Deterring a Nuclear Iran

From the desk of Dimitri Cavalli on Sun, 2007-09-16 19:39

The United States, the EU and Israel are determined to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. If Iran cannot be compelled to abandon its nuclear program through diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, one or more of them may resort to military force. In my view, the threat posed by a nuclear Iran has been greatly exaggerated: Even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from ever using them or sharing them with terrorists.

Israel is the last nation that should feel threatened by the prospect of Iran's nuclear ambitions. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran may deny the Holocaust, but he does not deny that Israel has a nuclear arsenal. Assuming reports of Israel's extensive nuclear capability are true, what would happen if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, using ballistic missiles, aircraft or even terrorist groups to successfully detonate nuclear warheads on Israeli soil? Israel would certainly retaliate against Iran with nuclear weapons, killing millions of Iranians and inflicting catastrophic damage on its economy and environment.

Iran certainly does not know where Israel keeps all of its alleged nuclear warheads. Can Iran's military strategists ensure that a first strike would completely destroy Israel's nuclear stockpile? Would they take such a huge risk? All Israel would need is one surviving nuclear bomb to drop on Tehran, where over 6 million Iranians live. For Iran, the gains of launching a nuclear attack on Israel could never outweigh the costs of Israeli reprisals. Despite his anti-Israel and anti-American tirades, President Ahmadinejad is certainly smart enough to recognize this reality.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union both amassed substantial nuclear arsenals. Fortunately, these weapons were never used. Leaders in both countries realized that a nuclear first strike was an uncertain, high-risk gamble that would probably fail to destroy the enemy and remove the threat of a retaliatory strike. They feared that any use of nuclear weapons could trigger a full-scale nuclear war that would likely result in the destruction of both sides and perhaps the extinction of all life on the planet. The idea that such fears would successfully dissuade nations from ever using nuclear weapons became popularly known as mutually assured destruction (MAD) or nuclear deterrence.

Although peace and nuclear disarmament advocates continue to scoff at the principle, nuclear deterrence does work. It kept the peace during the Cold War and between other nuclear-armed adversaries. For example, India and Pakistan, which have been at each other's throats since they won independence in 1947, both possess nuclear weapons. Although they came close to nuclear war in 2002, they managed to pull back from the brink and ease tensions, because the consequences of not doing so were so horrific.

Some analysts argue that nuclear deterrence will not have any effect on President Ahmadinejad because he is an Islamic fanatic who believes that he will be sent to a glorious after-life if he is killed. But even religious fanatics would not want to see millions of their fellow believers, including their families, killed in nuclear reprisals, their homelands invaded and occupied by foreign nations, and the exercise and propagation of their faith curtailed by war and its aftermath.

Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union and Mao Tse-Tung of China are two of history's worst mass murderers. Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people and subjugated the nations of Eastern Europe after World War II. In addition to killing tens of millions of his own people, Mao frequently menaced his neighbors, such as India, Taiwan and the Soviet Union. His apocalyptic rhetoric, predicting the defeat of capitalism in an eventual all-out war with socialism, frightened many, including the Soviets.

Both Stalin and Mao had nuclear weapons. Yet neither dictator ever used them because they feared the inevitable consequences. Are we to believe that President Ahmadinejad is more evil, dangerous or unstable than Stalin or Mao?

French President Charles de Gaulle's 1968 dictum, "No country without an atomic bomb could properly consider itself independent," still resonates today. Despite international efforts to stop nuclear proliferation, it seems likely that nations in every part of the world will continue to seek nuclear weapons in order to boost their international prestige, enhance their security or menace their adversaries.

The U.S., Israel and the EU can protect themselves by strengthening their deterrent capabilities and reminding unfriendly states that may join the nuclear club in the future that they will face immediate nuclear reprisals if they ever use nuclear weapons or share them with terrorists. In the case of Iran, deterrence is certainly preferable to another war.
 

This piece was originally published in the Jerusalem Report on 17 September 2007 .

Re: persian #4

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2007-09-24 10:42.

@ marcfrans.

 

Point taken.

 

@Amsterdamsky

 

Did you read that? Does your personal pride, if not your intellect, create a need withinin you to respond to it?

persian # 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2007-09-24 04:59.

@ Atlanticist911

Thank you for your comments.  I believe we have both clarified matters somewhat further for any possible superficial readers of the article in your 'link'. 

I also think that "attempting to engage Amsterdamsky in debate" is not a realistic proposition.   One should never prejudge, if at all possible, but at the same time one should also learn from numerous empirical observations about what is realistically possible and what is not. 

@ marcfrans 'Corrigendum'.

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2007-09-24 01:04.

"If you look back at my attempts to engage Amsterdamsky in debate on the so-called 'misquotation' of Ahmadinejad,I think you'll see that I was attempting to GOAD our resident native Farsi speaker...".With the appropriate and necessary changes made to the remainder of the text.

@marcfrans re: persian #3

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2007-09-24 00:30.

Because I know that not everbody possesses the same knowledge and understanding of the English language,whenever I post on the BJ, I always attempt to keep things short,simple and to the point.Clearly,on this occasion, I acknowledege unreservedly that I failed in my third objective.

It was NOT my intention to give 'persian' the impression that I agreed with the article in question.On the contrary,I do NOT agree with it, and I think everything you write in your analysis of the piece perfectly expresses my own opinion on the matter.If you look back at my attempts to engage Amsterdamsky in debate on the so-called  "misquotation" of Ahmadinejad, I think you'll see that I was attempting to give our resident native Farsi speaker,'persian',the opportunity to set the record straight.Unfortunately,he failed to take that opportunity when it was presented to him.

In hindsight,perhaps I should have written something like;'The following article is an example of how some Western observers opposed to confrontation with Iran  view the current crisis.I would be interested in reading any comments you feel that you would like to make'.But the simple fact of the matter is that I  didn't ,and for that reason,I have no problem accepting your just criticism.

 

Thank you for your correspondence.

 

persian # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2007-09-23 22:01.

@ Atlanticist911

I will readily concede that a decision to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program is not, nor will be, an easy decision.  And I am not here going to set out the case FOR nor AGAINST such a decision.  What I am objecting to is you claiming that the silly article you refer to in your 'link' represents "the case against".   It certainly does not. 

'Your' article starts off with a presumed cocky statement from an unnamed "senior official".  That should be a warning sign that there is going to be a lot of unsubstantiated gobbledygook further down the line.  It then continues with the usual endless litany of anti-Bush namecalling and parrotting of silly assertions (...discredited, reckless adventurism, high-tech slaughter, gangsterism, etc....).  Of course, these labels are not attached to the totalitarians in Teheran, but rather to the great ally of the Brits across the Atlantic.  Obviously the author prefers the low-tech slaughter to the high-tech kind, assuming that he is willing to recognise the existence of the low-tech kind, which is very doubtful.  And so it goes on.... 

The author of 'your' article seems totally oblivious to the actual behavior and statements of Ahmadinejad and his bosses (on the 'council' and of the 'supreme leader').  He actually even twice repeats the by-now 'old' canard of "mistranslations of Ahm..." .  One would think that whatever comes from Teheran he thinks is believable, but what comes from the government of a vibrant and very argumentative democracy is not.  

 

What we do not find in the article is a careful listing and weighing of arguments for and against.  It simply is an unmitigated rant of a British Bush-hater.  And you call that "a case"?  Mon Dieu, Sarkozy would say!  The French are going to trade places with the Brits? 

   

 

@ persian

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2007-09-20 00:12.

"The westerners need to...help the great nation of Iran...they could easily destroy all the revolutionary bases".

 

Why should the West expend further blood and treasure in the Middle East? Why should the West risk getting embroiled in a war with Iran? What would the West gain from this? If Iran poses no threat to the West then why should the West pick a fight with Iran? Some people in the West say that Iranian leader,Ahmedinejad doesn't make speeches threatening the West.They say that his speeches are deliberately "mistranslated".As an Iranian yourself,I assume that you read,speak and understand Farsi so perhaps you can tell us whether or not Mr Ahmedinejad's speeches are "mistranslated".

@ Amsterdamsky

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2007-09-19 00:03.

Simple question:

 

Do you support Israel's basic right to exist? (Hey,even the Saudis claim to do that). 

@ Nuno PT

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-09-18 23:57.

Kindly define in your own words,the term,"Nationalist".

 

Which country,in your opinion,past or present,best embodies the ideals of true nationalism?

 

You have previously stated that, in your opinion, Israel is a third world country.Well,if you are still of the same opinion after reading this

 

www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=26175

 

Title: If you're going to boycott Israel,do it right.

 

Are you at least prepared to do  as the article suggests,and set a personal example by throwing away your computer? If your answer is in the affirmative,(which I very much doubt),please answer my previous questions before doing so.

@Geraldo

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-09-18 10:23.

Ahmedinejad isn't the only "rational actor" with the right to "go nuclear" when the need and opportunity present themselves...

@ Nuno PT

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2007-09-17 23:44.

[Israel and Pakistan]...two volatile,arrogant,third-world countries.

 

Kindly define in your own words,the term,"third-world" country.

@Amsterdamsky

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2007-09-17 22:27.

"I am among those who believe...".Stop,right there.I KNOW what kind of person you are.Hence,my 'dedication' of my last post to all the Norman Finkelsteins of this world.How you can extend hero status to that fraudulent creep is beyond me.

 

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2233

 

Title: "Norman Finkelstein's Fraudulent Scholarship"

 

"When Israel and the US stop threatening Iran and Syria we can talk".

 

No,we can't,and I'll tell you why.This has precious little to do with anything so mundane as US-Israeli foreign policy matters,but everything to do with nasty,old fashioned Jew hatred,and we both know it.

 

Finally,I see you are now a self proclaimed expert in Farsi.Perhaps our Iranian colleague,'Persian' will have something to say about Ahmedinejad's "mistranslations",not just on this topic,but also on other matters relating to his grand vision for the world. 

Iran vs. the US and Israel

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Mon, 2007-09-17 21:56.

Who is threatening to bomb who?  If you are referring to the mistranslations of Iran's president about Israel then you are truly in zionist propagandaland.

RE: Atlanticist

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Mon, 2007-09-17 18:05.

When Israel and the US stop threatening Iran and Syria we can talk.  I am among those who believe they are rational actors and I don't read MEMRI propaganda either.

@Amsterdamsky

Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2007-09-17 18:36.

When they stop "threatening" Iran and Pakistan???

When you check into drug rehab then we'll talk.

this is a strange analysis

Submitted by wildman on Mon, 2007-09-17 17:10.

this is a strange analysis of iranian - and arab/muslim - mentality. as others have pointed out, it's one thing to deal with essentially rational people, but when you are dealing with people for whom life is secondary, you are at a distinct disadvantage, are you not.? If i am willing to blow myself up and kill my own children in pursuit of your death, what have you got to threaten me with? an iranian - indeed, any arab/muslim bomb - is the end of civilization. period. anyone who believes different, hastens that end.

I think the nuclear weapons

Submitted by Nuno_PT on Mon, 2007-09-17 16:46.

I think the nuclear weapons of USA, Israel, China, Russia, Pakistan... are far more a greater danger than an eventually nuclear Iran. Especially the Israelis and the Pakistanis.. two volatile, arrogant, third-world countries.

@Nuno PT

Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2007-09-17 17:31.

You're a perfect example of how the Left does not know how to think rationally.

You put the US and Israel in the same category as China, Pakistan and Russia???

And you consider the US and Israel more "dangerous" than Iran?

Foolish.

atheling

Submitted by Nuno_PT on Tue, 2007-09-18 17:39.

First of all im not leftist im precisly the opposite, Nationalist.
So that was a foolish attempt to put me in that bag. Second why should any western government differ from each other?? they are all the same, same ideals, same treacheries, same modus operandi. Only a stupid person thinks there is diversity when the only true differences are "cosmetic", matter nothing. Third, China, a communist country....is there any big diferences to our western countries?? to the paths that they[our western governemnts] are leading us to. Is there any freedom of speech? is there really a choice??are the parties really diverse??My answer is NEVER WERE!
For me almost every western state is dangerous because lunacy has taken over our countries a long time ago.

Last but not the least, im way past the liberal vs conservative, communist vs capitalism "thing". True Nationalism is above all that. And yes Israel is one of the most lunatic countries. Examples: Massive spying on US(theirs best ally), huge american paid(millions in "foreign aid") arsenal(including massive numbers of nuclear weapons[Not to forget: France secretly gave to israel components to production of nuclear weapons some a few years ago..the same France that is threatning now to enter a war against a nation that isnt producing anything that anyone knows of]).False flag operation on USS Liberty to pin on the arabs that did not went so well, secret american military technologies sold to the chinese...and im not even writing about USA, Russia, China...i would be here all day.

@ RobC

Submitted by Geraldo on Mon, 2007-09-17 16:15.

MAD used to stand for Mutual Assured Destruction.

It may also stand for Mekkah Assured Destruction.

Rational Actors

Submitted by RobC on Mon, 2007-09-17 15:25.

The writer's examples where deterrence has worked, all involve "rational actors" - i.e. principals who have a shared understanding of the consequences of a (nuclear) exchange, based on reason.  Ahmadinejad is likely NOT such a person - as Hotajieh (sp?), he believes that the coming of the Twelfth Imam can only occur through actively causing chaos in the world.  In addition, if he really believes that the most certain way to heaven is through violent martyrdom, he will have no qualms about sacrificing his population.  After all, Khomeini's Army did as much during the Iran-Iraq war.  Finally, one of the leading mullahs has boasted that a nuclear exchange would annihilate Israel, but only damage the Ummah - another indication the size of the sacrifice is irrelevant.  If your opponent is eager to die for his cause and you are not, deterrence is impossible.

Take Israel Out Of The Equation

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2007-09-16 23:20.

I get so heartily sick and tired of the "Let's blame Israel" mentality.(Almost as much as I do when I hear the "Let's blame America" mantra).OK so what would the situation be like without Israel? Try this for starters:

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7BD370D866-2E6F-4B60-AEB6-6081D8017850%7D

 

Title: "A World Without Israel" by Josef Joffe

 

p.s. I 'dedicate' this post to all the  Norman Finkelstein's of this world.

 

 

evil islam:What part of KILL

Submitted by persian on Sun, 2007-09-16 22:55.

evil islam:What part of KILL the Westerners don't understand ?
Those terrorist Ayattolhas of Tehran would do anything to put fear in your hearts in the West ,we iranian don't want that,we want is to have our country back from these Terrorist occupiers which are just killing people and bringing more and more misery to us allnow is this too much to ask?
The scenario of 1979 was a huge miscalculation by CARTER and CALLAGHAN and the westerners need to understand this and try to help the great nation of Iran to put an end to this Islamic misery ,they could easily destroy all the revolutionary bases and then the world could watch how the nation would skin these monsters alive.

Brought to you by The lobby

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Sun, 2007-09-16 22:28.

" In my view, the threat posed by a nuclear Iran has been greatly exaggerated: Even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons, it can be deterred from ever using them or sharing them with terrorists."

 

I just finished Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.  They make compelling arguments suporting the above.  In fact they state both Iran and Syria have made numerous peace overtures to the US in the last 10 years only to be shut down by The lobby.

@Amsterdamsky

Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2007-09-16 22:33.

When Iran and Syria start acting like real democracies (like Israel), then we can talk.

When Iran and Syria stop permitting the wholesale abuse of women and non-Muslims in their country then we'll talk.

When Iran and Syria allow Christians to build churches, proseltyze and practice their faith in their lands then we'll talk.

When Iran and Syria permit Muslim apostates to live without fear of reprisals and murder then we'll talk.

BTW, I'm all for "assisting" the Iranians who want Western style democracy to replace the current regime, even by covert operations.

2) If "a terrorist group"

Submitted by Geraldo on Sun, 2007-09-16 22:00.

2) If "a terrorist group" detonates a nuclear warhead in Israel (or in Barcelona for that matter), how does Israel know and prove that the origin lies in Teheran? 

Why Teheran? In such a case there is a better place.

Understand what I mean?

Fantasyland

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2007-09-16 21:36.

1) The opening sentence reveals that we are entering fantasyland here.  Israel and the current US government are indeed determined to prevent the Ayathollahs from going nuclear.  The EU certainly is not.  After 4 years of meaningless "talks" of the big EU-3 with Iran, there has been no meaningful EU action.  The latest reports suggest that it is now Germany (no longer France) that is resisting meaningful economic sanctions (via a new Security Council resolution).  And without such sanctions, there are only 2 possible alternatives: either Iran gets the bomb, or you-know-who will have to do the dirty job as usual.   With Chirac now gone, the Germans (particularly the SPD part of the German government) must be counting on it.  What's new?

2) If "a terrorist group" detonates a nuclear warhead in Israel (or in Barcelona for that matter), how does Israel know and prove that the origin lies in Teheran?  Should Israel today announce that it will nuke Teheran (and who else?) if a radiological bomb were to explode in Tel Aviv tomorrow?  Why is the author so sure that the ayathollahs would not supply terrorists?

3) I am not sure that Ahmadinejad is "more evil" than Stalin and Mao were, but - unlike the author - I am quite sure that he is "more dangerous and unstable".  Why does the author think that the MAD doctrine would be applicable to a theocracy?  Does he not know the difference between secular power-maniacs and religious nuts?  The former live and care only about 'the here and now', the latter may aim for something totally different.  Indeed, that is what they explicitly say, but the author obviously is not listening.  Sounds familiar?

4) Neither Pakistan nor India were ruled by theocrats "when they pulled back from the brink in 2002", and they both were listening intently to Colin Powell.  Does the author think that Khamenei/Ahmadinejad are listening to Condi Rice?

 

5)  Over the past 20 years, there have been more states (South Africa, Ukraine, Lybia, Brazil....) that have been willing to give up (or forego) nuclear weapons than there have been states that are willing to thumb their nose at the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.   The author uses a 1968 dictum of Charles De Gaulle to thumb his own nose at that treaty.   Iran IS the big test case, for it signed the treaty (and benefited from its provisions), whereas N-Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and India, did not.  

6) Once again, through its actions the EU seems to be determined to show that "international law" does not mean a thing, no matter how much one's mouth is full of words like "international law".   But actions - in this case NONACTIONS - speak much louder than words.         

7) How does the author suggest that the EU could contribute to "deterrence", when it is isn't even willing to apply serious economic pressure to uphold "international law"?   Ahmadinejad certainly knows much better what could deter him and his boss, and what could not.   

A Joke

Submitted by Sagredo on Sun, 2007-09-16 21:20.

"Can Iran's military strategists ensure that a first strike would completely destroy Israel's nuclear stockpile?" No, but it would almost completely destroy the Jewish State...as the Iranians have repeatedly ponted out.

"Would they take such a huge risk?" Yes they would for they 'know' they have God on their side.

This article must be a joke. If the author is a Jew, he must be either the most anti-semitic Jew I have come across in a long time, or the stupidest.

Hmmm

Submitted by Vinegar Joe on Sun, 2007-09-16 20:09.

How exactly could the EU deter Iran? With what? The Belgian police?

October surprise

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2007-09-16 20:01.

"This piece was originally published in the Jerusalem Report on 17 September 2007".

 

It would have been more fitting if they had delayed publication until either 31 October 2007 ("Trick or Treat") or 1 April 2008 (April fool's day)...

Calling our bluff

Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2007-09-16 19:48.

"The U.S., Israel and the EU can protect themselves by strengthening their deterrent capabilities and reminding unfriendly states that may join the nuclear club in the future that they will face immediate nuclear reprisals if they ever use nuclear weapons or share them with terrorists. In the case of Iran, deterrence is certainly preferable to another war."

"Reminding" unfriendly states? Why should they listen to us? We have a fifth column within our own nation whose shrill rhetoric and heads in the sand only encourage these dangerous states because they believe we don't have the guts or fortitude to retaliate.

I'm sorry, but this person doesn't realize that without credibility, you can't play poker.