Living with a Nuclear Iran

Comments

1. 

   November 25, 2004

   Patrick B

   The notion of a nuclear-free Middle East presupposes integrity and trustworthiness on the part of the Arab states. An Israel stripped of its ultimate deterrent would be an Israel with a very short life indeed. It is well to be wary of any Arab state bearing peace proposals.
   Iran will continue to dupe the willing fools of the EU until it has an arsenal that it can brandish at Israel, and the presence of which it can use to build a solid block of states that will condone a final solution. Time is very, very short.
   If Iran’s nuclear weapons’ facilities are widely dispersed, as you say, then the WW11 Japanese “demonstration option” should be used. Explode a large, relatively clean weapon in a remote area of Iran. Indicate that the next one will be closer to Tehran, and demand total nuclear disarmament. The forces of modernity in Iran can and will then seize power from the Mullahs and institute regime change.
   Iran cares not a fig for international law, international bodies (except for the dictator’s club of the UN, when it suits) and will only respond to a direct and uncompromising threat that is backed up by action. The UK and France both have the requisite nuclear weapons to carry out such a plan.

   Reply
2. 

   November 26, 2004

   John Farren

   The problem is in the sentence “In all likelihood, the only damage to Israel will be to its nuclear monopoly.”
   But if that likehood turns out to be likelier than you’d like?
   Finis Israel.
   “Iran would never dare attack Israel with nuclear weapons… Israeli Arab and Palestinian casualties…Israel(s)…second-strike nuclear capabilities.”
   Probably true, so long as the rulers of Iran are rational. Will they be? Are they now? I ask the second because the long-term pursuit of nuclear weapons was hardly a rational policy in itself. Might they decide to attempt a “deniable” strike?
   If the reaction to Iranian nuclear weapons are Saudi and other programmes, risks of someone trying a deniable strike, or “loosing” a wepon to jihadi infiltration, or the jihadi takeover of a nuclear state, increases. So perhaps it’s best, from the Israeli POV, to stop the chain now.
   I do not feel confident that Israel will not react to this potential danger by airstikes; and if conventional airstrikes are judged unlikely to do the job, nuclear ones.
   And then the s*** really hits the fan.

   Reply