| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Why should Iran disarm? |
04 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Iranian nuclear weapons: a threat to global peace or a legitimate deterrent?
In January 2002 in his State of the Union address, President Bush described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an Axis of Evil. In March 2003, one member of the Axis was invaded and nearly two years later almost 150,000 US troops continue to occupy Iraq. Following this spectacle, one could argue that one rational response from Iran or North Korea would be to accelerate their nuclear weapons programmes, not for offensive intentions but rather to discourage America from future aggression. Indeed the contrasting approaches that the US has taken towards Iraq, a country whose WMD status was disputed, and North Korea, which has admitted possessing them, is revealing. While the former was invaded, the latter has been party to countless rounds of multilateral talks. This is despite the fact that the North Koreans could provide at any moment the necessary nuclear material to any non-state actor with a grudge against the United States. So why has the US not taken a military approach to Pyongyang? The answer presumably is because of fear of a North Korean nuclear reprisal, which could target South Korea, Japan or the plethora of US bases which house nearly 100,000 US troops in the region. All are within range of North Korea's nuclear weaponry.
Consequently, one doesn't have to be an expert in international relations to understand why Iran, labelled a member of the axis of evil and possible target of an attack by a nuclear Israel, would want to join the WMD premier league. Contrary to the claims of many in the West, this would not be to intimidate or actually attack states in the region and beyond, but as a reasonable defence and deterrent against future US and Israeli aggression or nuclear blackmail. This is the same rationale that was used to justify NATO possession of nuclear weapons in the Cold War when faced with the threat of the Soviet Union, despite some such as the UK Labour Party who were then calling for Britain to unilaterally disarm. The irony is that those who today support multilateral disarmament as a nuclear doctrine want Iran to unilaterally disarm in the first instance, a policy they have comprehensively rejected for themselves.
While America's nuclear posture review contemplates using nuclear weapons against Iran as well as increasing the number of scenarios in which the use of nuclear weapons would be permitted, the US expects Iran not to pursue its own programme despite pre-emption being the core of the US's National Security Strategy published in 2002; is this really a viable proposition? At the end of the first Gulf War, India's Chief of Staff was asked what lessons he had learned from observing the conflict. His revealing response was, "Don't fight the Americans without nuclear weapons."
Is it only democracies that can be trusted with nuclear weapons?
'A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.'
This is not a statement of Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or Saddam Hussein. The author of the above quote was in fact former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Since nuclear weapons can act to discourage unbridled aggression, it is common to hear the argument that they actually act as guarantors of peace. However in the post-Cold War world, with a neutered Russia in place of the formidable Soviet Union, it seems that nuclear appetites have been renewed in some Western capitals. After all it was liberal democratic America that was the first to use the world's worst weapons in 1945, when there was no other nuclear power to threaten her in return. With the strategic balance heavily in her favour at present, the US feels able to contemplate a whole new range of nuclear options, involving new weapons and new uses. Furthermore, the administration opposes the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The reality is that the United States is not interested in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction per se, but in preventing a challenge to its military domination in the post-Cold War world. This fact is evidenced by the US raising no objections against Brazil building an active fuel cycle with the aim to enrich uranium, while vociferously protesting against any attempt by Iran to do so.
In view of all this, what could or should prevent Iran from seeking to acquire a nuclear arsenal, something it can do legally by exiting the NPT with ninety days notice? It is a sovereign country, and as a sovereign country it should have the right to devote its resources to whatever it felt would most enhance its national interests. Iran surely should not have to 'meet a global test or require a permission slip' from the international community to defend her homeland. In Britain there is passionate debate on whether too much of this nation's power has been given to the EU, yet Britain has maintained its independent defence and foreign policy, and will continue to do so even under the proposed new EU constitution. It is contradictory for western states like Britain, who guard their sovereignty so jealously to insist that Iran follow international dictates without complaint.
However the position towards countries like Iran is often justified with the argument that, whatever the faults and double standards involved in nuclear proliferation issues, there is no moral equivalence between tin pot third world dictatorships and first world democracies. It is claimed that in democracies the rule of law, political accountability, a healthy civil society and a free media provide the necessary checks and balances to prevent irrational policies. As George Bush stated in his recent meeting with Tony Blair, "democracies don't fight other democracies". Many commentators echo this line; John Sheldon, of the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, wrote the following in a recent letter to The Times,
"Moral equivalency also falls down when we compare the command and control arrangements of the NPT-recognised nuclear states to Iran's. In a country where foreign policymaking is akin to reading tea leaves, we all have good reason to fear a nuclear armed Iran."
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 2 3 4 5 >
Page 4 of 5 pages
| |
|
|
