The U.S. is continuing to work with allies to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. According to this report, President Obama is close to achieving consensus for a new round of sanctions:
US President Barack Obama warned Iran on Tuesday that he would isolate the Islamic republic with a “significant regime of sanctions” if it continued to set its stall on developing nuclear weapons. Stepping up the heat on Iran’s leaders at an impromptu appearance in the White House briefing room, Obama said the six key world powers were “moving along fairly quickly” to toughen measures against Tehran. He indicated that his administration had made headway in persuading Russia to overcome its traditional resistance to imposing new sanctions on Iran, even if there was still some opposition from China. “It’s moving along fairly quickly,” Obama said, referring to negotiations on what to do next involving six leading world powers — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany.
The American policy is based on the fundamental assumption that a nuclear armed Iran would be a threat to U.S. and regional interests. As with other areas of life, it can be helpful to examine our fundamental assumptions. Is it possible that the U.S. could live with a nuclear Iran? Could that outcome enhance the U.S. role in the region? The answer to both questions is yes according to this New York Times op-ed by Adam Lowther, a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute:
Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Lowther goes on to suggest that a nuclear armed Iran would present other opportunities for the U.S., allowing the U.S. to challenge the OPEC cartel, bring Israel and the Palestinians together, sell more weapons and build more strategic partnerships in the region. He seems unconcerned that a nuclear Iran would spark a regional arms race.
I’m not saying that I agree with his assessment of the benefits of a nuclear Iran, just that it can be helpful to question our assumptions. I would proceed from an entirely different basic assumption: any effort to increase the number of nuclear armed states is a challenge to the U.S. and a threat to world peace. Do we want a world with an ever increasing number of nuclear armed countries? No. Our efforts to prevent Iran from producing or acquiring nuclear weapons then follow from a logical and reasonable assumption. It’s not about Iran, it’s about non-proliferation.
