An argument for Iran getting the nuclear bomb

Photo by Shreyans Bhansali

Earlier this week, the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) met in Moscow to discuss how to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But according to Columbia University’s Kenneth Waltz in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, a nuclear armed Iran “would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.”

Among the reasons Waltz cites for why a nuclear Iran would be a good thing:

1) It would produce a more stable balance of military power in the Middle East: “Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East… It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis…In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.”

2) It would reduce the risk of war between Israel and Iran: “If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have. There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states. Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply, even if the Iranian arsenal is relatively small.”

3) It would produce a more cautious Iran: “History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers…Maoist China, for example, became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear.”

Short URL: http://thejewishreporter.com/?p=4408

Posted by Gary on Jun 21 2012. Filed under Middle East. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry