This week's column

What will America do when Iran has nuclear weapons?

Hillary Clinton promises she'd "obliterate" Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel, suggesting that, as president, she'd return the "favor" -- in spades.

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, the senator raises an excellent point: What will America do when Iran gets nuclear weapons? Many national security experts still think Washington can stop Tehran's reach for the bomb. I am not one of them. Iran has already achieved a sloppy, asymmetrical form of nuclear deterrence, meaning we can't stop it from "getting nuclear" unless we "go nuclear" pre-emptively, something we won't do.

Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.

Comments

[Elmer Humes]

Tom, this is an excellent, succinct set of "what-ifs" which provides excellent perspective on what to expect in the middle east. It also highlights the potential Shia/Sunni Muslim conflict in the nuclear race as well. Clearly detente is the way to keep nuclear threat in check for all those who value human life; but we all must continue to minimize the suicidal terrorists who do not.

[William R. Cumming.]

I am probably incorrect but firmly believe that at least 10 other countries, including Russia oddly perhaps, are ahead of US in desire to NOT have IRAN develop delivery capability and nuclear weapons.Our Iraninan policy is just too simplistic. Any modern nation can use available knowledge with enough time and money to go nuclear. Just as I think China does not want a fully nuclear capable and armed Japan, they recognized that if N.Korea develops into a fully nuclear capable and armed state Japan also has to do so. One direct impact of Iran going nuclear capable would be the end of the Israeli fiction that they might NOT have nuclear weapons.

[Jarrod Myrick]

"The only winning move is not to play....How about a nice game of chess?" WarGames, 1983.

Please enumerate for me the states which would back a decapitation strike on Tehran--the unilateral strike is just a terrible play and not realistic, I say. And rolling out the parking lot talk and number of Persians to keep alive after nuclear holocaust? A touch cavalier. At what point in recent human history has Persia not been considered a great power? White guys decide the standards? We are of the same species. *Yes.* The consequences of Ending a particular culture w/thermonuclear missiles are what exactly? I have a few different lists ginned up on the backs of envelopes. The possible unintended consequences are what exactly? No good choices indeed. Honesty is no longer a serious option? Who am I, a fool I guess, to even consider it? Microsoft went w/the radical transparency tact w/Yahoo.Radical transparency in real-time: *We* have video cameras on every 5 year olds cell phone. You talk about the mother cause celebre - w/ troops and contractors totally exposed. I'll go out on a limb and say Iranian Americans will not be thrilled that their families have been vaporized. W/approval ratings in the 20s, lame duck Bush squeezes a few off? Not w/out a wag-the-dog, not w/out a wag-the-dog. Where are the statesmen? Meet-up in Istanbul--East/West ye great powers. Play chess. This *can* be worked out in time. The suicide insurance seems more necessary for Kim Jung Weirdo and/or whoever or whatever emerges in Pakistan--long view says system-level shocks come from anywhere in the Furnace or the so-called the Global South. We're too preoccupied in the ME, the military's overextended, and the opportunity costs are much too expensive. We're sending guys back w/PTSD. The back door draft is real, and they're going back into the worst possible position strategically. We need to solidify gains where possible, but come on it's going to be hot there for a long time--you just can make that many mistakes and "win." But Great Power War is over for a long time if we want it to be. MAD and the Nash equilibrium are still locked-in, sound theories. Not sure what exactly it takes, but it's going to take a lot of people doing they're part wherever they are.

Ideas matter, and nobody--not even Hitchens--can wish God away.We need a multinational SysAdmin force in the Levant--toss some security at them; toss em jobs and Milton Friedman; tell em we need em: we need doctors, nurses, scientists, writers, filmmakers,lawyers, judges. 10 billion self-actualized adults living on a higherplane by 2100. Wake up now.

[Seerov]

"If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would retaliate massively with nuclear weapons," (-Tom Barnett)

Someone once said that "there are no stupid questions." With this in mind, I have to ask the following question:

If we do "retaliate massively" with Nuclear weapons against Iran, doesn't this make Israel even more unsafe from all the radiation?

I know its stupid but can someone help me out with this?

[Seth]

My worry with Iran and a nuclear weapon isn’t that terrorists would get the weapon or a direct strike on another nation, my concern is the threat of an EMP (see Congressional EMP Commission Report-http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/2004_r/04-07-22emp.pdf). Talk about a different kind of war- not a single direct casualty but an infrastructure and economy in ruins. The problem with this scenario is what would be the motivation? Just general havoc doesn’t seem to be enough, but if Iran viewed the U.S. economy as weak or wavering they may think that they had a chance to create a full blown collapse. Once again would the U.S. respond with a nuclear strike? Difficult to say.

[Yankee Sailor]

Tom,

I'm with you that on our (meaning the West's) current course a nuclear Iran is an inevitibility, but I think you're too quick to assume that Iran will only think of their new-found capability from the perspective of a "state actor". The Iranians have a disturbing willingness to behave in ways that are not consistent with a traditional nation-state. As a result, the biggest danger of an Iranian bomb is still that it might be delivered by truck or ship.

In addition, even from the perspective of a state actor, Iran - and Saudi Arabia - would be well behind the curve of Israel when the Israelis' BMD capabilities are taken into account.

[stuart abrams]

History teaches that nuclear weapons have only been used when one nation has a monopoly on them. Thus, Israel today is the only nation that realistically could be seen using nuclear weapons, as Dr. Barnett correctly notes. While Israel's military superiority has made it unnecessary for it to use nuclear weapons in order to defend itself, that is something of a chimera. Israel's military strength derives from the fact that the US has chosen to give such military superiority to Israel, in large part to ensure that Israel is not tempted to use its nuclear weapons. However, this situation has seriously affected the US policy options in the Middle East by casting us in the role of Israel's uncritical benefactor. In short, the Israeli nuclear monopoly remains a highly destabilizing condition.The idea of the US extending its nuclear umbrella to Iran is sound. First, it makes the idea of a nuclear Iran thinkable, and it effectively eliminates any further argument against US diplomatic engagement of Iran. However, the announcement of this policy will require subtlety, something recent US governments have obviously lacked. It is important that the US extension of its nuclear umbrella not be perceived by Iran (and the rest of the Middle East) as an attempt to give Israel first-strike capability. After all, we have never announced a policy of threatening Israel with "obliteration" if it uses nuclear weapons, so the US is unlikely to be perceived as a neutral force in the region. The better way would be if the extension of a nuclear umbrella to the Middle East were done through an international consortium, consisting not just of the US, but of other nuclear powers like China, Russia, and the EU as well. However, that would require that we refrain from demonizing China (and Russia), which is the subject of another of Dr. Barnett's posts.

[Blair Stewart]

Okay, Tom, I truly am prepared to buy into your deterrent argument, until I realize who's in charge in Iran. Having been in the strategic deterrence business for most of my adult life, one thing was clear: deterrence generally ONLY works on logical people/rulers. I for one am not quite ready to concede that the deterrence you assert will result from a Middle East equation containing a nuclear-armed Iran will indeed materialize, so where does that leave us? Are we truly willing to roll such "big-time" dice with a nutjob like Ahmadinejad?

On the other hand, I don't especially like the alternatives you lay out: nuke 'em now, invade now, etc. Alas, I am reluctantly left to believe we ought to at least start a dialog with the mullahs et al. as you suggest, but I don't see anyone on the horizon (US personalities or others) with the cojones to pull this off without selling the farm.

[Anonymous]

Blair: you said it yourself in the second graf: it's the mullahs, not Ahmadinejad.

[Jarrod Myrick]

What would constitute selling out the farm?

[Blair Stewart]

"What would constitute selling out the farm?"

A lame agreement for the sake of agreement ala Chamberlain, or any other historical example of appeasement on the part of naive negotiators who think they can "work with" rulers who don't play by the same rules as they do.