This Niall Ferguson essay - essentially arguing that a failure to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions will set the stage for a nuclear war in the near future - is both well-done and frighteningly plausible.
But it's worth remembering that there has never been real war between nuclear powers. The closest we've come to is the occasional shelling and raiding between Pakistan and India. (Hmmm....maybe China and the USSR, but I'm not sure China had nukes then or at least not more than a few). In any case, here's what seems to me a much more likely scenario:
The US draws down its forces in Iraq, beginning in 2006 and substantially completed by 2008. (Either we will be successful and will be able to draw down or the continuing instability will be exploited by the Kos wing of the Democratic Party to gain electoral success and force the withdrawal). If Iran's nukes are not pre-empted (and is there anyone who doesn't think the Iranians are trying to develop nuclear weapons?), then the Iranians will have achieved a strategic standoff with Israel. But I think they're still unlikely to initiate a nuclear exchange with Israel, simply because the Israelis have enough nukes to obliterate Iran (and, most importantly, its leadership). Rather, Iran will use the nukes as a way of making itself invulnerable to American and Israeli pressure and will then seek to establish itself as the *the* power in the Middle East. This means, first of all, exporting its Islamism to Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining their relatively pro-American regimes. Second, it means undermining the secular regimes in Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and attempting to establish a pan-Islamic confederation that both controls a significant portion of the world's oil supplies and, with Iranian and Pakistani nukes, remains relatively invulnerable to international pressure. (The Europeans can't impose sanctions because they are too dependent on the oil and the US will be unable to move against the Iranians because the Europeans - and perhaps the Israelis - will not want to risk the obliteration of one of their cities).
What the nuclear arming of Iran threatens is not a hot war ala WWII, but another Cold War where a radical ideology backed up by the gun takes over a strategically crucial part of the world. Israel might end up as a new West Berlin, hemmed in by its enemies. Not a happy scenario.
3 comments:
That's a good point, T. The confounding factor here is oil. Iran supplies places like China and Russia. China and Russia would rather deal with another nuclear power than lose their oil.
Buzz, Israel's anti-missile capability is nonsense. The Patriot can't hit crap. The only reason SCUDS were brought down in 1990-91 was because the SCUD is such a crappy missile it explodes when it passes through the wake of another engine. The Patriot has 0 hits on target in real warfare. What Israel does have is the capability to conduct serious airstrikes. And lets not forget its nukes.
US military activity against Iran is impractical. The military is bogged down in Iraq and will not be able to conduct further action on a large scale until Iraq's military is ready to take over - a prospect that is years away. The Iranian military is home to millions of soldiers and are better equipped, better trained, and far more cohesive than Iraq's was in 2003. The US Air Force and Navy cannot provide the "boots on the ground" that the Army, Marines, and even CIA lack in Iran, and without those, no action can be guaranteed to accomplish the needed result.
Buzz, I was educated by a physics professor who runs QA for anti-missile systems for the military (including ABM)out of Lawrence-Livermoore. His words, and I quote, "The physics have too many variables. They do not work under anything less than strictly controlled circumstances." And as far as ABM goes, not even then. You can be a systems engineer all you want. I'll take the protege of Nobel prize winners over you any day, especially given that your method of argument is to present ad homs and straw men without any facts.
Of course, James. You know better. Your presentation of facts has convinced me. So has Tlaloc's.
Glad we got that out of the way. Now go take your gross overgeneralizations and rudeness somewhere else so the grown ups can talk.
Post a Comment