Quote:
Original post by SimonForsmanIf they want the nukes to keep their neighbours from attacking them its their choice, seeing that the US doesn't follow the non-proliferation treaty and Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea hasn't even signed it I can't see how anyone has the right to tell Iran what it can or cannot do anymore.
That's an idealistic view. The reality is that a nuclear Iran will destabilize the region. Aside from the risk of nuclear war (which I admit is negligible), it will lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, as the Arab states acquire their own nuclear weapons to counter the Iranian threat. A nuclear Iran will also allow the country to bully its neighbors more effectively. Yes, it will deter a nation like Iraq from invading, but it would also prevent foreign powers from intervening if, say, it decided to forcibly expand its Theocracy to its Shiite neighbors.
Is it fair that nations like Pakistan, India, and Israel get nuclear weapons while Iran doesn't? Of course not. But fairness is irrelevant. What's important is maintaining stability and security in the region.
I doubt Iran will ever publicly declare an acquisition of nuclear weapons, or test them. More likely, it will implement a policy of strategic ambiguity, much like Israel. It will never test a weapon, and it will never confirm nor deny their existence. However, it will be an open secret that they do indeed have such weapons. That will allow them to plausibly fight against international sanctions while retaining the weapons' strategic benefit.
I also don't think an attack is the best way to go. It would only increase Iranian support for the regime, and in fact give credit to the very argument that they need nuclear weapons. Iranians have a fear of foreign intervention. They remember how foreign powers supported the Shah against the Iranians' popular will. They remember how foreign powers supported Iraq in an unjustified offensive. The pursuit of nuclear weapons is to ensure that foreign powers will respect the sovereignty of Iran.
It is essential that no nation intervene in the internal affairs of Iran, or even speak of doing so. I cringe each time I hear Israeli officials say that they might bomb Iran, or when Western officials speak of supporting the democratic protests. The outside world needs to respect Iranian sovereignty. If they have a popular revolution, it must be viewed as an Iranian revolution, not the tool of outside forces.
The best method to fight the Iranian acquisition of the bomb is isolation. This would respect Iranian sovereignty, while still persuading them that the bomb isn't worth it. Iran is not North Korea. Self-reliance is not one of its central tenets. Indeed, it wishes to be viewed as a modern, influential, and involved nation - something unachievable if they are shunned from the international community.
The difficulty, of course, is convincing Russia and China to impose sanctions. Russia should be relatively easy, since a nuclear Iran is a direct threat to Russian interests in Central Asia. I think that as Iran gets closer to the bomb, and as relations between Russia and the West (hopefully) improve, Russia will be more supportive of sanctions on Iran. China will be far more difficult. As a growing nation with limited foreign influence, China is dependent on Iranian resources. Even worse, China has America by the balls. The big challenge will be persuading China that severe sanctions, or at least the threat of such sanctions, would be worthwhile.
Assuming the UNSC can impose sanctions that are widely supported by most of the nations of the world, I think Iran would cave in fairly quickly, especially if this was coupled with sufficient incentives. Without a market for their oil, their regime would face economic collapse unless they gave up the pursuit of the bomb.
