A Recurrent Nightmare To Civilization

'Nuclear Sunrise'

 

The great Victor Davis Hanson gives us brilliant argument:

How many times have we heard the following whining and yet received no specific answers from our leaders?

"Israel has nuclear weapons, so why single out Iran?"

"Pakistan got nukes and we lived with it."

"Who is to say the United States or Russia should have the bomb and not other countries?"

"Iran has promised to use its reactors for peaceful purposes, so why demonize the regime?"

In fact, the United States has a perfectly sound rationale for singling out Iran to halt its nuclear proliferation. At least six good reasons come to mind, not counting the more obvious objection over Iran's violation of U.N. non-proliferation protocols. It is past time that we spell them out to the world at large.

First, we cannot excuse Iran by acknowledging that the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons. In each case of acquisition, Western foreign-policy makers went into a crisis mode, as anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities.

A tragic lapse is not corrected by yet another similar mistake, especially since one should learn from the errors of the past. The logic of "They did it, so why can't I?" would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role. There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of Armageddon.

Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another. Although they are prone to fighting — imperial Athens and republican Venice both were in some sort of war about three out of four years during the 5th century B.C. and the 16th century respectively — consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind. In contemporary terms that means that there is no chance whatsoever that an anti-American France and an increasingly anti-French America would, as nuclear democracies, attack each other. Russia, following the fall of Communism, and its partial evolution to democracy, poses less threat to the United States than when it was a totalitarian state.

It would be regrettable should Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or Germany go nuclear — but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's.

Third, there are a number of rogue regimes that belong in a special category: North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, unfree states whose leaders have sought global attention and stature through sponsoring insurrection and terrorism beyond their borders. If it is scary that Russia, China, and Pakistan are now nuclear, it is terrifying that Kim Jong Il has the bomb, or that President Ahmadinejad might. Islamic fundamentalism or North Korean Stalinism might be antithetical to scientific advancement, but it is actually conducive to nuclear politics. When such renegade regimes go nuclear they gain the added lunatic edge: "We are either crazy or have nothing to lose or both — but you aren't." In nuclear poker, the appearance of derangement is an apparent advantage.

Fourth, there are all sorts of scary combinations — petrodollars, nukes, terrorism, and fanaticism. But Iran is a uniquely fivefold danger. It has enough cash to buy influence and exemption; nuclear weapons to threaten civilization; oil reserves to blackmail a petroleum hungry world; terrorists to either find sanctuary under a nuclear umbrella or to be armed with dirty bombs; and it has a leader who wishes either to take his entire country into paradise, or at least back to the eighth century amid the ashes of the Middle East.

Just imagine the present controversy over the cartoons in the context of President Ahmadinejad with his finger on a half-dozen nuclear missiles pointed at Copenhagen.

Fifth, any country that seeks "peaceful" nuclear power and is completely self-sufficient in energy production is de facto suspect. Iran has enough natural gas to meet its clean electrical generation needs for centuries. The only possible rationale for its multi-billion-dollar program of building nuclear reactors, and spending billions more to hide and decentralize them, is to obtain weapons, and thus to gain clout and attention in a manner that otherwise is not warranted by either Iranian conventional forces, cultural influence, or economic achievement.

Sixth, the West is right to take on a certain responsibility to discourage nuclear proliferation. The technology for such weapons grew entirely out of Western science and technology. In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering. Any country that cannot itself create such weapons is probably not going to ensure the necessary protocols to guard against their misuse or theft.

We can argue all we want over the solution — it is either immoral to use military force or immoral not to use it; air strikes are feasible or will be an operational disaster; dissidents will rise up or have already mostly been killed or exiled; Russia and China will help solve or will instead enjoy our dilemma; Europe is now on board or is already triangulating; the U.N. will at last step in, or is more likely to damn the United States than Teheran.

Yet where all parties agree is that a poker-faced United States seems hesitant to act until moments before the missiles are armed, and is certainly not behaving like the hegemon or imperialist power so caricatured by Michael Moore and an array of post-September 11 university-press books. Until there is firm evidence that Iran has the warheads ready, the administration apparently does not wish to relive the nightmare of the past three years in which striking Iran will conjure up all the old Iraqi-style hysteria about unilateralism, preemption, incomplete or cooked intelligence, imperialism, and purported hostility toward a Muslim country.

In the greatest irony of all, the Left (who must understand well the nightmarish scenario of a fascist Iran with nuclear weapons) is suddenly bewildered by George Bush's apparent multilateral caution. The Senate Democrats don't know whether to attack the administration now for its nonchalance or to wait and second-guess them once the bombs begin to fall.

Either way, no one should doubt that a nuclear Iran would end the entire notion of global adjudication of nuclear proliferation — as well as remain a recurrent nightmare to civilization itself.

Comments

[Huan]

JW

you need to refresh your history. we played bothsides during the iran iraq war. we, the US were a minor supporter of Saddam afterward as compared to the Europeans. we turned against him in 91 and supported the opposition but did not intervened on their behalf but at no time without direct military support did any opposition win. with military support the Kurds carved out an autonomous state, without military support the marsh arabs and the shia were crushed.

the scenario repeats itself again and again through history. insurrection more often than not requires external military support. even so in the american revolution.

[North by Northwest]

John - I can't believe you are blaming us for Ahmadinejad's victory. That is simply incorrect. He came to power because of a bitter feud between the moderate candidates. The electorate got fed up with the bickering and 'punished' the reformers with electing the hitherto little known mayor of Tehran. More importantly, the West, including the Administration, went out of their way to leave Iran alone, hoping that the reformers win the day. This is what I now hear being voiced most often as the core criticism against the Administration.

[John Wilkins]

Unfortunately huan, the difference between Iran and Iraq is enormous. Our support of Hussein and the 1991 war helped destroy the Iraqi opposition. Iran has a much more thriving opposition that Hussein. Remember - a reformer had won the previous election. It was only after we started demonizing Iran that the fundamentalists regained power.

[Huan]

the first is that any change in Iran will have to be caused by Iranians. What we have ignored is that lots of Iranians would love to change their country. Why aren't they? Because, well, they are also patriots. I mean - it happens here. If people start saying "we want to change the country" people accuse them of not being patriots. The same happens in Iran. So Iranians who do want to change still have to be patriotic. Nuclear ambitions and support of Palestinians are easy things to rally around.

But Iran wants other things more than a conflict with Israel or the US, both of which it would lose. They aren't suicidal. They want 1) security and 2) energy. What peace can do is give local Iranians some space to resist. Invading Iran will simply ensure that the Iranian opposition is destroyed.

one can also say the same about the iraqi opposition to Saddam
give them time
invasion will destroy them

what the opposition needs is empowerment
sometimes only brought to bear by force of arms

[John Wilkins]

what do Chamberlain and Churchill have to do with Iran? Most of the wealthy Brits supported chamberlain - after all Hitler was devoutly anti-communist.

Kenny, do you know your history? Ever read AJP Taylor? If you really want to look at the roots of nazism you might want to go back a bit - to the mistakes the brits made before WWI [they almost, actually, sided with Germany - check out Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War. And Niall's a conservative.] or even to their lack of magnanimity after WWI. Keynes himself warned the brits that a harsh reparations policy would create horrible conditions in Germany. He was proven right enough that the US decided to listen to him after WWII.

The churchill vs chamberlain comparison is trite. The nazi comparison has been played out, and shows more of an interest in stifling debate than on engaging in intelligent discussion. Talk to me after you define the word "blowback."

