Of the known nuclear powers (USA, UK, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan), five have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. These five certainly do not represent the sole powers of this era, but when including India and Pakistan, they constitute a very interesting mix. The nuclear powers consist of great nations from the old world, from today's world, from the world of the future, and even from a never has been that probably never will be. The UK and especially France are powers of the past, while the USA is modern day's dominant force. China and India represent the future, whereas Russia is a mix of the old, the present and the future. Finally, Pakistan continues to struggle, with significantly less prospects for regional or global dominance than the others.
Besides these known nuclear powers, there is the particular case of Israel, which follows a policy of nuclear ambiguity. The country has been threatened to the extent that if they really were the dreadful killers that a number of people paint them out to be, they might as well have used the nukes by now. Since they have not, this can mean one of two things: either they don't have them, or, more likely, their possession of nuclear weapons does not form a major threat to global security. With the recent "slip of the tongue" by Prime Minister Olmert during a trip to Germany, a stark warning was sent to countries like Iran that Israel will follow a policy of an eye for an eye if warranted, however.
Another interesting case is North Korea, which claims to have successfully conducted a nuclear test on October 9, 2006. This claim is one of the rare statements originating from Pyong Yang that is actually taken seriously by the rest of the world. Besides the above eight, there are a number of countries who have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons but have failed or given up trying for varying reasons. The most famous examples are Libya and Iraq. There are probably few people who would not agree with the notion that their failure to attain these weapons is a good thing. In the case of Iraq, I am of course not referring to the recent allegations in the buildup to the war there, but rather to their nuclear weapon research program during the 1970s and 1980s (which Israel destroyed in 1981).
There also exists a group of four nations, namely South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, which at one point possessed nuclear weapons but willingly gave them up (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine transferred the weapons to Russia in 1995 and 1996). Additionally, there are countries such as the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Japan and Germany, who would be able to produce nuclear weapons in a matter of 1 or 2 years, if not months.
Today's most pressing nuclear case is Iran, which claims to be developing a nuclear program for civilian purposes only, but this is widely viewed around the world with distrust. The fear of a nuclear Iran has set the stage for a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East that not even Israel was able to bring about. Predominantly Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are apprehensive of Shiite Iran's growing regional influence. Add the nuclear bomb to Iran's arsenal and there might really be something to worry about for these nations. Well aware of this fact, Jordan's King Abdullah II followed Egypt and Saudi Arabia's lead recently in saying that in light of current events, Jordan would be looking to develop a nuclear program “for peaceful purposes." Other states that have expressed a sudden interest in nuclear technology are Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
These "peaceful purposes" might sound fine in theory, but in practice it would mean an increase in the plausibility of perhaps the most turbulent region in the world becoming a nuclear arms nest. If the Saudi Royal family or Egypt's President Mubarak and his cronies were to lose power to radical groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the attained nuclear know-how could be used for particularly nasty purposes. Ironically enough, if the Mullahs in Iran were to give way to the opposition, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster would probably decrease dramatically.
Iran's nuclear program is thus proving to be not only a serious issue for Israel and the United States, but also for Europe, the Middle East and, yes, even for Islam itself. Iraq has involuntarily positioned itself as the center of this battle between Shia and Sunni Islam, but it appears ready to spread rapidly beyond its borders with increasing sophistication and precariousness.
Besides these known nuclear powers, there is the particular case of Israel, which follows a policy of nuclear ambiguity. The country has been threatened to the extent that if they really were the dreadful killers that a number of people paint them out to be, they might as well have used the nukes by now. Since they have not, this can mean one of two things: either they don't have them, or, more likely, their possession of nuclear weapons does not form a major threat to global security. With the recent "slip of the tongue" by Prime Minister Olmert during a trip to Germany, a stark warning was sent to countries like Iran that Israel will follow a policy of an eye for an eye if warranted, however.
Another interesting case is North Korea, which claims to have successfully conducted a nuclear test on October 9, 2006. This claim is one of the rare statements originating from Pyong Yang that is actually taken seriously by the rest of the world. Besides the above eight, there are a number of countries who have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons but have failed or given up trying for varying reasons. The most famous examples are Libya and Iraq. There are probably few people who would not agree with the notion that their failure to attain these weapons is a good thing. In the case of Iraq, I am of course not referring to the recent allegations in the buildup to the war there, but rather to their nuclear weapon research program during the 1970s and 1980s (which Israel destroyed in 1981).
There also exists a group of four nations, namely South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, which at one point possessed nuclear weapons but willingly gave them up (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine transferred the weapons to Russia in 1995 and 1996). Additionally, there are countries such as the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Japan and Germany, who would be able to produce nuclear weapons in a matter of 1 or 2 years, if not months.
