Pursuing nuclear weapons makes Iran less safe. It’s putting itself in the crosshairs of its neighbours, the US and al-Qaeda.
The idea that nuclear weapons will usher in an era of peace and security for the Islamic Republic is likely to prove to be nothing short of an illusion—even if Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime succeeds in averting a military strike against its nuclear installations before it reaches its military goals for its nuclear programme.
History has shown that there are many countries against the idea of a powerful Islamic Republic.
In 1979, the newly born Islamic Republic of Iran was armed to the teeth with sophisticated US military technology that had been purchased by the Shah, making it a regional military superpower in its own right. But this was deemed a threat to Western and Arab interests in the region, who believed that something had to be done to weaken Iran and to keep the regime’s ambitions and power in check.
The solution was found in Saddam Hussein and his long-held Iranian territorial desires. The Arab world financed his invasion. France and the USSR sold him sophisticated weaponry, while the US provided political support.
The war served its purpose for eight years—it cost Iran more than one million dead or maimed, and approximately $300 billion of damage to its economy. Had Iraq not invaded, the Islamic Republic of Iran could have been (after Israel) the most powerful military force in the region. In terms of political influence beyond its borders, it could have been the most powerful.
Since the end of the conflict, Iran has slowly but surely rebuilt its armed forces and regional influence.
And if it gets its hand on a bomb, it will become a regional nuclear and military superpower again. That would mean that as well as influence in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza, its armed forces would be protected by a nuclear umbrella, thus allowing the regime the opportunity to increase its influence with more confidence.
This is something that the Arab world and the West are unlikely to accept.
But if history is set to repeat itself, a new enemy to keep Iran in check is likely to be searched for. And this time, the West, and especially the Arab world, will not be short of motivation. Nuclear Iran aside, they’re already furious at what they see as Iran interfering in Iraq. Or as Sabah Al Mukhtar, president of the Arab Lawyers Association, put it in a recent debate on Al Jazeera English, ‘Iranian dogs tearing Iraq to bits.’
In 1980, an all out invasion by Iraq was used to weaken Iran. This time, a different method is likely to be applied.
Instead of a conventional war, initially the West and the Arab world are likely to sponsor a war of attrition against Iran, one likely to present itself in several formats.
When it comes to the Arab world, support for al-Qaeda attacks against Iran and Iranian interests are likely to be used. Despite limited cooperation in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda’s leadership and rank and file see Iran and the Shiites as their second biggest enemy, after the United States.
Photo Credit: Kamyar Adl
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Ali Mostofi
It is the Ayatollah nuclear program. Big difference. The people of Iran live in this massive area. The Ayatollahs kill us every day. Don’t use the word “Iran” when you should use the words “Ayatollah regime”.
Josie
That arddesses several of my concerns actually.
Silviu Craescu
The World War 3 will begin there. It is clear that something must happen with Muslims, hatred of Israel, Iran’s cooperation with Russia, China, will lead to a demonic alliance. From here …
Who dug another hole, he falls into it!
Brad
Russia is not aligned with Iran, if anything they are exact opposites. Russia can only gain from an attck on Iran’s regime.
Maksudul Muminin
Iran is not a terrorist country. It even does not finance terrorism anywhere around the globe.
AMNON
It doesn’t make sense that al-Qaeda will turn against Iran as a major war effort. Becoming nuclear will strengthen greatly the current regime and will give it many more years of life expectancy. It’ll energize radical Isalmists in Jordan and Egypt. And the so called West the way it looks now lacks the energy to fight. Israel is left alone against this tide.
Nathan
Israel is all alone because it deserves to be.
So long as it doesn’t own up to possessing nuclear weapons and sign the NPT it has no business telling Iran what it can and can’t do as a sovereign country.
Similarly the plight of the Palestinians is the number one recruiting tool by extremist terrorists and its Israel’s issue to fix.
Danram
Iran’s leaders have nothing to worry about, at least as far as the US is concerned. The weak-kneed naif that the American people so stupidly elected as their president in November 2008 doesn’t have the guts to do what needs to be done, which is order a US invasion that would destroy Iran’s nuclear program and depose it’s vile, oppressive government. He’d rather make sure that the rest of the world likes us than take decisive action to make sure that nuclear weapons don’t end up in the hands of the shiite fundamentalist nutjobs that run Iran.
Although he may have screwed things up royally when it comes to domestic policy, it’s times like these when I really miss George W. Bush. He’d know what needs to be done and wouldn’t flinch from doing it.
Nathan
Yep. George W Bush sure knew what to do alright. He put the US in two strategically pointless wars and presided over the biggest decimation in the US economy in recent history. Nice work.
The FACT is that the US can not get itself involved in another military adventure whilst there are two still left unfinished. Not to mention that any military action against Iran would embolden terrorists.
Garvin
Danram, I know the idea of an invasion is appealing but let me be blunt. We don’t have the men. We don’t have the equipment and we don’t have the money. I’m speaking here as a Marine who served in Iraq. This is harder then you think.
First off there’s the fact that we already have two wars we need to finish. While we should be out of Iraq by next year, Afghanistan is gonna require a large amount of our time, money and manpower. Next is the fact that the Iranian Army won’t be as easy as the Iraqi Army to fight. Lastly… Iran is huge. Your demand has us trying to keep under control a stretch of territory that is roughly the size of Alaska and Texas combined… If you can’t see the problems inherent in that frankly you need to head back to school.
An invasion of Iran would be nasty, violent and bloody. It would make Iraq look like a kindergarten food fight. The average Iranian soldier quiet likely doesn’t like his government, but that doesn’t mean he would want us coming in either. He’ll fight. An occupation will last nearly a decade if we’re lucky and how will we pay for that? Considering how much the Iraqi War and occupations cost us, can we afford it?
Let’s finish the wars we have before we take on commitments that lock us into place for decades and drain us of men and money.
Not Roman
Roman,
You mean like the U.S. never left the Philippines, France, Australia, Iceland, nor New Zealand? The U.S. has withdrawn from numerous nations over years for various reasons. Even now more Americans questions the wisdom of defending a wealthy and peaceful EU => from what? Never is a long time. I expect to see the U.S. withdraw from Germany, Japan, Iraq and Afghanistan in my lifetime. And without, like Rome, vanishing but to the pages of history.
Cheers,
Roman
One big flaw in your argument. US will never leave Iraq or Afghanistan, like they never left Germany or Japan after WWII. There will always be 10s of US bases all over Iraq.
$$$
There are some other problems in the argument. Iranian – al-Qaida conflict stems not from the nuclear program or possible nuclear weapons but from conflicting religious, social, political, and regional views/objectives, particularly in Iraq. Western or Arab support for al-Qaida types against Iran would turn very badly since these groups would still view these very same sponsors as being even higher priority targets than Iran. The result would be both a gradual erosion of credibility to those supporting them and attacks against all sides/states by these groups.
Iran does face much opposition to its regional bid for power but there still hasn’t been any serious, organized and concerted effort by the other regional powers to resist this bid on a large scale.