The goal is not peace at all costs. But there are a couple rules worth noting.

the first is that any change in Iran will have to be caused by Iranians. What we have ignored is that lots of Iranians would love to change their country. Why aren't they? Because, well, they are also patriots. I mean - it happens here. If people start saying "we want to change the country" people accuse them of not being patriots. The same happens in Iran. So Iranians who do want to change still have to be patriotic. Nuclear ambitions and support of Palestinians are easy things to rally around.

But Iran wants other things more than a conflict with Israel or the US, both of which it would lose. They aren't suicidal. They want 1) security and 2) energy. What peace can do is give local Iranians some space to resist. Invading Iran will simply ensure that the Iranian opposition is destroyed.

If Iran does invade Israel, then let the gloves come off. But as I said, I think it's all talk. Iraq and Pakistan aren't Poland.

[Peter Boston]

Power and influence are zero-sum. Kindergarten arguments about the "fairness" of enemy regimes acquiring nuclear weapons belong in kindergarten and have no place in supposedly adult discussions. The only question is what we are willing to do to prevent their acquisition.

[Kenny Pierce]

Europe's attitude, Huan, is not "peace at all costs" -- though I would argue that it has traditionally been "peace at all costs as long as it's somebody else's wives and children who have to pay that cost, especially if we can make a buck ourselves along the way."

[Huan]

why should we pursue a policy of detente with Iran? in the name of peace we should allow the millions of Iranians to suffer oppression and totalitarianism? is that the goal then? peace at all cost?

[RL]

in a previous posting, i forgot to include the Cayman Islands
as the other "property" of the greedy British empire that
hasn't gone to hell. hey, even all of those extremely wealthy
British bankers need a safe and stable tax-shelter for their
vast wealth, and a tax-free colony where they can register
their mega-yachts that perennially spend the summer months in
St. Tropez, Cannes, and Monaco.
(they are all registered in Georgetown, CI)

it's not a coincidence that the main boardwalk in Nice(FR)
is named la Promenade des Anglais.

now only if they would finally cut-off all of the strings
to their evil islaomterrorist ayatollah monster-puppets in
Tehran. i won't be holding my breath on this on.

it should be noted that before the jimmy carter endorsed and
supported ayatollah khomeini left his comfortable and highly
secure residence in paris to fly to Tehran on an air france
747, his evil, anti-American, ant-Semitic, and anti-
humanitarian "sermons"(demonic messages) were broadcast all
over Iran for several months on the bbc.
jimmy carter was also a strong supporter of khomeini's
very, very bloody and demonic islamoterrorist revolution
in Iran. what an absolute disaster and nightmare from the
darkest pit of hell.

this is precisely why it is so important to take our voting
rights and privilege very seriously in a healthy, strong,
truly blessed, and great democracy such as America(land of
the free and home of the brave).
God Bless America.

defenddemocracy.org

[Kenny Pierce]

John, maybe in this case Chamberlain would be right and Churchill would be wrong -- but there's no question which of the two would agree with you.

[David Foster]

As Ralph Peters recently wrote:

"One of the most consistently disheartening experiences an adult can have today is to listen to the endless attempts by our intellectuals and intelligence professionals to explain religious terrorism in clinical terms, assigning rational motives to men who have moved irrevocably beyond reason. We suffer under layers of intellectual asymmetries that hinder us from an intuititive recognition of our enemies."

I think this applies particularly to the view that the Iranian regime can be dealt with as one would deal with a relatively normal government.

[RL]

Lard Curzon was an overweight idiot and an english jackass.

One of Reza Khan's biggest mistakes was in choosing not to
personally and slowly cutting his big fat head off of his
fat body with a very sharp Persian dagger, and feeding it
and the rest of his bloated-body to a pack of wild dogs.
the Brits & Russians were so intimidated by him, that they
had him forcefully removed from his own nation and shipped-off
to live in exile in Johannesburg, ZA.

