The case for the Iranian bomb.
Iran should be left alone to develop nuclear weapons without any interference from the West.
The Iranians have every bit as much right of self-defense against genicide and religicide as Israel. Iran is bordered by two unstable countries overtaken with violent mass religious movements that have an eliminationist doctrine toward Shiites, groups that operate in geographical close proximity to Pakistani nuclear weapons and therefore – at least theoretically – are at risk of gaining control of nuclear weapons that could be turned on Iran. Leaders among the loosely federated militant groups have stated that one of their goals is to obtain nuclear weapons.
In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, there have been massacres of Shiites. Were nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of these groups, Iran would be at great risk of attack. A Shiite nation defended with nuclear weapons would be an undesirable target because of the risk of retaliation. The doctrine of MAD, or mutual assured destruction, could be a shield.
Salafi, Wahabbi and Deobandi extremists have shown in their sectarian massacres of defenseless and undefended Shiite civilians that they are provoked by vulnerability, and so a non-nuclear Iran would be a much more likely and attractive target than India.
Iran, in its foreign policy history, has always been a rational actor, and despite bombastic comments coming from Amediniejad to score points with his constituencies, I do not believe based on the historical evidence that Iran would commit national suicide by attempting a nuclear attack on Israel, and so this is not a serious threat.
Some of the anti-nuclear Iran proponents in the West believe in oil imperialism, and would like to keep “all options open” for a US invasion of Iran at some point in the future, a position that all well-meaning people of any nationality should find reprehensible.
midwinterspring 1:42 pm on December 8, 2009 Permalink |
Sorry if this comment gets duplicated, but I seem to be having some problems with the posting system here. Moving on:
If deterrence were an acceptable justification for nuclear armament, I would agree that the logic should be extended to include Iran. But I don’t think it is a particularly good argument in itself. There was a good article on the nuclear issue in the most recent edition of Z Magazine. It primarily targets the US, but I think the basic idea is relevant to all countries. Of course, it has yet to be proven that Iran is in fact developing a nuclear weapon and, even if it is, I don’t think there is any good reason disarmament should start with it.