The International Shambles
Tim Hames writes in the Times of London on what the international shambles over a coherent stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions will likely bring about. It is not at all a rosy picture. For all the dedicated "internationalists" out there it really is important to note that this could well spell the end of the UN.
Whether a nation possesses nuclear weapons is not always a political catastrophe. That Israel has such an arsenal has surely rendered another regional war similar to those of 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973 unviable. That both India and Pakistan have the bomb is better than only one of them being in that position, and conflict was more likely when each enjoyed only conventional military muscle. The thought of the crackpot regime in North Korea being a member of the atomic club does not lift the heart, but it dare not dream of deploying such weapons without the blessing of Beijing, which would not be forthcoming. There is an extent to which nuclear missiles are little more than a national virility symbol, the military version of counterfeit Viagra.
Yet Iran is different, which is why a collapse in resolve towards Tehran really matters.
Iran is a special case because, first, it is already an established menace. It has spent the past two decades consistently seeking to sabotage any prospect of a permanent peace settlement between Israel and its neighbours and it remains dedicated to that mission. It continues to sponsor extremist fanatics in the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon. It is behind much of the trouble that has tortured Iraq and it does not intend to stop pulling these strings once US and British troops have left. If it becomes a nuclear nation, it is likely to be emboldened in these deeds.
Iran is also distinct because this project is not merely about national symbolism, but also religious aspirations. It would not be an “Islamic” bomb but a “Shia Islamic” bomb, the most potent physical representation so far of a drive to seize command over a faith that was briefly, if tenuously, held and then lost in the 7th century. It would be in the hands of people whose interpretation of theology places a weight and value on the concept of martyrdom that the rest of us properly find alien, bizarre and chilling.
Sunni nations, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, would, rightly, be aghast at, and uncomfortable with, the notion that they have to rely on Israel as their de facto nuclear deterrent. The incentives for them, too, to pursue nuclear status would be overwhelming. Indeed, to put it bluntly, if Tehran obtains nuclear standing, then tacitly encouraging Cairo and Riyadh to travel down the same path may be the least bad outcome for outsiders to fall back on.
An Iranian nuclear capacity would, finally, make a mockery of the United Nations. It would be seen as confirmation that the phrase “Security Council ultimatum” is close to a contradiction in terms. I am not a huge fan of this organisation, but it undoubtedly has its merits. It will be seen as having huffed and puffed on Iran and blown nothing down. Other rogue states will observe these events and reach their own, rational, conclusions. What passes for international order will be deeply undermined by this imminent debacle.
It would be a good thing to read this article in its entirety. I have been saying all along that the world has got to stand together on this or there will be enormous negative consequences. We are running out of time and trying to point fingers is not at all helpful.
UPDATE: Reader_I_Am at Done With Mirrors really lets fly on this one. Highly recommended.
By reader_iam, September 4, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Thanks for the link, Gaius, and the nice words. I worry that the phrase “all the time in the world” is quickly moving into the territory of “quaint,” something I would not wish on my young child or anyone else’s.
By Gaius, September 4, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
Yeah, I know. I feel like time is running out and some people are not paying attention. Too damn busy with their self absorbed navel gazing.