Today's most pressing nuclear case is Iran, which claims to be developing a nuclear program for civilian purposes only, but this is widely viewed around the world with distrust. The fear of a nuclear Iran has set the stage for a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East that not even Israel was able to bring about. Predominantly Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are apprehensive of Shiite Iran's growing regional influence. Add the nuclear bomb to Iran's arsenal and there might really be something to worry about for these nations. Well aware of this fact, Jordan's King Abdullah II followed Egypt and Saudi Arabia's lead recently in saying that in light of current events, Jordan would be looking to develop a nuclear program “for peaceful purposes." Other states that have expressed a sudden interest in nuclear technology are Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
These "peaceful purposes" might sound fine in theory, but in practice it would mean an increase in the plausibility of perhaps the most turbulent region in the world becoming a nuclear arms nest. If the Saudi Royal family or Egypt's President Mubarak and his cronies were to lose power to radical groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the attained nuclear know-how could be used for particularly nasty purposes. Ironically enough, if the Mullahs in Iran were to give way to the opposition, the likelihood of a nuclear disaster would probably decrease dramatically.
Iran's nuclear program is thus proving to be not only a serious issue for Israel and the United States, but also for Europe, the Middle East and, yes, even for Islam itself. Iraq has involuntarily positioned itself as the center of this battle between Shia and Sunni Islam, but it appears ready to spread rapidly beyond its borders with increasing sophistication and precariousness.
8 comments:
Hmmm..quite an interesting write up but I have to say I disagree.
Fact: Iran having acess to nuclear weapon is a huge threat but not the way it is exaggerated here. I believe Israel is more of a threat than Iran. Ahmadinejad is not as 'evil' as the media portrays him to be. He is just reacting to external stimuli i.e. to US and Israel. The way Israel is handling the Palestinian crisis and the way it bombed Lebanon last summer all goes to show that Israel is more of a threat. Israel is willing more than Iran to use its nukes.
In proliferation, it is all about who will use and who will not the nuclear weapon.Economically, in the case of nuclear war Israel have nothing to lose. The economy is bankrolled by the US, so they can engage in war when they feel like, whilst Iran would have to think and calculate the economic consequences of their action. Hence, the economic burden of engaging a nuclear war acts as a major deterrent.
Let's not forget the population. Apart from the war with Iraq, the Iranian population is not use to war. They are less fanatical than their Israeli counterpart and are not likely to support the any war. Can you say the same about Isreal?
Didn't the US and Western media preach the say doom abt Libya? Yet the Libyan government did 'a 360 degree nuclear reversal'
The Middle East without a doubt is a volatile region. Other Arab states clamouring to acquire nuclear weapons are doing it to further their own interests.
I disagree with the comments of moody crab. Iran has in fact fought wars of fanatical agression in the past. It has been arming itself recently, albeit defensively with a number of large weapons purchases from China and Russia. They seem to confident of an imminent showdown with Israel and the US.
Israel is talking tough because it does not want to see an agressive Iran with Nuclear weapons. In fact they do not want to see any states that are hostile to Israel with nuclear weapons.
allthough i am completely against nuclear weapons. the right to have them should be reserved for accountable and democratic societies. Iran fails on both fronts. For a state so bent on the destruction of Israel, and who does not even have a real democracy, rules with religious fanaticism it is clearly not mature, responsible, or trustworthy to be given the right to a nuclear arsenal.
The destruction of Israel by nuclear weapons would be a catastrophe to both the muslim christian and jewish community because of the religious importance of those lands. Nuking those areas would be an insult to the faith, let alone a crime against humanity.
Adding nukes to the volatility of the region is the same as letting a rabid dog loose in a cabinet full of china ware.
War should be avoided at all costs, the same with pre-emptive strikes.
I would agree with moody crab as Israel posses a greater threat to the safety of the World and region.
Iran has never tried to attack any country and is not willing to do so. Iran has got the largest Jewish population in the region after Israel and member of parliments for every religion minority and respects other religions therefore not looking for any war with others especially in holy lands (as Michel Dubois says).
I think it is Iran's right to have access to nuclear technology and defened itself where countries like Israel do not hesitate any attack or invasion of other countries (history says how many attacks Israel has had during the past 50 years and how many Iran (no attacks to any country in the past 350 years)).
The comments of both moody crab and Mr. Azish are absurd in the extreme. Israel is more of a threat than Iran? Last I checked, Israel has never threatened anyone with nuclear weapons; hell, the country does not even admit having them. Iran, on the other hand, is a country which systematically delegitimizes the USA and Irael, the great and the little satans, along with the west in general. Not only that, but the Iranian President regularly proclaims that Israel and the USA will soon be destroyed. Israel responding to Qassam rockets fired at it from Gaza or cross border raids launched by Hizbalah hardly qualifies as a threat to anyone but the people involved; it is also not precisely the image of a warhungry nation threatening world peace. It might do some of us well to remember that Israel withdrew from both Gaza and southern Lebanon only to be rewarded with aggression and hate. What conciliatory steps has Iran taken towards the Satans in its eyes to match Israel's unilateral abandonment of territory?
