The advent of a new member to the nuclear club should be a cause for global concern irrespective of the newcomer’s race, color or creed. Unlike Philip Bowring, I would be worried if Iran were to acquire the bomb and just as worried if Lichtenstein were to do the same. I would even be worried if the Order of Mother Theresa were to go nuclear.
That’s in principle, and principles do not loathe exaggerations.
In practice, fear comes from the fact that countries acquire nuclear weapons for offensive purposes – to threaten and/or attack their enemy, or for defense – to dissuade an enemy and/or retaliate.
What’s obviously frightening is that attack and retaliation would both occur on this planet, and collateral damage would be both inevitable and devastating.
What’s less obvious but just as frightening is that the line between offensive and defensive moves in this game remains blurred at best, and non-existent when expediency dictates it. In a nutshell, there are no rules of engagement for the deadliest game mankind has so far invented. Here are a few points to ponder:
Was French President Chirac threatening to use nuclear force or was he trying to dissuade (supposed) terrorists from attacking France? Subsequently, will his contingent use of the bomb be deemed an attack or retaliation?
What should trigger nuclear response?
A terrorist attack? September 11 didn’t.
A terrorist attack with WMD? Who remembers anthrax?
The threat of a terrorist attack with WMD? Go hit the nebulous Syndicate. Who remembers Tora Bora?
Words – no matter how caustic or threatening – have not triggered The Deflagration in the past.
Yet another source of concern would emerge should Iran join the nuclear club.
With more radiation at its disposal, Iran’s revolutionary fervor could radiate more radiantly than ever. That should trouble rhetoric-sensitive ideologists. What worries the rest of us is that the radius of influence of an Iran-gone-nuclear will surely expand to encroach upon oil-rich expanses in the Arab Gulf and Central Asia that the U.S. deems to be vital to its interests.
The knee-jerk U.S. reaction would be to mount a preemptive strike at Iran’s nuclear installations.
But we’ve grown out of these reactions, now haven’t we?
A more reasoned, and certainly more rewarding reaction would be to circle the wagons in the Arab Gulf and Central Asia, under U.S. command of course, in order to countervail the (very convenient) Iranian threat.
Now I would expect European decision-makers to be worried stiff, and it so happens they are.