"Made in the UK"

Tattooed underneath the goatess of all of the evil
islamoterrorist ayatollah monsters in the IRI; a joint
venture between BP and the British foreign ministry llc.
it's not an accident that London is the financial capital
of Europe. the only former "property" of the British empire
that hasn't gone to hell is Hong Kong, and this is because
the Brits milked it for every penny that it was worth,
before handing it back to its rightful owners. one of the
smartest things that the Israeli Zionists did was to reduce
the influence of the Brits in their own country to irrelevance;
and as a result of this Jewish wisdom, Israel is a superstrong
and healthy democracy that isn't run by a bunch of apocalyptic
and evil islamoterrorist monsters who are obsessed with
hastening the return of their "12th imam", imam mahdi,
through instigating chaos in the Middle East and the rest
of the world. this is what happens when you put a peanut farmer
and some extremely ravenous and greedy Brits in charge of
foreign policy; you end up with an atomic islamoterrorist
nightmare in the cradle of civilization.

iranian.com/History/Feb99/RezaShah/

(A Real Man who wasn't impressed by Lard Curzon,
or any other Brits)

answering-islam.org

[weekenderman]

I have as much respect for the leaders of Iran as I have for the leaders of North Korea. Both countries are like little babies, whining and stomping their feet for attention. I say we either ignore them both or nuke the hell out of both of them.

[John Wilkins]

I'm always bemused when people take someone like the President of Iran seriously. He's toying with us, and enjoying every minute. Just one word and everyone is in a tizzy. He can say he'd bomb us, speaks a couple sentences about anti-semitism and we're giving him the attention he craves. Unfortunately, we're not really listening.

The best thing, Alexandra, would be detente, and eventually, selling them non-nuclear weapons through India [we do it with other questionable countries] and put pressure upon Pakistan to allow India and Iran to have a gas pipeline. The trade? No nukes - but some weapons. You may think this is crazy, but there are more fundamentalist Islamic countries we sell to.

Although it is convenient to demonize Iran, trying the hard game of geopolitics and diplomacy might have some merit. We've done it with other countries [say, the Soviet Union, when we took our Nukes out of turkey six months after the missile crisis]. But it would take some seriousness, and some willingness to agree that war should be a last option.

I think you are a bit imprecise about Iran, for it is different than, say, our allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan in that they have some semblance of elections. It is a "democratic theocracy" in which lots of Iranians would prefer to have a secular government than a theocratic one. The consequence is that if we do attacking Iran is that you'll end up destroying the internal resistance. In the short term, success, but in the long term, another mistake - one of many made since 1953. remember 1953, Alexandra? I think, also, classifying Iran along with all the other Islamic countries shows little knowledge about Iranian self-understanding.

what was that Lord Curzon quote about natives being ruled by other nations?

[RL]

For those of you who are seriously interested in learning
more accurate and credible facts concerning this atomic-crisis
in the IRI from a trustworthy source, Dr. Marvin Olasky has an
excellent cover-story, titled "Nuke Nightmare", in this week's
edition of World Mag (worldmag.com, an excellent alternative
to time, newsweek, and other rapidly fading msm sources)

worldmag.com
(No bs, just the facts)

[Snippet]

One of the benefits of the "neocon" agenda is that it clarifies things.

The question of why Iran cannot have nukes, while Israeli nukes are acceptable, becomes clear:

Israel is a democracy, Iran is not only NOT a democracy, it is a country whose real rulers have claimed that they would nuke Israel first thing after they get the means to do so.

The simple fact of the matter is that mature, stable, "successful" democracies can have nukes, and no one else should.

This means, Sweden can have nukes, North Korea cannot.

Makes sense?

[RL]

"Tehran plays host to al-qaeda"
(in the current issue of the, weeklystandard.com)

there are a handful of very high-level officials at Langley,
including a certain gentleman with the initials PG, who
believe that this is where ubl has been enjoying the good life,
under the constant protection of the IRGC("Qods Force/Jerusalem-
Force").

al-qaeda and the IRI have lengthy and strong ties, that go
way back to the pre 9/11 era in State sponsored international
islamoterrorism. it would be very interesting if the IRI
actually does have ubl and his deputies, and decide to use
them as negotiating tools with the US in exchange for some
form of compromise/appeasement concerning the advancement of
their "peaceful nuclear program". the ayatollahs are infamous
for having too many tricks inside of their turbans, and for
being evil-geniuses in the global chess-match that they have
been playing since their rogue atomic-weapons program
was initially exposed a couple of years ago (ie. the current
delay-game that they have been engaging in with their Russian
friends and allies for the past couple of months).

i think that Russia and China, and their gargantuan appetites
for energy resources, are going to be the biggest obstacles/
obstructionists in this atomic-islamoterrorist nightmare.
China has recently finalized a $100 billion energy deal with
the IRI, and Russia continues to arm them to the max with
their newest and most sophisticated SAMs(surface to air
missiles) around the perimeter of their Bushehr reactors.
it's going to be very interesting to see how this atomic-crisis
plays out, especially when one considers the very-strong
interests that these two evil and goliath foes of America have
inside of Iran.

kentimmerman.com

[Filou]

This is a superb analysis: well written, concise and highly insightful.

While I agree with you on the fact that a nuclear Iran would be a nightmare for our civilization, I am worried that our democracies are badly equipped to deal with such existential threats.

What have we done to stop Pakistan for building nuclear weapons? And similarly, what are we doing to stop the dependency of the world (and not just the US) on oil? If oil were not a concern, dealing with the Iranian threat would become much easier. Oil is our Achille’s heel and the Iranian government is well aware of it. But shifting our energy needs away from oil would require huge long-term investments and major short-term sacrifices. As we all know, citizens are not willing to engage into such programs until their democratic countries start suffering major casualties…

[RL]

ayatollah mesbah yazdi, president ahmaghinejad's closest
and most extremist "religious adviser", has issued a fatwa
today stating that it is perfectly ok for the IRI to use
nuclear weapons against Western nations (this religious decree
is totally in contradiction to sharia law, which clearly
states that the usage of atomic weapons is never permissible)

i hope and pray that the West will cut-off the flow of
gasoline and other refined petroleum products to the IRI as
a last-ditch measure, before we even think about using the
military option; because the IRI's response to the military
option is going to be a very bloody and nightmarish response
(especially for Israeli citizens; hezbollah & hamas).
we ought to at at least try to completely shut-down their
economy/country by cutting off the flow of their most important
import, before any serious talk of attacking their rogue
nuclear weapons program. anything short of this attempt would
not be the proper way of handling this atomic-crisis
(ie. our harsh, illogical, irrational, and unreasonable
critics would never forgive nor forget the fact that we didn't
exhaust every single possiblity, before destroying the evil and
maniacal ayatollahs' atomic ambitions)

"Tehran is the central bank of international terrorism."
Dr. Condoleezza Rice

a credible and truthful statement.
(as is often the case concerning Dr. Rice)

warfooting.com
fightingterror.org

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, actually, Alexandra, the number of times I have heard responses like Mr. Hanson quotes is exactly zero. And I get around on a fair number of Liberal blogs as well as Conservative ones.

I strongly suspect Mr. Hanson is simply making them up in the classic Conservative parlor game of consulting his own projective fantasies about what "Liberals" or "The Left" think without ever bothering to read what they actually have to say.

Luckily, you are more fortunate than Mr. Hanson. You have a [relatively] tame and quite thoroughgoing liberal paying you regular homage here, and, by default, you end up reading what he has to say. So I ask you, have you ever read me say such things?

If there is any American who thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea, I have yet to meet them. I don't think it's a good idea either. But, unlike Mr. Hanson--or the Left of his projective fantasies--I am not in the least puzzled why the Administration is proceeding so gingerly.

But then, unlike Mr. Hanson, I not only take the time to read my political adversaries, I also take the time to keep abreast of the actual dispostion and activities of the American military.

