I just read another of those delusional articles that pop up in the liberal media each week about how a nuclear armed Iran would not be able to use the nuclear weapons. The basic thesis is that Iran would know that if it used nukes against Israel, the Israelis would wipe Iran off the map with their own nukes. If Iran used nukes against American or NATO targets, the USA would erase Iran from the map. Sounds simple, doesn't it? The idiot who wrote the latest article (in The Nation) actually said that Iranian nukes would just be "defensive" weapons.
Let's unpack this supposed logic.
1. The first issue to consider is whether or not Iran is a rational actor. In other words, can we assume that Iran will do nothing that might lead to a nuclear attack on their country? After all, it is only the supposed threat of nuclear destruction of Iran that would guide the actions of the mullahs in Teheran. If these mullahs do not fear such destruction or if they are not deterred by such destruction, then the nuclear arsenals of other countries will not act as a deterrent. Sadly, this is an issue for which most on the left just assume the result. They assume that the theocrats who rule Iran will bow to the logic of mutually assured destruction. They assume that the Iranian mullahs will not take any step that might lead to their own death. But can that assumption be made?
The Iranian Shiite Moslems who rule Iran come from a group within Islam that believe in the eventual return of the "hidden Imam". This Imam will return and establish Islamic rule on the Earth. He will come only after a time of great turmoil, however. There will be wars and major destruction, and the Imam will return to bring peace and victory for Islam. This sect also believes that the followers of the hidden Imam can hasten his return by causing the great turmoil. So we have a religious group in control of Iran that believes that they can hasten the arrival of an Islamic Nirvana by causing the maximum turmoil through war and destruction. Does that sound like a group who will stay away from the use of nuclear weapons because that use might cause turmoil through war and destruction? Of course not!
2. But let's assume that Iran's leaders actually are rational (as we understand that term). Can we assume that they will not calculate that they could destroy Israel so completely as to face no retaliation? Remember, Israel is a tiny country about the size of New Jersey. More important, almost all Israelis live in only about a third of the country. A nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa could probably kill two thirds of the Israeli population with just three bombs. Imagine what ten bombs could do if they were spaced to fill in the gaps. The mullahs might conclude that the Israeli ability to launch a retaliatory attack would be destroyed in a first strike. At that point, even a rational actor might decide to attack. And remember, the bombs would not have to be delivered from Iran. The Iranians might smuggle the weapons into Israel or launch them from Lebanon by using Hezbollah or Gaza by using Hamas. Would the surviving Israelis just attack Iran if the data indicated that the attack came from elsewhere? If there were any delay in a counter attack by Israel, the country would be overrun quickly before any future attack on Iran might be possible. Do the Iranians fear that the USA or some other nuclear power would attack Iran to avenge the destruction of Israel? No, because the other nuclear powers would behave in a rational manner and would not want to risk retaliation.
3. And let's focus on the USA rather than Israel. Remember, for the mullahs in Teheran, it is America (not Israel) that is the Great Satan. Might the Iranians smuggle a nuclear weapons aboard some freighter and sail it into the port of New York or the port of Los Angeles to be unloaded? If that bomb were detonated in New York, it might kill five million people or more. But would the USA be able to determine that it was Iran that had launched the attack? Might North Korea be suspected? Maybe Russia or China would be seen as the culprit. Could Iran survive that attack? The mullahs may conclude at some point that the odds are strongly in their favor.
The real truth is that it is maniacal to base our dealings with Iran on assumptions of rationality in the actions of the mullahs. It is a much better outcome to assure that Iran never gets a bomb. The sooner everyone realizes and accepts this, the better it will be.
Let's unpack this supposed logic.
1. The first issue to consider is whether or not Iran is a rational actor. In other words, can we assume that Iran will do nothing that might lead to a nuclear attack on their country? After all, it is only the supposed threat of nuclear destruction of Iran that would guide the actions of the mullahs in Teheran. If these mullahs do not fear such destruction or if they are not deterred by such destruction, then the nuclear arsenals of other countries will not act as a deterrent. Sadly, this is an issue for which most on the left just assume the result. They assume that the theocrats who rule Iran will bow to the logic of mutually assured destruction. They assume that the Iranian mullahs will not take any step that might lead to their own death. But can that assumption be made?
The Iranian Shiite Moslems who rule Iran come from a group within Islam that believe in the eventual return of the "hidden Imam". This Imam will return and establish Islamic rule on the Earth. He will come only after a time of great turmoil, however. There will be wars and major destruction, and the Imam will return to bring peace and victory for Islam. This sect also believes that the followers of the hidden Imam can hasten his return by causing the great turmoil. So we have a religious group in control of Iran that believes that they can hasten the arrival of an Islamic Nirvana by causing the maximum turmoil through war and destruction. Does that sound like a group who will stay away from the use of nuclear weapons because that use might cause turmoil through war and destruction? Of course not!
2. But let's assume that Iran's leaders actually are rational (as we understand that term). Can we assume that they will not calculate that they could destroy Israel so completely as to face no retaliation? Remember, Israel is a tiny country about the size of New Jersey. More important, almost all Israelis live in only about a third of the country. A nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa could probably kill two thirds of the Israeli population with just three bombs. Imagine what ten bombs could do if they were spaced to fill in the gaps. The mullahs might conclude that the Israeli ability to launch a retaliatory attack would be destroyed in a first strike. At that point, even a rational actor might decide to attack. And remember, the bombs would not have to be delivered from Iran. The Iranians might smuggle the weapons into Israel or launch them from Lebanon by using Hezbollah or Gaza by using Hamas. Would the surviving Israelis just attack Iran if the data indicated that the attack came from elsewhere? If there were any delay in a counter attack by Israel, the country would be overrun quickly before any future attack on Iran might be possible. Do the Iranians fear that the USA or some other nuclear power would attack Iran to avenge the destruction of Israel? No, because the other nuclear powers would behave in a rational manner and would not want to risk retaliation.
3. And let's focus on the USA rather than Israel. Remember, for the mullahs in Teheran, it is America (not Israel) that is the Great Satan. Might the Iranians smuggle a nuclear weapons aboard some freighter and sail it into the port of New York or the port of Los Angeles to be unloaded? If that bomb were detonated in New York, it might kill five million people or more. But would the USA be able to determine that it was Iran that had launched the attack? Might North Korea be suspected? Maybe Russia or China would be seen as the culprit. Could Iran survive that attack? The mullahs may conclude at some point that the odds are strongly in their favor.
The real truth is that it is maniacal to base our dealings with Iran on assumptions of rationality in the actions of the mullahs. It is a much better outcome to assure that Iran never gets a bomb. The sooner everyone realizes and accepts this, the better it will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment