Iran's Waiting Game

Now I am no expert on nuclear weapons nor am I an expert on fortune telling but there is a lot of conversation going on about Iran and their potential nuclear deal with the US-led P5+1. The basic idea of the plan is to freeze Iran in its progression toward nuclear goals in return for lighter sanctions. The US and its allies hope that this will have a long term, even permanent, effect in hoping that Iran will abandon its current designs. The confounding part is that with a permanent objective, the deal would expire in merely 10 years then allowing Iran to continue as it wishes after that.

President Obama has defended the plan in stating that if the measures of the deal are followed, then the US and its allies would know about any nuclear weapon-building at least a year before completion providing ample time for preparation and retaliation.

I admit that this does sound good for the most part. It would be my hope that Iran would see that it is unnecessary in our interconnected world of alliances for nuclear weapons though that is unlikely. Setting a time limit on this deal seems to be simply prolonging nuclear proliferation.

The P5+1 is made up of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, China, Russia, and France) and Germany as the “+1”. Is it likely now that in a little more than 10 years we will see that go from “+1” to “+2”? Could Iran eventually be involved in this nuclear alliance or will this deal drive a spike through weapons control.

One Iranian newspaper spoke about its desire for nuclear building and recognition. The author was quick to mention that Iran is quickly becoming a regional hegemonic power in the Middle East and is a vital player for stability in the region. The author mentions that its nuclear bomb would not be for offensive purposes but would be used as a tool to maintain stability in the region.

This rhetoric is a bit reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine. The US foreign policy for years was protecting the Western Hemisphere from Eastern involvement. Rather than east and west this nuclear weapon in Iran would in their theory act as a wall of defense or a barrier to keep others from meddling in Middle East affairs.

It sounds like a good deal but then again the realist theory states that because of the fear of mutually assured destruction, the more countries that have claims to a nuclear weapon, the more fear is produced, the less action will be taken, and world peace will be achieved. That is the most basic form of the pro-nuclear proliferation argument which theoretically is sound.

Maybe it is time to accept that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. Maybe it is time to invest in other allies to produce nuclear weapons as well. This seems to be the direction the world is heading in anyhow; it is all a matter of time. 10 years, give or take, talk is fleeting as long-standing goals will likely conquer.