locally owned since 1854

Sheldon Richman: The Iranian 'threat' is fictitious

Posted 10/29/12

By Sheldon Richman

 

President Barack Obama, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have at least one thing in common when it comes to Iran: All are guilty of flagrant …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Sheldon Richman: The Iranian 'threat' is fictitious

Posted

Each says that a nuclear-armed Iran could not be effectively contained the way the U.S. government contained the nuclear-armed Soviet Union and Communist China. Yet each also says that Iran can be prevented from acquiring a nuclear capability or weapon if the U.S. and Israel draw a “red line” and threaten Iran militarily if it crosses the line.

Both assertions cannot be true.

In a speech Obama gave to the United Nations, he said, “Make no mistake, a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. . . the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.’’

Romney has said similar things. In his speech in Jerusalem last August, he said that Iran “gives us no reason to trust them with nuclear material” and that “preventing [their developing a nuclear capability] must be our highest national security priority.”

In a speech before the UN, Netanyahu, holding a poster of a cartoon bomb, said, “There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Professor Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.’’

All three men portray the Iranian regime as consisting of suicidal fanatics who, once having acquired even one nuclear weapon, would use it against Israel. Obama, Romney, and Netanyahu seem to believe the Iranians would use the bomb regardless of Israel’s powerful military and its nuclear arsenal of at least 200 warheads, some of which are mounted on submarines, permitting a devastating second-strike capability.

In other words, if the Iranian regime were to acquire a nuclear bomb (a very big “if”), there would be no reasoning with it. Threats of massive retaliation — the essence of containment and deterrence — would likely have no effect whatsoever.

But if that is true, why would Obama, Romney, and Netanyahu expect that setting red lines backed by military threats would have the desired effect of deterring Iran from developing a nuclear capability or a weapon itself?

How can Obama and Romney hope that harsh sanctions will dissuade Iran’s “apocalyptic leaders” from developing a nuclear capability?

The media accept these men’s premises rather than putting it to the test. This is the assertion, as Netanyahu would have it, that Iran is racing toward acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

Both the Israeli and the U.S. intelligence communities say that Iran has not decided to acquire a weapon. Contrary to Netanyahu’s hysterical warnings of a pending existential threat (warnings that go back decades), Iran has been turning its enriched uranium into a form that, while suitable for producing medical isotopes, is unsuitable for making weapons.

Twice America’s intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran scrapped its suspected nuclear program in 2003, after the U.S. military ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Moreover, Iran, unlike Israel, has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is subject to inspections by permanently stationed International Atomic Energy Agency personnel.

The Iranian “threat” is another manufactured crisis.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, a Virginia think tank.