TJP

Nuclear Iran: The Naïve Solution

By Byron A. Ellis-August 26, 2008

We often hear politicians, particularly Republican hawks, articulating that the greatest world threat is a nuclear Iran. However, that type of saber rattling has no historical precedent. Iran has not been an aggressor nation, although some have argued that it supports fringed groups in countries such as Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq.

Support of fringed groups by nations, including the West and Russia, is not a new phenomenon. Nonetheless, such support is often outside the legal framework and not appropriate.

Based on history, Iran has shown no propensity for invading other nations. History, however, documents that other nations have had greater propensities for violating the territorial integrity of sovereign nations. And, if we were to document such incursions, we would find that the advocates of territorial integrity have been the greatest violators.

Iran’s nuclear dilemma appears to be solvable by applying a naïve solution. Iran is, most likely, developing nuclear technology for defensive purposes. It has seen first hand the violation of the territorial sovereignty of its neighbor, Iraq; such violation is a powerful signal for nations disliked by the West to develop significant deterrent defensive capabilities from nations they perceived as aggressors.

Hence, the pursuit of deterrent capabilities by Iran cannot be viewed as irrational. Since, given current circumstances, they perceive a real threat from aggressor nations. If, however, that threat was removed, Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear deterrence capability would be considered irrational. It is therefore, incumbent on aggressor nations to remove the perceived threat.

The longer the perceived invasion threat is operation, the greater the calcification in the pursuit of nuclear deterrence capabilities and the greater the irreversibility of that pursuit.

The naïve solution is for the West to guarantee the defense of the nation of Iran from every foreign threat. The guarantee should be conditioned on Iran relinquishing the pursuit of nuclear weapons and providing full and unconditional access to inspections of all military and nuclear related facilities. Additionally, it should involve free trade with the West.

The nuclear deterrence from aggressor nations has been unwittingly validated by the Russian response to Georgia’s aggression on South Ossetia. What would have been the West’s response to Russia in the absence of Russian nuclear deterrence?

Clearly, the NATO alliance would have responded with the threat of military force. However, given Russia’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, a Western military threat is not a viable option.

Therefore, when nations believe that they are threatened by aggressor nations, they will seek to acquire defensive weapons of mass destruction.

In essence, the perceived threat of aggression is a stimulus for the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Clearly then, the naïve solution should not only include Iran within the protection blanket, but perhaps every nation on the earth.

Thus, a world alliance guaranteeing the defense of every nation against aggression by aggressor nations would diminish the threat of aggression between nations. Such a guarantee would integrate all nations within the “international community.”

The naïve solution, however, should not freeze current territorial disputes, but rather offer a forum for their solution and where a solution cannot be achieved appropriate compensations to injured parties should be considered.

[ Home | Comments | Search | Post ]

POST COMMENT

SAVE DARFUR