From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Tue Feb 09 2010 - 22:36:20 EST
Iran’s Two-Edged Bomb
By ADAM B. LOWTHER
Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.
With Iran having notified the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency that
it is now enriching its stockpile of uranium to a higher level, we should
admit that Washington’s approach to countering the Islamic Republic is
leading nowhere. What’s needed, however, may be less of a change of plan
than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States
should Iran build a bomb. (I’m speaking for myself here, and in no way
for the Air Force.) Five possibilities come to mind.
First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States
an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like
Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its
neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional
security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for
economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes
responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001.
Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways
because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A
nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some
leverage for us to demand reforms.
Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear
Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel.
Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in
the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil
prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the
pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased
production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.
Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear
program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear
strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger
might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties,
leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents.
Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would
go a long way to undercutting Tehran’s animosity toward Israel, and would
ease longstanding tensions in the region.
Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our
Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership
efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.
With the likelihood of austere Pentagon budgets in the coming years, Boeing
has been making noise about shifting out of the defense industry, which
would mean lost American jobs and would also put us in a difficult position
should we be threatened by a rising military power like China. A nuclear
Iran could forestall such a catastrophe.
Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to
autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by
driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring
the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost.
And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers
the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas
counterinsurgency operations.
What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be
able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most
people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his
Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken,
Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather
than less. The 50-year standoff between the Soviet Union and the United
States was called the cold war thanks to the deterrent effect of nuclear
weapons.
There is reason to believe that the initial shock of a nuclear Iran would
soon be followed a new regional dynamic strikingly like that of cold-war
Europe. Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be united along with their smaller
neighbors by their fear of Iran; the United States would take the lead in
creating a stable regional security environment. In addition, our reluctant
European allies, and possibly even China and Russia, would have a much
harder time justifying sales of goods and technology to Tehran, further
isolating the Islamic Republic.
Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of
Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American
influence in the Middle East.
Feb. 9. 2010: This Op-Ed has been updated to reflect the news.
Adam B. Lowther is a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opinion/09lowther.html?ref=opinion
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----