The Iran dilemma

There has been a lot of saber-rattling recently from both Israel and the US on the one hand, and the Iranian leadership on the other hand. Israel and the US say that allowing Iran to acquire working nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Iran says it will not stop its nuclear work, though of course it still insists it is only for “peaceful” purposes, a claim which is at variance with the uranium enrichment facilities it has build and even occasionally shown off to Western observers.

We made the same claims about North Korea, but when push came to shove we never did anything effective about stopping the North Korean effort, and eventually they developed a working nuclear weapon. But the consequences of a North Korean nuclear weapon are much different from the consequences of Iran getting a nuclear capacity. For one thing, North Korea is highly pragmatic – the power structure is only interested in surviving, not in annihilating one of its neighbors.

The Iranian leadership, on the other hand, appears to be bent on an apocalyptic religious vision, which includes eliminating Israel, initiating a second holocaust (and by the way, eliminating the USA as well). Just last week Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, again called Israel a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut", a remark he has made more than once in the past. Whether this language is just for domestic consumption or not, it is worrying.

Beyond the threat to Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran will almost certainly incite other countries in the Middle East to develop their own nuclear capability as quickly as possible. Remember that Shia Iran is thoroughly distrusted by all the Sunni nations around it. We already have a dangerous tinderbox with nuclear-armed Pakistan and India facing each other. A nuclear-armed Middle East, with all the sectarian hatreds in play there, would be a real nightmare.

Then there is the question of a possible Israeli attack on Iran to slow their nuclear program. Such an attack wouldn’t eliminate the threat, just slow its approach, and perhaps not by that much. But it would certainly cause a worldwide crisis, and quite possibly bring the US into the war whether we want to or not. If the Iranian response included disrupting oil traffic in the Gulf, and/or increasing attacks on US troops in Iraq, it is hard to see how we could avoid getting involved. And of course if Iran really did fire nuclear missiles at Israel, I don’t think the US public would be willing to see Jews once again subject to a holocaust without a very strong US response.

And then there is the rest of the world. Russia is unlikely to be of any help to us in this issue. It would suit their purposes quite well to have us tied up in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire. Europe is not culturally or politically inclined to be of much help, and in any case has little effective military force that it could contribute even if it wanted to. The UN would be as impotent as it usually is, especially with the veto power Russia and China have in the Security Council.

This is indeed a thorny problem. I don’t envy the administration. There are no good options – just bad ones and worse ones. But certainly it is not a time for appeasement. We have very little leverage in this situation, but what little we do have would evaporate immediately if we appear to waver in our support for Israel in this matter. If we are seen to waver even a little, our other Middle Eastern allies will read our weakness and it will reinforce their belief that the US cannot be trusted as an ally in the crunch. That will have serious and long-term consequences for us that will be very unpleasant.