nuclear-news

The political realities of Iran and the nuclear issue

Concerns built around the fiery anti-western and anti-Israeli rhetoric of Ahmadinejad and his clerical contemporaries again seem to be purposefully ignoring the realities of political theatre,

 US troops have been deployed along two of its major borders for more than a decade. Perhaps it is because, despite assisting coalition forces against the Taliban in 2001, Iran was singled out as one of the major targets of George W Bush’s infamous 2002 ‘Axis of Evil’ speech. Perhaps, with an unrivalled number of American-backed and led regime changes in the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa over the past 10 years, Tehran is getting even more wary of the impact of US exceptionalism in the region. Perhaps Tehran knows that, had Saddam actually possessed nuclear weapons in 2003 there is no way in hell the US would have pulled a blitzkrieg on Baghdad.

Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear arsenal makes perfect sense from a defensive and deterrence standpoint. 

Stop worrying and learn to love the Iranian bomb, The Drum,  Ben Rich   28 Dec 11,  Prominent figures within the Israeli and US governments are beating the war drum over the issue of Iran’s progress towards nuclearisation. Regardless of whether or not Iran will actually seek to weaponise its nuclear program, the chances of it utilising WMDs for anything more than posturing remain next to zero.

Critics of Iran’s nuclear program loudly contend that Tehran is irrational and will not operate within the accepted nuclear paradigm of modern states. This claim is at best, obtuse conjecture, and in all likelihood, purposeful disinformation.
Iranian foreign policy has traditionally been cautious, and post-revolutionary Iran has never initiated a conventional conflict. Claims that Tehran’s willingness to engage in clandestine operations demonstrate an inherent irrationality and hold little credibility when held up against the plethora of other states, many of them Western, who engage in the same activities and are still considered wholly rational.
Concerns built around the fiery anti-western and anti-Israeli rhetoric of Ahmadinejad and his clerical contemporaries again seem to be purposefully ignoring the realities of political theatre, instead seeking to cynically capitalise on an illusionary threat matrix……
Keeping the track record of Iran’s rationality in mind, it is important to consider its regional nemesis, Israel. Israel’s nuclear stockpile is, perhaps, the worst kept secret in modern politics. Jerusalem possesses approximately 200 warheads, many mounted in a second strike capacity inside hardened silos and submarines. It is true that Tehran possesses ballistic missiles that theoretically could mount a nuclear device and reach Israel; the Shahab-3 series can fly around 2,000 kilometres, with subsequent models further extending this range. But even if one of these rickety flying atomic corn silos were able to penetrate Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence shield, it would provide Jerusalem with more than enough casus belli to justify sending Iran back to the Palaeolithic era.

Rest assured, under such circumstances Netanyahu wouldn’t hesitate in immediately unleashing the full weight of his own far larger nuclear stockpile, and Iranian policy makers are fully aware of this eventuality.

If the agenda isn’t to release its one trump card into the hands of a collection of swarthy unreliable terrorists, then what is propelling Iran forward in its nuclear aspirations?
Perhaps it is the fact that US troops have been deployed along two of its major borders for more than a decade. Perhaps it is because, despite assisting coalition forces against the Taliban in 2001, Iran was singled out as one of the major targets of George W Bush’s infamous 2002 ‘Axis of Evil’ speech. Perhaps, with an unrivalled number of American-backed and led regime changes in the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa over the past 10 years, Tehran is getting even more wary of the impact of US exceptionalism in the region. Perhaps Tehran knows that, had Saddam actually possessed nuclear weapons in 2003 there is no way in hell the US would have pulled a blitzkrieg on Baghdad.

Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear arsenal makes perfect sense from a defensive and deterrence standpoint. Releasing such a weapon into the hands of terrorists would undermine any strategic gains endowed by such a capacity, entrusting the nation’s fate to an unreliable third party that existed outside the international nuclear paradigm.

Whatever distorted reality some commentators try to conjure up, the facts remain the same – Iranian foreign policy has historically been careful and considered, always opting for pokes and prods through subterfuge and espionage over punches and kicks through direct force and warfare. While such actions can be a nuisance, they are far from the existential threat some would like to believe, and there is no reason to think a nuclear Iran would break from its historical disposition.
Iran’s aims remain the same – security and the pipe dream of regional hegemony. Utilising a nuclear weapon offensively would undermine all Tehran’s efforts in realising these objectives and the insinuation that it would suddenly take a 180 degree policy turn simply doesn’t hold up under critical analysis.

But don’t fret, fear mongers, if you really want to highlight the case of a worrisomely weak and unstable state with nuclear weapons, just move your gaze to the south east to Islamabad, you know, our old ally… http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3748956.html

December 28, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, Iran, politics international