Israel's economy is not bankrolled by the USA and this nothing more than a malicious canard against Israel. US aid is purely military; not only that, but every penny the US gives to Israel must be spent on US military equipment. The total value of the aid also has never exceeded a tenth of Israel's GDP. This is hardly equivalent to bankrolling anyone; indeed, Egypt receives more US aid than Israel.
Another point: Mr. Ahmadinejad is not simply a misunderstood figure maligned by the western media, and I don't quite understand how he could possibly be seen as such. Is this not the man who encourages the training of suicide brigades to be used against the west, a rleigious fanatic who frequently refers to the coming of the 12th Imam, a man insuperably hostile to the west, and even a Holocaust denier? Any visit to Israel will quickly reveal that its people, a minority of extremists aside, crave peace with the Arab and Islamic worlds above all else. The same may apply to Iran's people, but Iran's government unlike that of Israel does not represent these values. So again, who is the greater threat?
And about Libya's nuclear reversal, let us recall that Libya's nuclear rpogram never developed anywhere as far as Iran's and that it was dismnantled after the Iraq warin 2003. Qaddafi decided he did not want to end up like Saddam Hussein, especially not at the cost of a nuclear program that was not going anywhere.
About Iran's hospitality to the Jews: I is true that the Jewish population there is second only to Israel's in the Middle East, but it also useful to note that is about a sixth the size it was in 1979, on the eve of the Islamic revolution. If life was so splendid
for Persian Jewry, these statistics would surely be different? Israel, a country of nearly seven million as opposed to Iran's 70 million, hosts not 25,000 Arabs, as is the size of Iran's Jewish population, but 1.2 million, a figure that has only risen since the conclusion of Israel's War of Independence. Israel has also done better than Iran in including Arabs in government; there is not just the one token Arab representative in the parliament, there are more than ten. And one of them is a minister in Israel's current government. Iran's record on minorities, then, is surely not better than Israel's.
The final point in this disorganized rant is that while Israel has fought more wars than Iran, its wars were generally wars of necessity.
So please, before doing the habitual and condemning that abysmal apartheid state Israel whose people are all militant lunatics, do some research.
Iran has pursued wars of fanatical aggression? Yeah, in the days of Darius.
Israel has not faced a threat that would incline it to use its nuclear weapons. Its military forces have easily been superior to those of its neighbours. However, it would not hesitate to use them if it faced an existential threat. The stuff about Israel "responding to blah blah blah" is quite typical pro-Israeli bullshit. Israel is largely responsible for the shit it's in, and its treatment of the Arabs around it has not been good.
Still, it's true that Israel is not as viciously unpleasant as some other nations in the Middle East, including Iran. In polarising the debate, each side tends to paint the other very darkly and in simple terms. Ahmedinajad is much more complex than he's painted here. But who cares about complexity when we can have oldfashioned hatred, eh?
Israel is the volatile factor, yes, but the point still stands that Iran's acquisition of nuclear arms would act as a catalyst for a regional arms race and thereby the ensuing tensions, threat, and potential conflict.
Dr. Zen, as a basic courtesy may I ask you to corroborate your allegations and explain how Israel is responsible for the "shit its in?" Also, maybe you can explain why the observation that much of Israel's military action is in response to the activities of its foes is simply "pro-Israel bullshit?" And finally, if it is not too much to ask, would you care to shed light on the milder side of Ahmadinejad? Because all you have given me on all three points are unsubstantiated platitudes and not facts or arguments.
As ever, the second Israel and the rest of the Middle East raise there ugly heads as a discussion topic, lines get drawn in the sand and stanches harden. This doesn't help any of us get closer to some kind of understanding.
Let's step aside from the blame game for a moment, and look at what is going on here. In an interview a few years ago, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, pointed out that what is driving the WMD race in the Middle East is the chronic lack of regional security. This is an area that has been systematically destabilised by both internal issues (race, ethnicity, tribe, religion, history) and external forces (super power proxy conflict, neocolonialism, modernisation) since very early in the Cold War, and one in which there exists no kind of collective security. This is Wild West Middle East.
In this Hobbesian dog-eat-dog world, it makes individual rational sense for states to tool yourself up as a deterrent. This has been the case for a long time for Iran, due to a combination of its economic and geopolitical importance, unique Persian identity and Shia majority. Iran now has a very significant hostile US military presence on two borders, Iraq and Afghanistan, and this really does matter.
So yes, Iran probably is trying to get the bomb. But lets try to understand what is driving this, and try to escape the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad, vile as it is. He is still a rational state actor, and as he's proven, his bark is a lot worse then his bite. 'Wiping Israel off the map', besides not only being a mistaken translation, seems to me to be a in similar vein to Kruschchev's equally tackless and foolish 'we will bury you' comments.
If we want to engage with the reality of nuclear proliferation -and we will have to, because it is happening right now, and will only continue to accelerate- we need to look at the raw forces of military power and security that underpin state actions, and not the ideological rhetoric and propaganda that brought about the international security blunder that is the Iraq War nightmare.
As ever, thoughts please.
Post a Comment