Hey everyone!
If you know me, then you know that there's little that I enjoy more in this world than looking smart on the internet. Thus, I'm gonna do a series of explainers on what the hell is up with this "Iran nuclear deal!" My information comes from a) my instruction in the 2010-2011 EPIIC class on nuclear issues, and b) my readings and learning since. In particular, this article by Max Fisher of Vox informs a lot in my later explainers. If you disagree about a point or want to know what I'm basing it on, please feel free to comment.
1) What the heck is this all about?
The prospect of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is one that rightly fills Washington, Tel Aviv, and most every other European and Middle Eastern capital with dread. The governments of these countries do not look kindly upon Iran. Whereas every Muslim Middle Eastern country other than Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain is majority Sunni (the dominant branch of Islam), those other countries are majority Shi'a. Iran is by far the most powerful, the most capable, and the most religiously and politically organised of the Shia majority countries. Because of this, along with a number of other factors, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the rich Gulf states, and (to a lesser extent) Turkey look upon Iran as a geopolitical rival. Indeed, these countries have been essentially fighting against Iran by means of each side's proxies in Syria (the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey supporting the anti-Assad rebels, prominently including al-Qaeda and ISIS, whereas Iran is supporting the Assad government and its partners in Hezzbollah with both indirect and direct assistance).
The prospect of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is one that rightly fills Washington, Tel Aviv, and most every other European and Middle Eastern capital with dread. The governments of these countries do not look kindly upon Iran. Whereas every Muslim Middle Eastern country other than Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain is majority Sunni (the dominant branch of Islam), those other countries are majority Shi'a. Iran is by far the most powerful, the most capable, and the most religiously and politically organised of the Shia majority countries. Because of this, along with a number of other factors, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the rich Gulf states, and (to a lesser extent) Turkey look upon Iran as a geopolitical rival. Indeed, these countries have been essentially fighting against Iran by means of each side's proxies in Syria (the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey supporting the anti-Assad rebels, prominently including al-Qaeda and ISIS, whereas Iran is supporting the Assad government and its partners in Hezzbollah with both indirect and direct assistance).
Were Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon that they could field in combat, it would be profoundly destabilising in the Middle East, and thus the world. If Iran became a nuclear-armed country, it is almost certain that Saudi Arabia and the rich Gulf states would seek to acquire one as well. More big red nuclear buttons means more risk of those buttons being pressed. It would also put Israel in a position whereby it would actually be facing a plausible existential threat from abroad--a condition which has not existed since Syrian forces broke through Israeli lines the Yom Kippur War.
Right now, there exists a status quo in which Iran and the rest of the Middle East knows that if Tehran crosses a certain line (active aggression against American Gulf allies, a direct attack against Israel, or especially blocking the Straits of Hormuz, through which a large fraction of the world's petroleum is shipped), it would be met with a large US military response. Iran knows that it cannot win in a fight where the United States is hitting them with its massive cyber, naval, and aerospace superiority. The US is the best in the world at that kind of fighting, and there is nobody that can go into one of those fights against us thinking that they will win. This constrains Iran to a range of actions which, although destabilising and highly frustrating to American interests, are within a realm that the US can handle.
Were Iran to acquire plausible nuclear weapons capabilities, the US would be unable to smack Iran down without risking catastrophic Iranian retaliation. This is unacceptable.
The Obama Administration has made the denial of Iranian nuclear capability a key focal point of its foreign policy throughout its tenure. The Russia "reset" was instrumental to establishing the sanctions regime that forced Iran to the negotiating table. These negotiations have been a large priority in allocating US political and diplomatic capital. The Obama Administration made essentially no effort to support the Green Revolution in 2009 because a) it would have been entirely counter-productive, and b) because Iran has made it very, very clear that the highest priority of its diplomacy with the US is to maintain Iranian sovereignty and Iranian control of its own politics. Attempting to intervene would have poisoned the well of US-Iranian relations for decades to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment