Israel Matzav

Responding to a nuclear Iran

Gregory L. Schulte was U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 2005 to 2009 and worked at NATO Headquarters on crisis management and nuclear planning from 1992 to 1998. He has written this brief article on how NATO ought to respond to a nuclear Iran.

At the outset, I have to say that I am immensely bothered by the fact that Schulte seemingly takes for granted that Iran will be a nuclear power and will have nuclear weapons. Is he 'just being realistic'? I would say that if nothing is done to stop them, Iran will become a nuclear power and will have nuclear weapons. But I believe that we still must try to stop them.

Among the items in Schulte's prescription, I'd like to call your attention to this one.

Finally, NATO should consider the impact on its own nuclear policy. NATO allies have already dramatically reduced their nuclear forces, particularly in Europe, and most are attracted by the vision of a nuclear free world. However, the Alliance cannot rush to become nuclear free when nuclear dangers mount in the range of the Shahab 3 or future Iranian missiles. NATO’s nuclear forces may still have an important contribution to make in deterring Iran’s leaders from trying to exploit new nuclear arms and in reassuring allies and partners who might otherwise seek their own atom bombs. NATO’s nuclear weapons helped prevent nuclear proliferation during the Cold War; they may play a similar role now, in a very different context and at much reduced levels.

Of course, this is exactly the opposite direction from that chosen by the Obama administration. This reminds me of the gun debate in the US, where the slogan "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns" expresses both a reality and something that we ought to fear. If we enact world nuclear disarmament, only undemocratic rogue proliferaters will have nuclear weapons. Sounds like a scary prospect.

/Three years to go. What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:10 AM