fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

The Dangers of Exaggerating the Threat From Iran

An Iranian bomb is likely to unleash the most divisive partisan discord in this country since the 1949 debate about who lost China. In the end, neither the turbulent order of the Middle East nor the partisan politics of Washington can afford an Islamic Republic armed with nuclear weapons. ~Ray Takeyh The first thing to […]

An Iranian bomb is likely to unleash the most divisive partisan discord in this country since the 1949 debate about who lost China. In the end, neither the turbulent order of the Middle East nor the partisan politics of Washington can afford an Islamic Republic armed with nuclear weapons. ~Ray Takeyh

The first thing to say about this is that the debate over “who lost China” was a phenomenally stupid one. The correct answer was that the Nationalists lost China, and this wasn’t something that U.S. policymakers were in any realistic position to prevent. Since WWII, there have been many events around the world that partisan opponents of a given administration have used as ammunition for their attacks, and the refrain is always the same, “How could President [fill in the blank] have let this happen?” This is a politically useful tactic, but it vastly exaggerates what any President is able to control. Of course, when the government enjoys global preeminence and takes that preeminence as license to dictate terms to weaker states, it becomes hard for the head of that government to admit that there are things that this government cannot effectively influence or stop. This week, Obama is being blamed for deaths in Syria for which he has no responsibility whatever, because he has “failed” to do enough to prevent them, which takes for granted that there is something that could have been done that would have prevented them. In the unlikely event that the Iranian government tests a nuclear weapon in the next few years, there will certainly be a great deal of finger-pointing, because most elected members of both parties have been opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, and administrations of both parties could be unfairly blamed for having “failed” to prevent it.

The more that everyone exaggerates and hypes the significance of this development beforehand, the worse the political fight will be later. Recognizing that an Iranian bomb isn’t a disaster the world cannot afford is a good place to start. This will not only allow for more sober responses in the event that Iran acquires one, but it may allow the U.S. and its allies to avoid doing the very things that will prompt Iran to decide to build one.

Patrick Disney had a valuable article the other day that should force us to think more critically about what we think we know of Iran’s nuclear program. For one, the Iranian government has probably not yet decided on whether to develop nuclear weapons:

While there is no way to know for sure, many Iran experts agree that Iran most likely does not have a nuclear weapon because there is as yet no consensus in the political leadership in favor of weaponization. This is good news, because without such consensus, there can be no Iranian weapons program.

Instead of treating an Iranian bomb as something that Tehran is desperately seeking and must be prevented from having, a far more constructive approach would be to give Iran as few reasons as possible for wanting to develop these weapons. If there is no internal consensus in the Iranian government on this question, don’t provide it with an excuse to forge that consensus. Almost everyone involved in this debate in the West treats Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as a given, but it is this assumption of inevitability that produces policies that will ensure that something that may well be avoidable becomes inevitable.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here