrong. He might well think that, as he clearly does about other religions, but the whole of the rest of his article is about politics, which strikes me as inconsistent as possibly deliberately offensive.
Ah, there may be a bit of imprecision on Hitchens' part about the language. An apologist in the classical understanding of the word and primary definition in my desk dictionary (I haven't checked OED) is a defender. That's the definition I inferred was in use in Hitchens' article, which further explains why I didn't understand your complaint. Given his liberal internationalist sympathy with the people of the region and his past writings, I rather doubt he meant to impart offense as much as indict Iran and those who would defend the regime there.
Now we should all step back and appreciate the moment that is me defending an avowed socialist. Could only happen, I dare say, on a Friday.
I do appreciate the moment Kevin, well done. I'm sceptical that such a wordsmith as Mr. Hitchens would just let slip something like that, but it's a pretty tangential point to his article, and this is all definitely tangential to the original post.
True... what do y'all make of the letter??
The letter! I think it was a wonderful bit of news. I mean, not that the news itself was wonderful, but it was a good media moment. I like reading that kind of headline - "Iranian President writes to Bush," it's quaint and old-fashioned, and indicative of the sort of time we live in that such a simple act can be top of the world's news. I don't now recall fully the details that were made public, but it was very interesting to see Ahmadinejad's recommendation that Bush put religion at the centre of his policies. I also thought it was quite mean-spirited of Rice to just say it wasn't helpful. The way I see it, that's a PR coup for Iran as they look like the ones building bridges, with the US snubbing them. Perhaps.
The letter is, potentially, a huge step in the only direction that could lead to a 'win - win' outcome whereby the two nations which are truly at the centre of this reach an agreement. Unfortunately the letter was rebuffed, but interestingly negotiations have been given another chance. Could it be that the US and Iran are talking behind the scenes? Or are the Europeans and Americans trying to convince the Chinese and Russians that a strong Security Council Resolution is the ‘right’ thing to do? The Bush Administration should have been a bit more diplomatic about the letter and should recognize its real symbolic value but diplomacy has never been their strength. Has the letter been released? You can read it on Ahmadinejad’s site.
Post a Comment
<< Home