The increasing likelihood that Iran will successfully acquire a nuclear weapon cannot be avoided. While this author does not predict with certainty that it will happen, nor believe the US and EU shouldn’t do everything in its power to stop it, it is a real possibility. Therefore, policy discussions should also begin to think about the potential implications of a nuclear Iran and consider how the US and others can mitigate the effects thereof.
North Korea has not yet set off a cascade of proliferation, largely because the potential new nuclear states are all US allies (South Korea, Japan, perhaps Taiwan). The same is not true of all the Middle East. In addition, states may react not only to Iran, but to their perceived reaction of others, i.e. Egypt reacting to Iran directly as well as to its belief Saudi Arabia will respond with its own program. Below is a regional map of what a nuclear Iran could lead to:
And to give readers something else to think about, the following countries are currently giving serious consideration to nuclear energy in the near term (within 10 years): Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Norway, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey, Vietnam.
As if that were not troubling enough, the following countries have long term plans or studies underway: Algeria, Australia, Chile, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
This is not to say that all or even most will move forward. Nuclear energy (even for peaceful purposes) requires a massive financial investments in infrastructure, technology, training and more. Additionally, some states may decide against it at various states of their programs, as has happened many times in the past.
Therefore, in the event that Iran does indeed acquire a nuclear weapons capability, which we’ll define as the generally agreed perception that Iran does (whether or not it has tested), the United States and Europe need to think long and hard about instruments of state power which can be applied to prevent a cascade of nuclear weapons states and/or to ensure that peaceful nuclear energy (a legal right of every NPT signatory) stays peaceful and secure.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Alfred Russel Wallace
February 14, 2009
11:53 pm
If we are to do anything serious about minimizing fossil fuel use, we will have to go nuclear for electricity.... and so will everyone else. If we could be sure the Iranians really were trying to make power, not bombs, we could applaud their efforts. Alas, their credibility is not very high...
Munro Ferguson
February 15, 2009
12:56 am
Beyond that, assuming Iran does attain a nuke and delivery capability I'd say Pandora's box is open. Excepting military action, it's hard to imagine a successful diplomatic effort that convinces the Arab states to not proliferate in an attempt to equalize Persian supremacy.
ElamBend
February 15, 2009
1:30 am
Mojgan
February 15, 2009
7:20 pm
Why don't we just ask Israel and Pakistan to destroy their nuclear weapons and make the region a nuclear free zone ?!! Oh , sorry , I just remembered ,Israel is the ONLY country in the middle east that is against this Idea .
Also Munro Ferguson should be reminded that Arabs have nothing to worry about since Pakistan is a "Sunni " fanatic state and their nuclear industry was developed with "Sunni" SAUDI financing . Surely Pakistan has the "Sunni Arabs "under it's nuclear umbrella against the "Shiaa" Iran .
Chirol
February 15, 2009
8:59 pm
First of all, the map shows both India and Pakistan as being nuclear states, Israel was too small for hte graphic to fit. Second of all, Israeli, India and Pakistan HAVE NOT signed the NPT and are therefore not doing anything illegal.
Iran, however, has signed the NPT yet has not been forthcoming about its nuclear program. If you actually are familiar with and have read the NPT, you'll surely know Iran like every other NPT signatory has the legal right to peaceful nuclear energy. The US government and EU have both acknowledged this before. It is NOT the issue.
The issue is that Iran has not been completely open about its program, has been found to be in noncompliance by the IAEA and UNSC (1747). In addition, it continues its ballistic missile program and was exposed as customer of the AQ Khan network (who also supplied Libya and North Korea).
Moreover, it's diplomatic record is clear. Negotiate, stall for time, proceed with its program, comply with legal requirements and pretend that it is a voluntary measure of good faith instead of a legal obligation, then repeat.
All of this makes it very clear Iran _likely_ has an illicit nuclear weapons program.
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, as members are allowed to do with 90 days notice, then it will not be breaking any laws. But as long as it is an NPT member, it must follow them.
Dave Schuler
February 16, 2009
1:59 pm
Second, I think that Munro Ferguson, like many in the West, overestimates Israel's appetite for carnage in Iran. Short of a preventive, genocidal, exterminatory attack Israel doesn't have the ability to eliminate Iran's nuclear development program, only to slow it. Given that limitation and the likely response from the Iranians to anything smaller an attack by Israel on, say, Iran's main nuclear development facility would be foolhardy. I think that despite the sabre-rattling, the Israelis are aware of that.
von Moltke
February 17, 2009
12:40 pm
http://www.gulfnews.com/business/General/10284709.html
Oil has peaked, but OPEC populations have not. The Arab situation is true for Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and sub-Saharan African.
kurt9
February 17, 2009
11:10 pm
The Iranians have good reason to have nukes. They have historically or currently unfriendly governments on 3 sides. They have the Turks and the Sunni Iraqis to the west. The Persians have had many conflicts in history with the Turks and fought an 8 year war with Saddam's Iraq during the 80's. To the east they have the Afghans and the Pakistanis. The Persians came close to war with the Taliban Afghans in 1998 and everyone knows that the Pakistanis, like the Indians, are psycho. To the south, there are the Arabs. The Persians look down on the Arabs in the same manner as many Anglos in Southern California look down on the Mexicans, only more so.
The only semi-friendly governments the Persians have borders with are to the north. They seem to be on good terms with the Azeris (which make up 25% of Iran anyways) and the Turkmen of Turkenistan, and this last one is questionable.
Also, remember that the Pakistanis already have 50-75 nukes. Although these are intended to keep the Indian leviathan at bay, these could conceivably be used against Iran.
Oh, did I forget? The Persians (and other Iranians) are shiite. Most of their neighbors are sunni. The sunnis and shiites feel about the same about each other as the catholics and protestants felt about each other, say, during the 30 year war.
Of course, if the Persians get the bomb, the Arabs will want them too, and the Pakistanis do not count as Arabs. Thus, you get a nuclear arms-race in the middle-east. Perhaps it will all end in a regional nuclear war, say, around 2030.