Time Running Out to Stop Iran
As the failed negotiations with Iran illustrate, we are starting to run out of real options. One of the few remaining options on the table would be for the United States to forgo the use of military force to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program and instead focus on containment. This is a terrible idea. Our experience with three countries illustrates the foolishness of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.
In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait to plunder the country of its oil. The U.S. Senate voted 52-47 to repel Saddam's forces. Had the Iraqi President had nuclear weapons, this would never have happened: the danger that a madman would use them against Israel or another country was simply too great. (For these reasons, you can also be plenty sure that Syria would not have quite been so eager to sign on to the war and feel the wrath of a nuclear-armed Saddam.) To those who think this might seem a bit far-fetched, Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm recounted Saddam's crash nuclear program to build one bomb and one missile if Allied forces "moved to depose him". Why only one? So he could destroy Tel Aviv.
Similarly, North Korea's nuclear weapons pose a constant deterrent to any real leverage we might exert over Kim Jong-Il. Pyongyang just threatened us with nuclear war only a month ago. Any war with the North would lead to the launch of a nuclear weapon at Seoul. And so, undeterred, North Korea shipped nuclear technologies to Syria, and runs arms to the Iranians.
The threat that Pakistan could dissolve and lead to its nuclear weapons getting into the hands of terrorists has also drastically reduced America's ability to defend itself. After overthrowing the Taliban in 2001, America was forced to watch and occasionally snipe from a Predator drone as al Qaeda rebuilt their attack capabilities and the Taliban strengthened its hand. If Pakistan did not have this nuclear deterrent, the Global War on Terror would look a lot different than it does today and al Qaeda would be a far weaker organization. (And of course, one can’t forget that the founder of the Pakistani bomb, A.Q. Khan also spread the information around to America's enemies.)
An Iranian weapon would pose just as terrible a strategic consequence for the United States. Christopher Hitchens has suggested that Iran could make Bahrain their Kuwait, employing their nuclear deterrent to prevent other powers from intervening. Iran could also further its support for terrorists, confident America would not overthrow the regime. Equally troubling is the possibility that Iran could share the technology with other anti-American countries. Other Middle Eastern countries may well decide to pursue their own nuclear weapons, giving us a world where the Saudis, the Iranians, and the Israelis all have nuclear weapons; a recipe for any number of World War III scenarios. (Consider how close America and Russia came to nuclear war in 1962, and this without religious fundamentalism added to the mix.) And if the Iranian regime fell, any number of apocalyptic actors could get their hands on the weapons and use them in the United States or elsewhere, practically insuring that America become as committed to the stability of Iran as we are of Pakistan.
Military force should be kept on the table; but thankfully we still have some time to stave off the Iranian bomb without resorting to that option. It is time for the President to swear off the negotiating table with the mullahs, time for Congress to slap serious gasoline importation sanctions on Tehran with or without Chinese support, and time for America to offer real support to the dissidents yearning to breathe free of fascism.