What if?
In an OP-ED piece in today’s Wall Street Journal Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the US, makes the point that in the face of a real or implied threat of military intervention by the US, a “rogue” nuclear power should find it more secure to abandon nuclear weapons, rather than develop them. He further underscores the virtue of such logic by saying, in effect, “Imagine how awful it would be if Gadhafi had the bomb!”
As far as Oren goes, this is true. But he fails to admit the equally seductive logic that nuclear weapons make it much more difficult for a nation to be overwhelmed by either its hostile neighbors or distant foreign powers. To wit: North Korea, Pakistan and – yes – Israel. Whether you love or hate Iran, you can’t help but understand how insecure she feels encircled by nuclear neighbors: Pakistan on the eastern border, Russia to the north, their enemy, Israel, a hop skip and a jump to the west, India not much further, and North Korea at a bit of a distance – and, of course, The US, Great Britain, France and China.
For Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would unquestionably be a major setback to the West. It would empower an oppressive regime and would surely represent a dangerous increase in regional instability, a threat to world peace and a threat to world health. But how does Mr. Oren propose to rationalize the development and distribution of nuclear weapons by nations? By size? I think not. Apparently he believes it’s OK for “good” countries to have them, just not “bad” countries.
In all honesty, I don’t think he has advanced the debate much.