I have already thrown some substantial doubt on whether Iran was (or is, or ever will be) on the brink of being a nuclear weapons power. But even if it is, it's by no means clear that dropping bombs on it is going to help that.
I don't see that Iran poses any more of a threat to security in the Middle East, certainly no more than Israel itself, which, remember, unilaterally attacked Iran, calling it an "existential threat" in its usual overblown language, and then persuaded their buddies in the USA to join in. Israel would just as happily erase Iran (just as they are trying their best to do in Palestine) as Iran would erase Israel. And, remember, Israel is reported to already have over 90 nuclear weapons, even if it doesn't admit it, whereas Iran has ... zero. But you don't see the US bombing THEIR secret nuclear program. Or North Korea's. Or Pakistan's.
There's valid case to be made that Israel and the USA's provocation of Iran may even worsen nuclear proliferation, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. Like or or not, nuclear weapons are a deterrent of sorts, and Iran has just proved that, if you don't have nukes, you run the risk of being bombed. However, things pan out in the current conflict, Iran is probably more, not less, like to try to arm itself with nuclear weapons in the future.
Nuclear proliferation expert Professor Robert Kelly warns that attacks on Iran may lead directly to both "vertical" and "horizontal" proliferation, as non-nuclear states look to acquire them, and existing nuclear states look to expand and improve their stocks. For example he can easily see Saudi Arabia acquiring weapons of mass destruction if Iran feels the need to do so.
North Korea will see Iran's experience as a ringing endorsement of their nuclear program, and there is talk that South Korea might pursue their own program in defence, all the more so if the US withdraws its "nuclear umbrella". Even Germany and Poland are considering nukes, even - believe it or not - Japan.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, a great friend of the Iranian regime that has provided him with countless drone weapons for his illegal occupation of Ukraine, may get dragged into this new conflict. Blasting the US attacks, which he says have "no basis and no justification", Putin has already met with Iran's foreign minister, and Deputy Head of Russia's Security Council Dmitry Medvedev claims that "a number of countries" are ready to supply Iran with nuclear weapons following the US strikes. So where this may go is anyone's guess.
The threat of nuclear proliferation has not been so profound for decades, possibly ever. Unilaterally picking on Iran's nuclear program may actually make everything worse.
UPDATE
Incidentally, just while we are talking about it, I have read many times that "there is no civilian use for 60% enriched uranium", or variations thereon, the implications being that Iran is necessarily engaged in the production of nuclear weapons.
Well, not so. It turns out that uranium enriched to 60% DOES have some civilian uses. It can be used in certain research reactors, and it can be used to make certain radioisotopes for medical use, such as tc99 (the most common medical isotope used for medical imaging). Uranium enriched to 80-90%, however, cannot be used for anything other than a nuclear weapon. 60% enriched uranium is not practical for weapons production.
Now, I'm not saying that Iran is suddenly going into the nuclear medicine business, but it helps to be clear and accurate in the claims made.
No comments:
Post a Comment