Why isn’t Iran allowed to have a nuclear weapon?
That’s a question I continually ask myself wherever thinking about this particular geo-political situation.
At a surface level, one might argue the answer is obvious: we don’t want a regime as fanatical and as hard-line as the Islamic Republic to possess that kind of mass destructive capability.
And sure, in an ideal world I wouldn’t want a regime like Iran’s to have a nuclear weapon.
But we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where Israel has nukes. And where Pakistan and India have nukes.
I don’t want any of those regimes having nuclear arsenals. In fact, I don’t want *any* nuclear weapons in any country. But again, that’s not the world we live in.
So again, why can’t Iran have a nuclear weapon?
Let’s even put aside the fact that Netanyahu has been making speeches every year for three decades now claiming Iran is months or even weeks away from the bomb. It’s become a meme at this stage.
And let’s even put aside the fact that Trump’s negotiations with Tehran are pointless, as there was already an Iran Nuclear Deal in place from the Obama era – and it was the United States, under Trump and Netanyahu, that walked away from that deal.
Let’s not even linger on the fact that Israel’s preemptive attacks on Iranian territory are essentially an unprovoked assault on a sovereign state.
Or the fact that Mossad agents infiltrating into Iran and assassinating scientists is presented as legitimate actions by ‘commandos’: but if it was reversed and Iranian agents had been in Israel targeting Israeli scientists they would be called ‘terrorists’ and everybody would condemn it.
Let’s put aside all of that stuff for now.
There was a curious thing Benjamin Netanyahu had been saying a few months ago. In a meeting with President Trump, the Israeli Prime Minister called for the ‘Libya option’ to be followed with Iran.
What this refers to is Libya’s disarmament in 2003, in which the Gaddafi regime agreed to completely disclose and give up all WMD programmes and components, and allowing foreign inspections of its facilities.
If that’s what Netanyahu or Trump wanted for Iran, fine – that makes some sense, especially given that Netanyahu had said the alternative was preemptive military action.
The problem is that the so-called ‘Libya Model’ was catastrophic for Libya.
Sure, in the short term, it had benefits: economically, diplomatically and in terms of getting sanctions eased. It allowed Gaddafi’s Libya a brief spell of perceived ‘rehabilitation’ in the West.
But within eight years of giving up their WMD programme, Libya was being bombed relentlessly by NATO warplanes, Gaddafi was being murdered on the streets of Sirte, and the most developed country in Africa was turned into a failed state.
In other words, Libya’s weapons programme was a deterrent to the country’s destruction – as soon as the Libyans disarmed, they became a target.
In the midst of the War on Libya in 2011, Saif Gaddafi, the eldest son of the Libyan leader, said in an interview that his biggest regret was that Libya had given up its WMDs and fallen into the trap.
It’s a simple equation. After all, the deterrent effect is the whole *point* of WMDs – it’s the entire philosophy that all countries with nuclear or WMD programmes claim to subscribe to.
So, why should Iran, Libya or anywhere else be forced to not have that deterrent?
The irony – and there are so many ironies with all this stuff – is that Gaddafi agreed to Libyan disarmament because he wanted to avoid the fate of Saddam and Iraq. But they complied – and then suffered the fate of Saddam and Iraq anyway!
Even more ironic is that the US and co only invaded Iraq because they knew there were no WMDs – even though alleged WMDs were the stated reason for the invasion. In other words, if Saddam’s regime had possessed WMDs, it’s unlikely the invasion would’ve happened – because they would’ve had a deterrent.
So Libya was attacked and destroyed because they gave up their deterrent programme and Iraq was destroyed because they didn’t have the deterrent.
And Iran is being asked to give up its weapons programme – following the ‘Libya Model’?
Why would they do that?
I don’t like the regime in Iran, by the way: and I’ve never defended it. And again, I’m also morally opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But that’s really besides the point here.
Look at Iran geographically: it’s neighbouring a country that was illegally invaded and destabilised by the US (Iraq), neighbouring another country who’s government was just overthrown after over a decade of foreign-sponsored civil war (Syria), neighbouring another country that already has nuclear weapons (Pakistan), and another country that was under Western military domination for two decades (Afghanistan).
It was also subject to a war with Iraq in the 1980s, in which the US was militarily backing the Iraqis.
And to its south it has Israel – a hostile state it has an adversarial relationship with.
Would you give up your deterrent if you were in their shoes?
But the even bigger irony here – even bigger than the ‘Libya Model’ – is that the principle country constantly demanding Iran dismantle its weapons programme… is a country that itself possesses an entirely undeclared nuclear programme!
Decades after John F. Kennedy was demanding transparency from Israel regarding its secretive nuclear programme, they *still* haven’t disclosed any information about their arsenal.
Seymour Hersh’s book The Samson Option detailed Israel’s nuclear weapons programme and strategy in 1991.
A Strategic Vision Institute article describes it as ‘Israel’s D-Day strategy to annihilate the whole region by employing nuclear weapons in case Israel as a state is on the verge of collapse…’
The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is essentially a permanent elephant in the room – it doesn’t get openly talked about by anyone, except via innuendo and inference. And Israel not only isn’t signed to the non proliferation treaty, but it even tried to sell nuclear technology to the Apartheid government in South Africa.
Israel in fact seems to be the only country in the world that is allowed to maintain an entirely secret nuclear programme: which it has been doing since at least the late 1950s or early 60s: which was when JFK was demanding the Israelis open up their nuclear facilities for inspection.
This tension between the Kennedy White House and Israel continued right through 1963, until Kennedy was murdered in November that year. From that point on, the US reset its relationship with Israel and they were never pushed to disclose their nuclear programme again.
By the way, I’ve been working on an in-depth article specifically about the JFK/Israel controversy – which I’ll publish here shortly.
But yet it’s this same nation that, from its privileged position, demands that Iran cannot be allowed to have its own programme.
Even the deal painstakingly reached with Iran by the Obama administration and the Europeans wasn’t good enough for Netanyahu or Trump: both men repeatedly and fanatically condemned that agreement.
Why? From Netanyahu’s perspective, it’s because even though the deal imposed restrictions on the Iranian programme and had Iran subject to international regulation, it didn’t amount to a total capitulation by the Iranians.
And nothing short of total capitulation was deemed acceptable.
For Trump, it’s simply because the Iran Deal was part of the Obama legacy – and therefore couldn’t be allowed to stand. It was that petty.
Actually, even the previous Iran Deal may well have been a trap from the start, based on Brookings Institute blueprints: Wall of Controversy examines that here in his latest post. I also touched on that subject a while back, here.
Only one country in the region is allowed to have a nuclear programme.
And when its neighbours try to develop their own programmes, Netanyahu is immediately in the UN with his silly drawings, demanding disarmament – or else.
It’s a joke.
But the United States, ever ready to do Israel’s bidding, doesn’t seem to see the ridiculousness of the proposition.
But even Google tells us that the justification for Israel’s Samson Option is literally the same basic deterrent philosophy that could be cited by Iran – or could’ve been cited by Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi.
One of Google’s descriptions of the Samson Option says it is ‘primarily a deterrence strategy, meaning it aims to prevent an attack by making the potential consequences so severe that the adversary would choose not to attack.’
Simple. But what’s good for the goose is apparently forbidden for the gander.
Gaddafi made a mistake. Iran is being forced to either make the same mistake or to suffer military attack or even invasion.
Meanwhile, sixty years after Kennedy was demanding (in-vain) that Israel be transparent about its nuclear programme, no one else seems interested in the matter.
Interestingly, five days ago, Iran said it had obtained documents about Israel’s nuclear secrets and, according to some sources, was threatening to make them public. Make of that what you will.
A really excellent piece that concisely but meticulously sifts through the many layers of hypocrisy and the double standards operating here. This US-Israeli attack (which looks set to ignite a full-scale war) is so blatantly just the latest neocon regime change operation using its main West Asian proxy, while also in line with Israel’s and Netanyahu’s clean break’ policy and the Greater Israel project . Thanks also for the citation which is always greatly appreciated.