Why Deterrence Isn’t Enough
A few days ago, I posted a clip from a widely-watched TV debate about Iran policy between Norman Podhoretz and Fareed Zakaria. Podhoretz, as per usual, called for more hawkish action; Zakaria, in contrast, argued that, if negotiations don’t succeed, a strategy of deterrence is the obvious solution.
I often agree with Zakaria on Middle Eastern policy issues because he’s a thoughtful and non-ideological analyst. Nonetheless, I think the notion that we can just ‘deter Iran’ oversimplifies the issue. The problem with the Iranian nuclear program is not just about what the mullahs might do with a weapon — it’s about the regional spillover as well. If Iran is successful in building the bomb, we’re likely to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries throughout the Middle East.
Dan Murphy, writing in The Christian Science Monitor, makes this point pretty well: (Hat tip: Daniel Drezner)
This week Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern country in the past year to say it wants nuclear power, intensifying an atomic race spurred largely by Iran’s nuclear agenda, which many in the region and the West claim is cover for a weapons program.
Experts say the nuclear ambitions of majority Sunni Muslim states such as Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are reactions to Shiite Iran’s high-profile nuclear bid, seen as linked with Tehran’s campaign for greater influence and prestige throughout the Middle East.
“To have 13 states in the region say they’re interested in nuclear power over the course of a year certainly catches the eye,” says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior nonproliferation official in the US State Department who is now a fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “The Iranian angle is the reason.”
But economics are also behind this new push to explore nuclear power, at least for some of the aspirants. Egypt’s oil reserves are dwindling, Jordan has no natural resources to speak of at all, and power from oil and gas has grown much more expensive for everyone. Though the day has not arrived, it’s conceivable that nuclear power will be a cheaper option than traditional plants.
But analysts say the driver is Iran, which appears to be moving ahead with its nuclear program despite sanctions and threats of possible military action by the US. The Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of Saudi Arabia and the five Arab states that border the Persian Gulf, reversed a longstanding opposition to nuclear power last year.
As the closest US allies in the region and sitting on vast oil wealth, these states had said they saw no need for nuclear energy. But Fitzpatrick, as well as other analysts, say these countries now see their own declarations of nuclear intent as a way to contain Iran’s influence. At least, experts say, it signals to the US how alarmed they are by a nuclear Iran.
“The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region,” Jordan’s King Abdullah, another US ally, told Israel’s Haaretz newspaper early this year. “Where I think Jordan was saying, ‘We’d like to have a nuclear-free zone in the area,’ … [now] everybody’s going for nuclear programs.”
The negative consequences of a successful Iranian nuclear (bomb) program go far beyond what Tehran might do with a weapon. An equally serious outcome — one that American and Israeli strategic deterrence will be unable to prevent — is the tide of regional nuclear proliferation that is already looming on the horizon. This is a scary possibility, and Zakaria doesn’t grapple with it in a very serious way. We absolutely must succeed in convincing Iran to give up its nuclear program – there really is no other option.
11 Responses to “Why Deterrence Isn’t Enough”
Maybe the Persians just don’t trust the developed world based on past history. I’m not defending the Iranians, just pointing out the US,Russian and EU history towards them isn’t very good either.
From Wiki:
Why should Iran, Egypt, Jordan etc NOT produce their own nuclear power palnts and enrichment facilities. It’s with their rights according to the non-proliferation treaty. The US would certainly never give up it’s rights for nothing -why would any middle eastern country.
If we seriously want to stop these countries from developing their own nuclear capacity we should be prepared to pay VERY dearly. Perhaps a $1 trillion dollar payment might get their attention.
In all seriousness, the US has been free to subtly wave it’s nuclear stick at countries by saying ” ALL options are on the table”. It seems to me that until we take ALL nuclear weapons off the table, ours and everyone elses – we don’t have a leg to stand on.
JD – Those countries cannot produce those plants. It’s the West, China and Russia who control those technologies. And all three through collusion and espionage developed nuclear plants and weapons. No country going it alone can be a nuclear power. The ME countries fear an Atomic OPEC will do unto them…
Rudi,
As usual, Wiki only has 1/2 the story – so many omissions that I can’t even begin to cover them. Still at least the article admits that Iran used assassination and terrorism as a negotiating tool – is it really any wonder no country had much incentive to help them? This is leaving aside the fact that Iran canceled all those contracts unilaterally (violating the terms for most of them), including those with the US, then demanded refunds on its invested capital – then began killing people all over europe.
There is nothing wrong with any nation building/buying nuclear power plants or otherwise having nuclear power plants. The problem is enrichment since it is a dual-use technology. Most ME nations do not have the uranium reserves to support domestic enrichment anyway, and this includes Iran (Iran’s reserves will only last 1- 2 decades, then it will have to import uranium).
Kazakhstan, for example, is the “Saudi Arabia” of uranium – it has the world’s largest reserves. It’s implementing a deal to provide nuclear fuel to the world market through a consortium using Russian enrichment facilities. Once this project gets going, uranium prices will dramatically drop and Iran’s economically-challenged enrichment program will be even more pointless for Iran’s energy needs than it already is.
Speaking of Iranian energy needs, did you know that Iran spends almost $5 billion a year importing gasoline and tens-of billions more on gasoline subsidies? Did you know that absorbs about 40% of government revenue annually? Imagine if the US paid the equivalent of all the revenue from social security and medicare each year to keep the price of gas at 40 cents a gallon – that’s what Iran is doing! Their “energy independence” rhetoric for their nuclear program is a bunch of bull.
Iran is in the limelight, so I agree that it presents a special danger.
Now that the idea of nuclear capability is out of the bag in the region far beyond Iran, I don’t see how it can be put back in the bag by merely concentrating on Iran. The idea will remain tempting for other nations, for one reason or another, long past the current situation.
It’s a global problem, and should have been treated as such all along, IMO. To get a global solution, the US would have to give up ground, not just act as judge and jury.for everyone else. It has to be a participant in the solution, cooperating instead of proclaiming.
The idea of a new and much broader treaty has been raised off and on for years, sometimes at the UN. Since the US, is opposed to anything where it can’t call the shots, it is stuck with the consequences. That has been and continues to be a big mistake, IMO.
Considering how long it takes to negotiatie these things, it’s probably too late re Iran tooay.
But to lead by presenting new ideas instead of presenting ever bigger and more guns would be a boon for the US, as well as the rest of the world.
Even at this late date, coming up with a plan for drawing everyone in instead of picking and choosing, among friends and enemies might calm the situation down.
On the surface, preventing nuclear wars woulg be attractive to all govenments. Signing treaties brings responsibilites as well as advantages, so the means for preventing spillover to non-state actors could be incorporated. One such idea is the ‘home address’ requirement for nuclear material.
As the wrold changes, we can’t stay stuck in old ways of thinking, if we are to keep our heads above water. It looks to me like we are still using cold war strategies in a much more complex and heated world.
As I said, it’s a global problem, and it should be treated as such. Running from crisis to crisis just means we’re running in place.
So far, everything revolves around who is and who is not a signotory to the old treaty. Obviously, the old treaty does not work, because countries are not treated in a uniform fashion.
At the heart of this issue is the nature and character of the nations of concern. While the USA and Israel, for example, are responsible and trustworthy with nuclear weapons, Iran and other Middle East nations are not. It’s no different in principle than keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, simply a matter of degree regarding the potential consequences of proliferation.
“All options” by the USA obviously refers to air strikes on Iran, not using nuclear weapons (especially on cities); lay off the wrongly-blame-the-USA nonsense, please.
It seems that a third possibiilty would be to develop rigidly transparent monitored nuclear energy programs. I cannot assess if that is possible, but it would be a middle path. If such nuclear energy programs were highly dependent upon other nations, then one could shut them down if transparency ceased. Again, I do not know if it is possible.
pacatrue,
The “additional protocol” to the NPT is designed to do just that. All the original NPT has the authority to do is monitor nuclear activities the nations themselves declare to ensure there is no military diversion. The AP goes much further and really is designed to provide more rigid transparency.
Now, the AP is “voluntary” meaning that nations cannot be forced implement it. Iran has signed the AP, but has not ratified, nor is it adhering to it. It did adhere, mostly, to the AP for about a year, but then quit.
Of critical importance is to get Iran to ratify and adhere to the AP – it would do a lot to ensure Iran remains compliant, even considering the way Iran games and lawyers the system.
Entropy-
Don’t you think that one reason (aside from its own dubious goals) that Iran cheats, bobs and weaves is because it is treated differently that say, Israel?
You and I see the difference in responsibilty and reliabilty between Iran and Israel, but the Iranians don’t look at the wrorld through our eyes and will never do so.
That’s why a new approach, a new treaty, is necessary- to bring everyone in and to apply the same standards of transparency to everyone.
Doma,
Of course Israel is treated differently. First of all, Israel is an ally, and Iran is a sworn enemy and continually declares itself so. Secondly, Iran has signed the NPT and Israel has not – So Iran has agreed to not develop nuclear weapons, among other things – Israel never made that agreement. Big difference. Now one might criticize Israel (and Pakistan, and India, and North Korea – all nuclear weapons states who are not part of the NPT) for eschewing the international arms control regime altogether, but Israel isn’t violating an arms control treaty it signed – Iran has and did.
That would be nice, but the problem is the existing nuclear weapons states – all of whom have veto power on the UNSC. I don’t think any is ready to forgo nuclear weapons entirely as part of a global treaty. Here the criticism by Iran and a lot of other countries is valid. The UN itself and the NPT are inherently and deliberately biased institutions that carve out special rights for 5 countries. Rising powers like India are right to question why France gets veto power and not it. Or why doesn’t Germany for that matter? It IS unfair – by design – a design that all five permanent members don’t seem willing to mess with or change….
Entropy-
You’re just saying: that;s the way it is.
I KNOW that’s the way it is, but the way it is isn’t working.
That it isn’t fair would be fine if it worked, but it isn’t.
It just gives countries like Iran (and others?) something to hide behind.
It isn’t about being fair for it’s own sake.
It’s about finding an approach that would be attractive to all nuclear powers, present and future.
This would mean a very long process. Starting now would nto be too early.
I’m just frustrated that the US throws away evey opportunity to be a leader in anything but waging war
Climate change? No.
Human rights? No.
Managing nuclear power? No.
We just wait for crises and then try to solve them with guns and bombs.
Exception: Our policies on health in Africa seem to be working. The one ray of simshine. I wonder why that isn;t taken as an object lesson.