Dear Editor,

The idea that even a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to Israel or the US lacks credibility. The Iranians are not suicidal. Israel is a country with a nuclear arsenal of more than 200 bombs, many of which, no doubt, are aimed at every major Iranian city. Israel has a secure second-strike capacity and is even developing ballistic missile submarines. Some American commentators have tried to argue that President Ahmadinejad belongs to a “millenialist” Shi’a Muslim sect and that, as a result, he might be willing to embrace national suicide. Again, this argument is hardly credible. A recent article in the New York Times Magazine examined the principles of Ahmadinejad’s sect and concluded that it is not a self-destructive movement.

Beyond these factors, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would destroy many sites sacred to Islam, including Jerusalem; it would kill millions of Arab and Muslim Palestinians, among others; it would spread nuclear fallout throughout the entire region. Would Iran, an Islamic theocracy, really want to do so much damage to the people and sacred sites of its faith? Moreover, if Iran ever did nuke Israel, assuming it survived the retaliation, the US would probably hit Iran with a full-scale nuclear attack.

As these arguments indicate, the idea that Iran would ever launch a first-strike against Israel or, even more unlikely, provide terrorists with nuclear bombs that could be used against the US, is simply not credible. The only way that Iran would use its nuclear capability against the US or Israel would be if those states actually took measures that backed Iran into a corner. If Iran ever did get to the point where it had a nuclear capability to rival Israel’s, mutual deterrence would become the order of the day.

Many American, neoconservative commentators are trying hard to build up the “Iran threat”. The reason for this is that while a nuclear Iran poses little real threat to Israel, it would become capable of deterring attacks from Israel or the US. A nuclear capable Iran alters the balance of power in the Middle East. The region would go from one dominated by the West and Israel – who now have the capacity to act with near impunity – to one where an alternative power, at odds with the goals and domination of the US and its allies, would have to be taken seriously and could not be easily threatened or cowed. The American efforts to demonize Iran and provoke a war are motivated by the desire to hold onto Western hegemony in the Middle East and maintain Israel’s military freedom of action.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has done his country no favours by his inflammatory remarks about Israel. But, as Professor Cole knows, there is considerable controversy over how what Ahmadinejad has said has been translated in the West. Ahmadinejad’s most recent comment was that he foresees Israel disappearing in the same way as the Soviet Union did. Of course, the Soviet disappearance was due to the failure of its ideology, and this statement lends credence to the argument that Ahmadinejad is talking about Israel fading away at an ideological level. Like many people in the Middle East, Ahmadinejad sees Israel as a colonial state that embodies a racist ideology. The fact that he wants this gone should hardly be surprising. Admittedly, it is grossly hypocritical for the President of a state that is renowned for the oppression of religious minorities to criticize Israel, but hypocrisy is hardly restricted to Iran. I still laugh whenever I read about US officials complaining – without any irony – about Iran “meddling” in Iraq’s internal affairs.

Finally, the very idea that Iran is trying to develop an active nuclear weapon arsenal must be regarded with some skepticism. If Iran did become an openly nuclear weapon state, it would put its most powerful allies – China and Russia – in a very difficult and embarrassing position. They would be hard-pressed to resist imposing real and severe sanctions against Iran. It is far safer for Iran to develop the technology and capability to go nuclear whenever it wants to – to be “one turn of the screw” from a nuclear bomb, much like Japan – without actually having a bomb. This strategy would still provide Iran with a credible deterrent. If Iran were attacked or threatened by the US or Israel, it would have every excuse it needed to actually assemble bombs as deterrents.

In an ideal world, the prospect of a nuclear Iran would create a powerful impetus for the states of the Middle East and the US to aggressively pursue diplomatic initiatives designed to resolve the many conflicts in the region. Israel might gain a greater incentive to abandon its illegal settlements and return Arab land; Arab states would gain the incentive of reaching some kind of sustainable peace with Israel. Israel would also be held in check – it would no longer be able to attack its neighbours with impunity. In this world, however, the Bush Administration seems determined to create as much tension and conflict as it possibly can. Rather than making any effort to recognize that Iran may have legitimate concerns and interests in the region, the Bush people have simply decided to brand it an enemy and are now acting accordingly. The tragedy is that this did not have to happen. After 9-11, Iran made many overtures to the US, with the clear desire to improve relations between the two countries. The Bush ideologues already knew that they wanted to destroy Iran if they could, however, and actively rejected those overtures.

We must not forget that the “Bush Doctrine” was made for a state like Iran – a “terrorist” state which is pursuing weapons of mass destruction. If the US does attack Iran, Bush may have decided that the risks of not acting are greater than acting – particularly if he has convinced himself of the fantasy of the Iranian “threat”.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine