Could the WikiLeaks disclosures, which are causing all sorts of negative fallout for the Obama administration’s foreign policy, actually lead to some foreign policy successes? Regarding most of the leaks the upshot will probably run the gamut from benign, to embarrassing, to trivially detrimental; however, there is one area where there may be a potential, albeit slight, for a constructive outcome.
Two facts, which were previously widely assumed, have now been confirmed. The first is the growing fear in the Arab world about Iran’s expanding power and nuclear ambitions. The second is Israel’s clandestine diplomacy with these same Arab powers.
Regarding the former, leaked documents show a number of Arab states’ unease with Iran’s nuclear program. These documents, as reported in the Financial Times, call for the US to stop Iran’s ambitions, including with direct attacks. This is relatively unsurprising as balancing between the big Arab states and Iran is a constant feature of the region. No Arab state, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the other two regional heavyweights, want to see a nuclear Iran.
Likewise, the disclosure of Israel’s communications with some of these states is unsurprising. Israel does not have official diplomatic channels with most Arab nations; however, despite public rhetoric they do often have common concerns.
While none of this is surprising to the casual follower of the region, most know that these Arab leaders say one thing in public while another thing behind closed doors. Much of this, of course, is due to the strong opinions of the Arab street and Muslim fundamentalists. However, now the metaphorical cat is out of the bag.
What is done with this “cat” though could have interesting consequences for the region. Most likely the Arab states will attempt to distance themselves from these revelations, brushing them off as distortions or simply ignoring the leaks. However, if the Arab leadership address these facts head-on and take ownership, it could profoundly alter the political map.
As both sets of disclosures prove, Israel and the Arab states are, at least in some issues, on the same side. In particular, Iran represents a growing threat to stability in the region and, at a minimum in Israel’s case, an existential threat. Currently, however, Arab nations and Israel are precluded from working together largely by the Arab street’s political pressure over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Islamic fundamentalism’s abhorrence of the Jewish state.
While admittedly these place enormous constraints on the Arab leadership, who might very well lose their power if they worked openly with Israel, the animosity towards Israel is increasingly a strategic anchor. The Jewish state is no longer the (perceived) greatest threat to the Arab world, just as the Palestinian problem is no longer the most significant issue for Israel.
This opens the door for expanded coordination between the Arab world and Israel and, daresay, a potential path to peace. Rather than spurning these disclosures, Arab leaders should attempt to use these revelations of their true security concerns to begin a (yes, slight) redirection of the Arab street’s focus. While a rush to normalized diplomatic relations with Israel is probably premature, the Arab leaders can use the WikiLeaks disclosures as a first hole in the dike which has separated Israel and the Arabs for some 60 years.
Rapprochement between Israel and the Arab states is essential for both regional and individual state security. While domestic conditions certainly make this difficult, WikiLeaks may have helped get the ball rolling. It is certainly too early to tell where this will lead, but ironically someday Julian Assange might be called a hero (okay I doubt that) for lighting the spark that checked Iran’s nuclear rise and precipitating peace between Israel and the Arabs.
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
The (Upcoming?) Attack On Iran: Israel Alone
In September, a Washington Post reluctantly deduced that the end of 2009 was Iran’s last chance for negotiations. The authors, Daniel R. Coats (a former Republican Senator), Charles S. Robb (a former Democrat Senator) and Charles Wald (a retired general and air commander) called for the application of military tactics. They wrote:
An increase in the threats of (credible) military action would have two effects. First, it would provide disincentives to the otherwise obdurate Iran. As has been readily apparent, the carrots of negotiation and talk have done nothing to dissuade Iran’s quest for nuclear weaponry. The nation has developed an uncanny ability to work the system. By adding a healthy dose of ‘sticks’ to the bounty of carrots, the administration can hope to dissuade Iranian behavior.
However, such threats cannot be baseless. Iran may very well attempt to call a bluff. The administration must be ready to show that promises of military action are sincere. In order to limit the possibility of war, lower-scale military conflict, such as the naval blockade that Coats, Robb, and Wald suggest, can be the ‘bluff-testing’ actions. This would give the West ample opportunity to prove its commitment to ending the Iranian threat without immediately necessitating war.
Second, an increase in bellicose rhetoric would assuage some of Israel’s disquietude. The small Jewish state is rightly concerned with a nuclear Iran. Ahmadinejad has long called for the destruction of Israel. The Israeli government will not sit idly as Iran develops a nuclear arsenal. However, It is in America's interest to lead any potential military action against Iran. An Israeli-led conflict, that will most defintely pull in the United States, will have negative effects on global opinion and support for the war making its prosecution all the more difficult.
However, Israel is understandably wary about preemptively attacking Iran. Contrary to its past attacks on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, a military strike on Iran’s facilities would be extremely difficult. In all likelihood, as a recent article in The Economist discusses, a preemptive strike would most likely fail to completely eliminate the Iranian threat. Furthermore, any attack, either from Israel or the United States, would certainly lead to a counterattack on the Jewish state.
However, unlike what seems to be an increasing acceptance of a nuclear Iran in the White House, Israel is unlikely to tolerate a regional game-changer. The Obama administration is obviously restraining Netanyahu, but will only be able to do so for so long. At the end of the day the threat of annihilation will outweigh any pitfalls of a military excursion or the cajoling from America. In order to prevent full military action it is necessary for the administration to finally take the mantle of leadership and rely on the use of military threats. The Obama Doctrine of extending hands to clenched fists has proven a dismal failure. However, it is not too late for the President to alter his foreign policy.
If all else fails, in early 2010, the White House should elevate consideration of the military option. This need not involve a strike. A naval blockade would help ensure the effectiveness of proposed sanctions, such as an embargo on gasoline imports. Ultimately, though, a U.S.-led military strike is a feasible, albeit risky, option of last resort.It is now three weeks into the New Year and nothing has been done to address Iran’s missed deadline. As Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon, the risks of catastrophe grow. Despite the fact that the administration’s naïve foreign policy eschews the discussion of military options, it is pertinent that such discourse begins. The administration must take the lead on quashing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, particularly before Israel feels compelled to take matters into their own hands.
Next month's talks may be one of the last opportunities to diplomatically address the advancing Iranian nuclear threat. If Iran chooses to waste yet another such chance, President Obama will have no choice but to fulfill his February commitment to "use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."
An increase in the threats of (credible) military action would have two effects. First, it would provide disincentives to the otherwise obdurate Iran. As has been readily apparent, the carrots of negotiation and talk have done nothing to dissuade Iran’s quest for nuclear weaponry. The nation has developed an uncanny ability to work the system. By adding a healthy dose of ‘sticks’ to the bounty of carrots, the administration can hope to dissuade Iranian behavior.
However, such threats cannot be baseless. Iran may very well attempt to call a bluff. The administration must be ready to show that promises of military action are sincere. In order to limit the possibility of war, lower-scale military conflict, such as the naval blockade that Coats, Robb, and Wald suggest, can be the ‘bluff-testing’ actions. This would give the West ample opportunity to prove its commitment to ending the Iranian threat without immediately necessitating war.
Second, an increase in bellicose rhetoric would assuage some of Israel’s disquietude. The small Jewish state is rightly concerned with a nuclear Iran. Ahmadinejad has long called for the destruction of Israel. The Israeli government will not sit idly as Iran develops a nuclear arsenal. However, It is in America's interest to lead any potential military action against Iran. An Israeli-led conflict, that will most defintely pull in the United States, will have negative effects on global opinion and support for the war making its prosecution all the more difficult.
However, Israel is understandably wary about preemptively attacking Iran. Contrary to its past attacks on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, a military strike on Iran’s facilities would be extremely difficult. In all likelihood, as a recent article in The Economist discusses, a preemptive strike would most likely fail to completely eliminate the Iranian threat. Furthermore, any attack, either from Israel or the United States, would certainly lead to a counterattack on the Jewish state.
However, unlike what seems to be an increasing acceptance of a nuclear Iran in the White House, Israel is unlikely to tolerate a regional game-changer. The Obama administration is obviously restraining Netanyahu, but will only be able to do so for so long. At the end of the day the threat of annihilation will outweigh any pitfalls of a military excursion or the cajoling from America. In order to prevent full military action it is necessary for the administration to finally take the mantle of leadership and rely on the use of military threats. The Obama Doctrine of extending hands to clenched fists has proven a dismal failure. However, it is not too late for the President to alter his foreign policy.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A Nuclear Free World Won’t Be a Blast
One of the prominent themes throughout this week’s sessions at the United Nations was a nuclear free world. The Security Council passed a resolution today, reaffirming the support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The underlying message, bolstered by President Obama’s remarks, was clear: the guiding policy is to create a world without nuclear weapons. While noble in aim, there are two main questions surrounding the legitimacy of such a policy.
First, there is a question of feasibility. It is highly unlikely that the world community will be able to rid itself of every single nuclear weapon. While many, if not all, nations publically state agreement with this principle, practice is much more difficult. Global insecurity causes hesitation in many leaders. The delicate disarmament negotiations between Russia and the United States are a stark example of this difficulty. Even so, if every party was truly committed to a nuclear free world, the issues of mistrust might eventually be worked out. However, there are many global actors – both state and non-state – that want to possess nuclear weaponry. Terrorist organizations and rogue states would gain much power in a world where the major countries reduce their nuclear stockpiles. The global leaders, such as the US, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China, understand this and are thus hesitant to reduce their arms. The nuclear threat between the US and Russia may be diminishable through negotiations; the nuclear threat from Iran to the US most likely will not be. Furthermore, even if every nuclear weapon is dismantled nuclear technology will still exist. It will be far too easy, and tempting, for countries [particularly when tensions are high] to restart a nuclear program.
The lack of feasibility makes a goal of a nuclear-free world foolish. It is far better to focus on more meaningful controls of nuclear power than disarmament. Nuclear disarmament should be a distant goal behind non-proliferation and increased security measures for nuclear stockpiles. Relatively new nuclear powers, such as Indian and Pakistan, should be assisted in developing internal controls to prevent ‘misplacement’ of nuclear weaponry and technology and failsafes to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in conflict.
Second, it is questionable if it is desirable to have a nuclear-free world. While controversial, there is much support to suggest that nuclear weaponry actually reduces conventional warfare and makes the global community safer. No country has used nuclear weapons since World War II. Conventional wars between major powers have been nonexistent. The threat of nuclear war persuades powerful states to negotiate before launching missiles. The successes of global integration and communication rest on the threat of nuclear destruction. As bad as relationships have been during the past fifty years, the United States, Russia and China have not gone to war with each other.
A nuclear-free world could unravel all of this stability. The threat of a conventional counterattack is not, nor ever has been, significant enough to preclude wars between major powers. While the international and supranational institutions formed over the past 70 years are strong, there is little reason to believe a resurgent Russia would continue to abide by a US dominated system without the nuke as a balancing act. The demise of nuclear power would herald an rise of conventional armies. Our international community would once again see the large scale wars that wrecked havoc across the globe one-hundred years ago.
While seemingly contrary to logic, a nuclear-free world is a lot scarier than one without nuclear weaponry. The presence of nuclear weapons is something the world must accept and work with. Rather than deluding ourselves with utopian views of a nuclear-free world, steps must be taken to create a stable international community where nuclear weapons exist but are not used. A world with few nuclear powers that are stable and in control of their stockpiles is ideal. Any other world is a recipe for disaster.
First, there is a question of feasibility. It is highly unlikely that the world community will be able to rid itself of every single nuclear weapon. While many, if not all, nations publically state agreement with this principle, practice is much more difficult. Global insecurity causes hesitation in many leaders. The delicate disarmament negotiations between Russia and the United States are a stark example of this difficulty. Even so, if every party was truly committed to a nuclear free world, the issues of mistrust might eventually be worked out. However, there are many global actors – both state and non-state – that want to possess nuclear weaponry. Terrorist organizations and rogue states would gain much power in a world where the major countries reduce their nuclear stockpiles. The global leaders, such as the US, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China, understand this and are thus hesitant to reduce their arms. The nuclear threat between the US and Russia may be diminishable through negotiations; the nuclear threat from Iran to the US most likely will not be. Furthermore, even if every nuclear weapon is dismantled nuclear technology will still exist. It will be far too easy, and tempting, for countries [particularly when tensions are high] to restart a nuclear program.
The lack of feasibility makes a goal of a nuclear-free world foolish. It is far better to focus on more meaningful controls of nuclear power than disarmament. Nuclear disarmament should be a distant goal behind non-proliferation and increased security measures for nuclear stockpiles. Relatively new nuclear powers, such as Indian and Pakistan, should be assisted in developing internal controls to prevent ‘misplacement’ of nuclear weaponry and technology and failsafes to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in conflict.
Second, it is questionable if it is desirable to have a nuclear-free world. While controversial, there is much support to suggest that nuclear weaponry actually reduces conventional warfare and makes the global community safer. No country has used nuclear weapons since World War II. Conventional wars between major powers have been nonexistent. The threat of nuclear war persuades powerful states to negotiate before launching missiles. The successes of global integration and communication rest on the threat of nuclear destruction. As bad as relationships have been during the past fifty years, the United States, Russia and China have not gone to war with each other.
A nuclear-free world could unravel all of this stability. The threat of a conventional counterattack is not, nor ever has been, significant enough to preclude wars between major powers. While the international and supranational institutions formed over the past 70 years are strong, there is little reason to believe a resurgent Russia would continue to abide by a US dominated system without the nuke as a balancing act. The demise of nuclear power would herald an rise of conventional armies. Our international community would once again see the large scale wars that wrecked havoc across the globe one-hundred years ago.
While seemingly contrary to logic, a nuclear-free world is a lot scarier than one without nuclear weaponry. The presence of nuclear weapons is something the world must accept and work with. Rather than deluding ourselves with utopian views of a nuclear-free world, steps must be taken to create a stable international community where nuclear weapons exist but are not used. A world with few nuclear powers that are stable and in control of their stockpiles is ideal. Any other world is a recipe for disaster.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Will Israel Attack Iran?
In a recent meeting with the US, Israel reaffirmed that “no option should be ruled out” when dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. The meeting between US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his Israeli counterpart, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, reconfirms the tensions created by the Iranian quest for nuclear weaponry.
Given Iran’s historical belligerence towards Israel, the tiny nation is correct to view Ahmadinejad and his cronies as an existential threat. The Iranian despot has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. The achievement of an Iranian nuke would be the harbinger of the death of Israel. However, it is unlikely that Israel would allow the Iranian nuclear program to reach this terminal stage. Well before such a point, Israel would most certainly launch an attack on the Persian state. Such an attack would have profound effects on Israel and the entire Middle East.
An Israeli attack would lead to a heavy handed Iranian reprisal that would quickly embroil the Middle East into a regional war— which quite possibly could spread into a broader conflagration. Israel of course knows this and logically wants to avoid such a destabilizing act. However, the choice is clear when given an option between annihilation and fighting to prevent destruction. Barak stated, “We are not blind. We know everything we do has implications on our neighbors, we take this into account, but ultimately we are committed to Israel's security interests."
The crucial question is: ‘When do the Israelis feel they have reached the point-of-no-return?’ The Iranian nuclear program is far more complex than the Iraqi program which Israel successfully ended with the bombing of Osirak in 1981. A single surgical strike would be unable to end the Iranian program. This implies that upon deciding to attack Iran, Israel would have to use a considerable amount of force. Such a need of force will certainly delay an Israeli strike; however, only to a certain point. If Israeli intelligence indicates that a nuclear Iran is imminent, the country will strike.
All of this heightens the need for America, and the world community, to increase pressure on Iran. The Iranian nuclear program needs to be halted immediately. However, the Obama administration’s insistence on making nice with our enemies and bullying our friends is counterproductive to this aim. The administration’s warped view of foreign policy, as successfully slammed in The Wall Street Journal, is not only unwise but downright foolish. Obama continues to push Israel and court Iran. Ultimately, this will increase Israel’s insecurity and accelerate the ‘point-of-no-return’. After nearly eight months in office, it is time that Obama realizes his foreign policy is leading the world down a dangerous path. Hopefully, he will change his tune before a disastrous war in the Middle East forces him to.
Given Iran’s historical belligerence towards Israel, the tiny nation is correct to view Ahmadinejad and his cronies as an existential threat. The Iranian despot has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. The achievement of an Iranian nuke would be the harbinger of the death of Israel. However, it is unlikely that Israel would allow the Iranian nuclear program to reach this terminal stage. Well before such a point, Israel would most certainly launch an attack on the Persian state. Such an attack would have profound effects on Israel and the entire Middle East.
An Israeli attack would lead to a heavy handed Iranian reprisal that would quickly embroil the Middle East into a regional war— which quite possibly could spread into a broader conflagration. Israel of course knows this and logically wants to avoid such a destabilizing act. However, the choice is clear when given an option between annihilation and fighting to prevent destruction. Barak stated, “We are not blind. We know everything we do has implications on our neighbors, we take this into account, but ultimately we are committed to Israel's security interests."
The crucial question is: ‘When do the Israelis feel they have reached the point-of-no-return?’ The Iranian nuclear program is far more complex than the Iraqi program which Israel successfully ended with the bombing of Osirak in 1981. A single surgical strike would be unable to end the Iranian program. This implies that upon deciding to attack Iran, Israel would have to use a considerable amount of force. Such a need of force will certainly delay an Israeli strike; however, only to a certain point. If Israeli intelligence indicates that a nuclear Iran is imminent, the country will strike.
All of this heightens the need for America, and the world community, to increase pressure on Iran. The Iranian nuclear program needs to be halted immediately. However, the Obama administration’s insistence on making nice with our enemies and bullying our friends is counterproductive to this aim. The administration’s warped view of foreign policy, as successfully slammed in The Wall Street Journal, is not only unwise but downright foolish. Obama continues to push Israel and court Iran. Ultimately, this will increase Israel’s insecurity and accelerate the ‘point-of-no-return’. After nearly eight months in office, it is time that Obama realizes his foreign policy is leading the world down a dangerous path. Hopefully, he will change his tune before a disastrous war in the Middle East forces him to.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Obama Speaks to Islam - Part III
The third major flaw in Obama’s Cairo remarks (See the White House website http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/) was in regards to his nuclear policy. He said,
There are a number of issues with this stated policy. First of all, there is absolutely no truth in the statement: “No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. As unfortunate as it may be for some of the less powerful countries, the global arena is not a democracy. Larger, more powerful countries, such as the U.S. not only have the right, but the duty to set rules and regulations of the world community. The United States, as leader of the world, has the responsibility to determine who can and cannot possess nuclear weapons. On its face, this is necessary for the United States to maintain the status quo of the international system. It behooves us to disallow enemies and others that may threaten the stability of the system from possessing weapons. This would be true for any hegemonic leader. However, in addition, the United States as a beneficent leader has a responsibility to protect the global community and maintain safety and security. This includes keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of dangerous leaders and nations.
The second issue regards Obama’s commitment to have a nuclear free world. This policy is both dangerous and foolish. Nuclear weaponry provides deterrence and disincentives for conventional war. One of the main reasons we have had relative peace since World War II is because of the nuclear threat. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented the Cold War from getting hot. While there are certainly risks and fears with nuclear armed countries, the benefits drastically outweigh the costs. [This of course necessarily goes hand-in-hand with preventing rogue states like Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Rogue states are inherently more unpredictable and also liable to sell weaponry, thereby increasing the threat of non-state (or non-sane) actors who are unable to be deterred]. The presence of nuclear weapons has forced the world leaders to build institutions and channels that encourage dialogue between adversaries. In economic terms, it increases the costs of war to such a level that any benefits (spoils of war such as territory or political gains) are no longer significant enough to merit a battle.
Obama’s nuclear policy reeks of the simplicity that is present in so many of his policies. Since the detonation of a nuclear weapon is, of course, bad, it is very easy to simply state that nuclear weapons are bad and therefore unnecessary. This, however, is a partial analysis of the situation. It may seem appealing to those who do not like to fully explore the positives and negatives of a situation, but it leads to poor policy.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons….
There are a number of issues with this stated policy. First of all, there is absolutely no truth in the statement: “No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. As unfortunate as it may be for some of the less powerful countries, the global arena is not a democracy. Larger, more powerful countries, such as the U.S. not only have the right, but the duty to set rules and regulations of the world community. The United States, as leader of the world, has the responsibility to determine who can and cannot possess nuclear weapons. On its face, this is necessary for the United States to maintain the status quo of the international system. It behooves us to disallow enemies and others that may threaten the stability of the system from possessing weapons. This would be true for any hegemonic leader. However, in addition, the United States as a beneficent leader has a responsibility to protect the global community and maintain safety and security. This includes keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of dangerous leaders and nations.
The second issue regards Obama’s commitment to have a nuclear free world. This policy is both dangerous and foolish. Nuclear weaponry provides deterrence and disincentives for conventional war. One of the main reasons we have had relative peace since World War II is because of the nuclear threat. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevented the Cold War from getting hot. While there are certainly risks and fears with nuclear armed countries, the benefits drastically outweigh the costs. [This of course necessarily goes hand-in-hand with preventing rogue states like Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Rogue states are inherently more unpredictable and also liable to sell weaponry, thereby increasing the threat of non-state (or non-sane) actors who are unable to be deterred]. The presence of nuclear weapons has forced the world leaders to build institutions and channels that encourage dialogue between adversaries. In economic terms, it increases the costs of war to such a level that any benefits (spoils of war such as territory or political gains) are no longer significant enough to merit a battle.
Obama’s nuclear policy reeks of the simplicity that is present in so many of his policies. Since the detonation of a nuclear weapon is, of course, bad, it is very easy to simply state that nuclear weapons are bad and therefore unnecessary. This, however, is a partial analysis of the situation. It may seem appealing to those who do not like to fully explore the positives and negatives of a situation, but it leads to poor policy.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Flouting the Rules
Once again North Korea has flouted international rules. This time it has conducted nuclear tests and launched short-range missiles. (See Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/
As has been discussed in this blog and elsewhere, North Korea’s rogue actions are unacceptable. The Obama administration pays lip service to this. However, it has thus far failed to send a convincing message to the North Koreans. Instead, North Korea receives a pleasant message that Washington will only talk and will not act decisively against belligerent actions. Kim Jong-Il and his cronies are responding to Obama’s rampant pacifism by testing how far they can go. These missile launches and nuclear tests are a gauge of America’s willingness to impede North Korean actions. So far the message is clear – North Korea can do what it wants.
The administration does much to weaken its position, by packaging condemnations of belligerent actions with the stated policy of appeasement and discussion only. This weak position is seen clearly in the President’s statement following the nuclear test (See the White House website http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_
The United States has to offer a decisive and firm response to these latest tests. It must be unequivocal that these behaviors are unacceptable. Kim Jong-Il must understand that North Korea will suffer severe punishments if it continues to test the world. This can be accomplished through open discussion of possible military action against the rogue state. As of now, it is imprudent to launch an attack against the country; however, laying the option on the table could go a long way towards emphasizing the gravity of failing to abide by international standards.
North Korea must see the folly of their ways. Strong language and threats of severe action must be made to deter further provocations. If strong statements from the UN are stymied by Chinese hesitation, the United States must stand up to North Korea alone (or with any willing participants). While a military attack is certainly a response that should be discussed, other less severe actions should be laid out- and acted upon immediately. Otherwise, Kim Jong-Il will know that he has freedom to do whatever he desires, with only the risk of a mild tongue lashing in response.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Nuclear Tipping Point
“It appears that we are at a ‘tipping point’ in proliferation. If Iran and North Korea proceed unchecked to build nuclear arsenals, there is a serious possibility of a cascade of proliferation following. And as each new nuclear power is added the probability of a terror group getting a nuclear bomb increases.”
So states a recent bi-partisan Congressional Commission report on the “strategic posture” of the United States. The report, which was presented to Congress a week ago, outlines a two-pronged approach for the U.S.’s nuclear policy: (1) continued deterrence and (2) arms control and nonproliferation. (See here for the report http://www.usip.org/strategic_posture/).
Throughout its discussion on nonproliferation, the Commission emphasized that we are at, or near, a dangerous tipping point. It stressed that without continued American and Russian support for nonproliferation we may reach a point where the spread of nuclear weaponry becomes uncontrollable and extremely dangerous.
Implicit in the report, is that a nuclear Iran would spawn a Middle Eastern arms race. Accordingly, some Middle Eastern nations are already in the process of mimicking Iran’s nuclear program. This will have disastrous effects on the already unstable region. The first, more conventional worry revolves around the creation of a new breed of regional nuclear powers. This will weaken America’s position in the region and create a higher stakes political game. It is easy to see how the Middle Eastern dynamic would substantially change with a number of the large states – perhaps Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq (not to mention the already nuclear Israel) – operating under a nuclear umbrella.
More importantly perhaps, is the risk that such a third-world nuclear arms race would be vastly unsecure. These governments run the risk of ‘losing’ weaponry that could find its way into the hands of non-state actors and terrorists. An increase in the number of countries with active nuclear programs greatly increases the probability that a nuclear warhead ends up in Al-Qaeda’s hands. Simply stated, aspiring entrants to the nuclear club do not have the same institutions and controls, or the stable populations (read Islamists) that the current nuclear powers have.
As most people are well aware of, the current stable system of nuclear deterrence and international cooperation is ill equipped to handle such non-state, nuclear powers.
Nonproliferation is necessary to avoid the inevitable struggles that would occur should non-state actors obtain nuclear weaponry. While the Commission report praises Obama for his actions regarding deterrence, it calls on the President to take further steps to set the nonproliferation agenda. “Good leadership,” it states “requires setting the example.” The report goes as far as to state that if Obama’s open-arms approach to Iran and North Korea “fail[s], we might then have reached a point where the nonproliferation regime is substantially if not fatally injured.”
This is a point that Republicans must seize on. While the Right has been consistent in its criticism of Obama’s foreign policy, these criticisms have to take on more of serious policy discussion, rather than the alarmism that is so often used. Obama is taking too much of risk by recognizing Iran’s and North Korea’s demands. The U.S., alongside Russia, must unequivocally state that the ‘nuclear club’ is closed to new members. If we fail to promote nonproliferation, we will move dangerously close to a complete collapse of the stable global nuclear system.
So states a recent bi-partisan Congressional Commission report on the “strategic posture” of the United States. The report, which was presented to Congress a week ago, outlines a two-pronged approach for the U.S.’s nuclear policy: (1) continued deterrence and (2) arms control and nonproliferation. (See here for the report http://www.usip.org/strategic_posture/).
Throughout its discussion on nonproliferation, the Commission emphasized that we are at, or near, a dangerous tipping point. It stressed that without continued American and Russian support for nonproliferation we may reach a point where the spread of nuclear weaponry becomes uncontrollable and extremely dangerous.
Implicit in the report, is that a nuclear Iran would spawn a Middle Eastern arms race. Accordingly, some Middle Eastern nations are already in the process of mimicking Iran’s nuclear program. This will have disastrous effects on the already unstable region. The first, more conventional worry revolves around the creation of a new breed of regional nuclear powers. This will weaken America’s position in the region and create a higher stakes political game. It is easy to see how the Middle Eastern dynamic would substantially change with a number of the large states – perhaps Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq (not to mention the already nuclear Israel) – operating under a nuclear umbrella.
More importantly perhaps, is the risk that such a third-world nuclear arms race would be vastly unsecure. These governments run the risk of ‘losing’ weaponry that could find its way into the hands of non-state actors and terrorists. An increase in the number of countries with active nuclear programs greatly increases the probability that a nuclear warhead ends up in Al-Qaeda’s hands. Simply stated, aspiring entrants to the nuclear club do not have the same institutions and controls, or the stable populations (read Islamists) that the current nuclear powers have.
As most people are well aware of, the current stable system of nuclear deterrence and international cooperation is ill equipped to handle such non-state, nuclear powers.
Nonproliferation is necessary to avoid the inevitable struggles that would occur should non-state actors obtain nuclear weaponry. While the Commission report praises Obama for his actions regarding deterrence, it calls on the President to take further steps to set the nonproliferation agenda. “Good leadership,” it states “requires setting the example.” The report goes as far as to state that if Obama’s open-arms approach to Iran and North Korea “fail[s], we might then have reached a point where the nonproliferation regime is substantially if not fatally injured.”
This is a point that Republicans must seize on. While the Right has been consistent in its criticism of Obama’s foreign policy, these criticisms have to take on more of serious policy discussion, rather than the alarmism that is so often used. Obama is taking too much of risk by recognizing Iran’s and North Korea’s demands. The U.S., alongside Russia, must unequivocally state that the ‘nuclear club’ is closed to new members. If we fail to promote nonproliferation, we will move dangerously close to a complete collapse of the stable global nuclear system.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
With Nukes Failure Is Not An Option
The current situation in Pakistan is heading towards disaster. The Taliban, from Afghanistan and the border areas in Pakistan, are posing a grave risk to the state. The already weak Pakistani government is on complete verge of failure. (See CNN for instance http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/pakistan.swat.valley/index.html) A failure in Pakistan will have disastrous effects across the world.
First of all, a failure would negate the gains that have been made in the region since 9/11. Bush’s war in Afghanistan successfully removed the Taliban from power and, at one point, had them completely marginalized. Now under our new, ‘global-friendly’ leadership we are seeing a huge resurgence in their power. Certainly, not all of this is due to Obama’s faulty foreign policy. The fall of Musharraf and a myriad of domestic issues, such as the infighting amongst current moderates, play an enormous role in the current weak state of the country. However, a rebirth of Taliban leadership in Pakistan (and possibly Afghanistan) would be disastrous for the progress of the war on terror, the elimination of fanatical Islam, and establishment of global security.
The issue of global security is paramount. A re-failure to stem the Taliban’s ascent in Afghanistan would be bad enough. It would serve to undermine all the hard work over the past eight years. However, a failure in Pakistan is most certainly an existential threat to the U.S. Due to the nuclear capabilities of the country, a failure would mean there would be no accountability for Pakistan’s current nuclear stockpile. The Taliban would have access to nuclear warheads- to use themselves or sell to third parties such as Iran, North Korea, Al-Qaeda, or any enemy of the free world. This threat exists even short of a failure of the state. The Taliban could easily seize a few unfortunately placed nuclear warheads without having to take down the state.
The world community has to address this issue in a much stronger and more forthright way. In the short run, everything has to be done to stabilize and strengthen the current government in Pakistan. Money and assistance should flow in readily. Pressure should be put on corrupt or disinterested bureaucrats. Most importantly, the world must put immense pressure on the Pakistani government to cease making conciliatory deals with the Taliban. The current deal of Taliban weaponry for sharia law is unacceptable. These deals only serve to postpone the fighting and allow the Taliban to retrench itself. The army must be convinced that it needs to fight in the North. They must do everything they can to remove Taliban strongholds. This includes Pakistani military action, but also increased coordination and facilitation of American cross-border attacks on Taliban positions in Pakistan. The United States has to unapologetically go after targets in Pakistan, preferably with, but also without Pakistani assistance and blessings.
Furthermore, the world community must take steps to prepare for the worst case scenario of a government failure. The current government needs to be pressured to consolidate stockpiles of nuclear weapons away from the north. This will ensure that they are easy to account for and control. America must plan operations for an invasion of Pakistan. This, of course, needs to be a last resort; however, if the government fails the United States needs to secure Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile immediately. The Pakistani government needs to cooperate with the US (and the UN) to create ‘zero-hour’ contingencies- such as disclosures of stockpiles. [One necessary consideration is, of course, India- which Pakistan feels (incorrectly) is its number one threat.]
Pakistan is one issue where we cannot afford Obama’s ‘speak-humbly’ foreign policy. Every action must be taken to shore up the Pakistani government and decimate the Taliban. Right now, stability should be the sole goal. If not, we run the risk of facing catastrophic results.
First of all, a failure would negate the gains that have been made in the region since 9/11. Bush’s war in Afghanistan successfully removed the Taliban from power and, at one point, had them completely marginalized. Now under our new, ‘global-friendly’ leadership we are seeing a huge resurgence in their power. Certainly, not all of this is due to Obama’s faulty foreign policy. The fall of Musharraf and a myriad of domestic issues, such as the infighting amongst current moderates, play an enormous role in the current weak state of the country. However, a rebirth of Taliban leadership in Pakistan (and possibly Afghanistan) would be disastrous for the progress of the war on terror, the elimination of fanatical Islam, and establishment of global security.
The issue of global security is paramount. A re-failure to stem the Taliban’s ascent in Afghanistan would be bad enough. It would serve to undermine all the hard work over the past eight years. However, a failure in Pakistan is most certainly an existential threat to the U.S. Due to the nuclear capabilities of the country, a failure would mean there would be no accountability for Pakistan’s current nuclear stockpile. The Taliban would have access to nuclear warheads- to use themselves or sell to third parties such as Iran, North Korea, Al-Qaeda, or any enemy of the free world. This threat exists even short of a failure of the state. The Taliban could easily seize a few unfortunately placed nuclear warheads without having to take down the state.
The world community has to address this issue in a much stronger and more forthright way. In the short run, everything has to be done to stabilize and strengthen the current government in Pakistan. Money and assistance should flow in readily. Pressure should be put on corrupt or disinterested bureaucrats. Most importantly, the world must put immense pressure on the Pakistani government to cease making conciliatory deals with the Taliban. The current deal of Taliban weaponry for sharia law is unacceptable. These deals only serve to postpone the fighting and allow the Taliban to retrench itself. The army must be convinced that it needs to fight in the North. They must do everything they can to remove Taliban strongholds. This includes Pakistani military action, but also increased coordination and facilitation of American cross-border attacks on Taliban positions in Pakistan. The United States has to unapologetically go after targets in Pakistan, preferably with, but also without Pakistani assistance and blessings.
Furthermore, the world community must take steps to prepare for the worst case scenario of a government failure. The current government needs to be pressured to consolidate stockpiles of nuclear weapons away from the north. This will ensure that they are easy to account for and control. America must plan operations for an invasion of Pakistan. This, of course, needs to be a last resort; however, if the government fails the United States needs to secure Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile immediately. The Pakistani government needs to cooperate with the US (and the UN) to create ‘zero-hour’ contingencies- such as disclosures of stockpiles. [One necessary consideration is, of course, India- which Pakistan feels (incorrectly) is its number one threat.]
Pakistan is one issue where we cannot afford Obama’s ‘speak-humbly’ foreign policy. Every action must be taken to shore up the Pakistani government and decimate the Taliban. Right now, stability should be the sole goal. If not, we run the risk of facing catastrophic results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)