Letters to the Editor
-
iranian nukes
Back in the 1950s, the US twice threatened (or at least discussed) using nuclear weapons against China. China's reaction - not surprisingly - was to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Iran is in a similar position today -it's been put on the "axis of evil", it's being singled out as the object of violent rhetoric by a state that has proven its willingness to launch aggressive wars. Why wouldn't Iran want a deterrent? At the same time, it's worth noting that China and the USSR were far more dangerous foes than Iran, and the world survived that period. Exaggerating the importance of an Iranian nuclear capability is one of the biggest problems that we face.
As the article mentioned, it's unlikely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, just the technology to develop them if it wants to. That's a perfectly adequate deterrent, and a perfectly reasonable response to a threatening situation. It's not that different from the "don't admit that we've got them" strategy that Israel has adopted. Iran has no reason to use nukes against any state inside or outside the region, and doing so would be tantamount to national suicide anyway. If the real threat of an Iranian nuclear capacity is that it would lead to proliferation - well, there's actually not much that can be done about this. Maybe a nuclear Iran will create a real drive to get nuclear weapons out of the Middle East - starting with Israel's arsenal - and create an impetus for the "great powers" to disarm themselves. After all, what possible right does the US have to nuclear weapons that any other state does not? Since when can the US be trusted to use its power responsibly? Surely Iraq has undermined that particular myth?
The idea that dealing with Iran's nukes is a test for the UN and the Security Council: this may be true, but it's also true that this approach presents a whole other set of problems. Remember that not long ago, the US decided the UN did not matter and launched an illegal war of aggression against a defenceless state. Now, when it wants the UN to do its bidding, the US suddenly decides that the UN matters again? I don't think the rest of the world is quite that stupid or forgiving. The double-standard at work here is ludicrous, and the risk that the UN runs is not just that it will be seen as ineffectual but that it will be seen as the unmitigated lapdog of the US and the other great powers. In such a world, there is simply no argument for obeying international law or respecting treaties that are designed to keep one group of countries dominant and relegate all others to second class status or limit their abilities to defend themselves.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine