The World Cannot Live With the Threat of a Nuclear Iran

Having brazenly defied the world, Iran could be emboldened to use terrorism or subvert the Middle East

March 23, 2009 RSS Feed Print
Mort Zuckerman

Mort Zuckerman

Iran is making fools of everyone. Even as it lies about how close it is to acquiring nuclear missiles, it continues to menace the political order throughout the Middle East, pressing on with rocketry and rearming Hamas and Hezbollah. And that mischief is nothing to what it will do if it is allowed to become a nuclear power.

Nuclear Iran will be a threat to U.S. national security, worldwide energy security, the efficacy of multilateralism, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Having defied the world so brazenly, it might become overconfident enough to believe that its conventional or proxy forces could operate without fear of serious reprisals from the United States, Israel, or any other power. It will be emboldened to use terrorism to threaten or subvert others in the area—especially those who might be inclined to pursue peace with Israel. Pro-Western Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the gulf states sense the Iranian threat, and if Iran succeeds in going nuclear, they may decide to join Iran rather than fight it. And Iran, through its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and the Baath Party in Iraq, has the capacity to put direct pressure on Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinians, and the Iraqis. Tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands would join radical Islamist groups in the belief that Islamism is on the march.

Fundamentally, a nuclear Iran represents a unique threat. The fear of mutually assured destruction has long restrained other nuclear powers. There is a real risk that the Iranian leadership is not rational, that driven by its mad hatreds, it will act in ways that are unreasonable, even self-destructive. Anti-Americanism is a cornerstone of the ideology of this Islamic state. The virulence of Iran's hostility is impervious to reason. "Death to America!" has provoked the Iranian street for over a quarter of a century and is the venom upon which an entire generation of Iranians has been raised. The dominant Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterates that Iran's differences with America are more fundamental than political differences.

Whatever may happen to the leadership over time, the inescapable fact is that the United States just cannot take the risk of nuclear missiles in the hands of a clerical regime that preaches genocide. It is pathetic that appeasement continues to beguile.

Every U.S. administration since 1979—yes, including the past one—has reached out to the Iranians. To adopt President Obama's inaugural metaphor, every open hand has met a clenched fist. Jimmy Carter could not obtain the release of American hostages illegally seized in Tehran. Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, failed in a secret mission to release the American hostages held by Iran's Hezbollah agents in Beirut. Brent Scowcroft, George H. W. Bush's national security adviser, made no progress. The Clinton administration's dozen gestures in 1999 were spurned. Clinton even lifted some sanctions in the interest of a "grand bargain," to be made public through an "accidental" meeting between Clinton and the Iranian president in the corridors of the United Nations, only to have it canceled at the last minute.

It is the same dismal story with five years of efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. "We haven't really moved one inch toward addressing the issues," said Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The lie to the Iranian pretense that this oil-rich country needs nuclear power is manifest in every action: It has refused every compromise, including Russia's offer to provide enriched nuclear material for use in civilian nuclear plants.

It is not that the Iranians don't want to talk—they do. That's how they play for time. Quite simply, they seek the technical know-how that will enable them to produce nuclear weapons in a short period. They are in the midst of building stockpiles of low-enriched uranium from which they can produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear device in a matter of months—a breakout capability. They are adding centrifuges faster than the U.N. Security Council can step up the pressure and are learning about the intricate art of connecting a large number of centrifuges to a vast amount of pipe work, while maintaining everything in a vacuum. Getting centrifuges to run is not the challenge; getting them to run as a single entity is, and they are mastering it. Simultaneously, they are enhancing their ability to launch long-range ballistic missiles, a potential delivery system of nuclear weapons. Alas, this is also a living testimony to the failure of the world community to curb the trade of missile technology that Iran lacks on its own. What madness it is to empower Iran to do what it most likes to do—hold hostages, in this case, the entire region. The clock is ticking inexorably, a race against time that Iran is winning, getting nearer every day to presenting the world with an Iranian bomb as a fait accompli.

Tags:
Middle East,
nuclear power,
nuclear weapons,
foreign policy,
Iran

Reader Comments Read all comments (25)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I know I will sound a bit strange but as with Noble and explosives which was the end of all weapons only to be topped by others as nuclear. When if they ever are stupid enough to use one the only recourse will be there elimanation. There will be no inacent people.The shame is the powers to be don't pay. This said we should allow dispots to be removed by any means as in the end it will protect some of the inacents.

Keith Bailey of MI 9:00PM April 05, 2010

Although it is difficult to agree with much that Ahmadinejad says, I believe that he may have a point when he says that it is their right to develop nuclear energy. However, I do not confess to being comfortable with having an unstable country possessing nuclear material. Where do you draw the line between taking safety precautions and interfering with what may be a country's right?

Hannah Smith of OH 12:01AM March 17, 2010

We all have a fairly clear idea of what has been said by Iran's leadership. We also have some notion of what the US government believes as far as Iran's politics as far as Islamic law and belief is. However, these two mountains will never meet on common ground, because of the inmobility as far as coming to understand profoundly the true sentiments and intentions of one another. The mountain will have to move. This seems to be an impossible task. The reality that Faith in Love and Compassion does move mountains, and even enlightens the mind.

Our minds are filled with dark sadows. Our hearts have become hardened towards one another. We are like blind men who refuse to be lead by someone with the ability to see. No one in their right mind could contemplate Neuclear War between nations on this already devestate Planet, Earth. If so, then, we have lost the war before it ever begins.

A very wise man once said, "the blind leading the blind results in the two falling in a hole." A surely an eye for an eye will ultimately result in all becoming blind. There is no true religion that exist teaches hatred for our fellowman. I have studied vertually all the major religions. I have only found the teaching of Love for ones neighbor. The Christian relgioun, according to the Gospel, even tells us to Love our enemies and to do good to those who persecute us.

It is hard to believe that we have fallen so far from these teachings of Love and Forgiveness. As long as we give lip-service to what we hold a secret and good, we will remain as the inmovable mountains without sensitivity for our true nature, which is to preserve our humanity at any cost. This is not pie-in-the-sky thinking. It is the reality of self-preservation and the preservation of humankind.

History has taught us that nothing of lasting value is accomplish by War. We might ask ourselves this question. How are we different from that first human being who lifted up his hand against his brother? What has been truly accomplished by us waring against one another? I say absolutely nothing.

Lawrence A. Young of OH 12:38AM January 05, 2010

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

advertisement

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

The so-called "accommodation" on contraceptive coverage reinforces the administration's commitment to its pro-choice agenda.

On Women in Combat, Rick Santorum Insults Military Men

To suggest that the men in our armed forces cannot control their emotions is a real slap at the professionals who wear the uniform.

To Avoid a Failed February, Mitt Romney Needs a Big Idea

Mitt Romney needs a big idea to rouse enthusiasm for his campaign.

How Mitt Romney Should Respond to the Improving Economy

Even if the economy continues to improve, Mitt Romney still can present a better plan than Barack Obama's.

The Problems With the Catholic Church and Birth Control

The Catholic Church's stance on birth control is a slippery slope, as an Obama administration ruling highlights.

Democrats Rebelling Against Obama Birth Control Policy

Some Democrats are among most publicly opposed the an Obama policy requiring religious institutions to cover contraceptives.

Catholic Birth Control Fight About Healthcare, Not Just Religion

The framing of the issue of required contraceptive coverage in religious terms obscures the real question.

Rick Santorum's Sweep Means It’s Still Anybody’s Race

The GOP finds itself in the unusual position of not being sure who its nominee will eventually be.