On the November 12 Republican debate Mitt Romney asserted that if “…we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.” Since Romney is a top-tier candidate, it is worthwhile considering seriously the troubling statement quoted above.
No one disputes that Iran’s nuclear success in civilian technology will translate into a military capability. But it is a mistake to believe that a military solution exists to prevent Iran’s nuclear ascendancy.
Clifford D. May goes through a good account of Iran’s extra official and terrorist activities, and communicates his amazement at everything that Iran accomplished while being “weak-” meaning a non-nuclear state. This was very odd. That same list told me that as a non-nuclear power Iran has positioned itself intelligently in the international arena, and is not so weak.
Strength and power are relative terms. If a political unit is conventionally weak, then it resorts to unconventional methods to achieve its aims. Americans against the British in 1776, Jews against the British in Palestine, Palestinians against Jews in Israel and the occupied territories, Viet Cong against the US, and the list goes on and on.
States also sponsor non-state actors to accomplish their goals when direct confrontations are deemed too risky. US financing of insurgents in Nicaragua and Afghanistan during the Cold War, Soviet and Chinese financing of insurgents in South Vietnam, and Iranian financing of insurgents in Iraq and of Lebanese-based Hezbollah.
Unlike the easily scared Saudis in 1985, the surprised Iraqis in 1981 and the aloof Syrians in 2007, Iran has the capability to respond to an attack on its nuclear facilities through unconventional and, increasingly, conventional means. In 2010 Thomas Friedman wrote that Hezbollah was in possession of over 40,000 missiles. At the same time, the 2006 Lebanon War demonstrated that Hezbollah is a formidable fighting force.
Yes, Iran is too weak to invade and conquer an Arab state (and so is the United States, by the way). But beware. Iran is not too weak to inflict damage on Israel, or an invading army, through its conventional strength or too weak to give Hezbollah the order to join the fight. And considering how close Iran is to becoming a nuclear state, the best argument against another American military adventure is that if the consequences of such action were deemed manageable, the Israelis would have already done it.
Mitt Romney’s claim that Iran will not have nuclear weapons if he is elected diminishes past experiences with Iran and ignores the available information. These would be deadly symptoms for a new administration deciding its Iran policy. Now and in the future the US must be careful that the rhetoric employed in the coming Iran-nuclear crisis does not corner the US or Iran into actions that are detrimental to Americans, Iranians and the region.