We do not have the military capacity to start and sustain yet a third war and all of the Bush inner circle know it. Condi Rice knows it, Donald Rumsfeld knows it, Dick Cheney knows it, and John Bolton knows it. So, by the way, does Jack Murtha, which is one of the reasons for his recent change of heart about Iraq.

Not to mention our other two nuclear problems, Pakistan and North Korea. North Korea is implacably hostile and Pakistan is merely one heartbeat away from changing to an adversary from an ally. Either or both of these could blow up in our face while we are tangled up in three wars instead of two.

And then there is always the problem of Taiwan to consider. One more war would force us to virtually cede the Formosa straits to the Chinese navy.

Would they resist the opportunity to seize Taiwan by force? Good question. If they don't, will George be willing to do some nuclear brinksmanship with our entire West Coast in the balance while fighting three other wars elsewhere? Also a good question. Let's sincerely hope he doesn't have to.

And all of this from the simple boneheaded action of invading Iraq without any preparation whatever to run it after the military victory. Sigh.

[Jeff Durkin]

While I agree with most of the post, I do have a question about the following assertion:

"Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another."

This is common currency among certain foreign policy circles (although some of my associates who are actually doing work on the ground tend to be a bit more skeptical). However, that qualifier "full-fledged" is the problem. How does one define "full-fledged?" If by that you mean "like the core Western states) than it has very little meaning. Democracy as it is known today hasn't existed for more than a century, at most. For much of that time, the democracies were in alliances, whether against the nationalist militants during WW2 or the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. So, the historical record for "full-fledged" democracies is both thin and skewed by the geostrategic environment they have existed in.

A better case can be made that stable states tend to be less willing to go to war, regardless of their actual political structure. Please note that, by this standard, Iran should still be denied possession of nuclear weapons, since it is anything but stable.

The question that becomes, are democracies of any sort more likely to be stable than other forms of government? Probably, but that would only hold true for democracies that are what I would call 'functional democracies.' These are states, like ours, where, in addition to the obvious features of democracy - voting, some for of representation of the citizenry in the legislative and executive bodies - there are many less obvious features. Some of these are:
1. An assumption that the rule of law is at the core of the contract between governed and governing - democracy can only function for long if the citizens believe they exist in a de jure system, not a de facto one.
2. An explicit acknowledgement of the primacy of the individual citizen over the structures of the state. This may seem obvious; however, unless everyone involved in the governing process actually believes in it, than we have an unstable situation in which government officials do what is "best for the state" or "the people" rather than working within the systems of governance.
3. A diffusion of economic and political power. While this may seem counter-intuitive to the "stability" argument, history does show that the concentration of power in the hands of a few is not "friendly" to the concept of rule by the individual through the organs of the state. It is only with diffusion of power, that people need to make compromises and take into account the thoughts and opinions of more than just a handful of power individuals. While an oligarchy can be stable, an oligarchy cannot be a stable democracy.

There are other features, of course, but my point should be clear: without a whole host of beliefs and structures underneath the democratic surface, the system is not a stable one. Hence, the reason why Iran or the PA - even though it has voting and a parliament -is not a democracy. Even if a given vote is "clean" (i.e., free from manipulation) it still is not democratic, because there is nothing "underneath" that vote.

I assume that this is what is meant by "full-fledged" democracies. If that is the case than the historical record is simply too spotty and too short to make the case that these kind of countries are any more or less likely to go war with one another.

In my humble opion, of course.

[Francis W. Porretto]

This is an excellent, concise summation of the argument against permitting not merely Iran, but any Islamic state to have nukes. Islamic states are by definition totalitarian in nature, and hostile to all competing powers and creeds. Their jihad mentality, expressly rooted in the Koranic command to wage war on the unbeliever until he's been killed or subjugated, disqualifies them from the possession of so much as a pointed stick. It would be nice if enough decent persons could grasp this before time runs out.