“We just have to get used to a nuclear Iran.” Because of Chatham House rules, I am not allowed to inform you who said that. The rules permit quoting what has been said at a meeting, but forbid indicating by whom or naming the group that hosted the event. The Council on Foreign Relations, the Nixon Center and quite a few other groups in Washington conduct their meetings in accordance with these rules, named after the highly respected London think-tank credited with first introducing this form of deliberation. Trust me, the person who made this statement was a high ranking adviser to one of the leading presidential candidates—someone likely to make it into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Behind this simple phrase looms an important and influential foreign policy thesis; namely, that a nuclear-armed Iran could be reliably deterred from employing nuclear weapons. After all, we are often reminded, despite the dire warnings of scores of experts, scholars, and peace activists (myself included), quite a few nations have acquired nuclear arms over the last several decades, and none have employed them. What explains this nuclear restraint, we are told, is that nations who possess such deadly arms fear that if they strike, they will be wiped off the face of the earth by the retaliatory strikes sure to be launched by rival nuclear states.
This thesis that nuclear deterrence can be reliably achieved through the threat of mutual destruction, so called ‘rational deterrence theory.’ attained a prominent place in American security policy at the height of the Cold War. Indeed, it worked well; the superpowers did not come to nuclear blows—though on several occasions they did come dangerously close to the brink.
Over the years, this rational deterrence theory gained popularity in Political Science and International Affairs departments as well as in the military. Some scholars have even advocated the proliferation of nuclear weapons in developing nations as a way of bolstering security. For example, in the early 90s, the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer pushed for encouraging a newly independent Ukraine to maintain an arsenal of former Soviet nuclear weapons. And, in 2000, he pushed for encouraging a nuclear-armed India. In both cases, Mearsheimer argued that nuclear proliferation would enhance security, because “Simply put, no state is likely to attack the homeland or vital interests of a nuclear-armed state for fear that such a move might trigger a horrific nuclear response.”
The same rational deterrence theory suggests that even rogue states, such as a Kim Jong Il’s North Korea or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad’s Iran can be counted on to act rationally regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Former CENTCOM commander John Abizaid believes that “Nuclear deterrence would work with Iran” since "Iran is not a suicidal nation.” “We can live with a Nuclear Iran,” Barry Posen, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, assures us, because it knows that “to threaten, much less carry out, a nuclear attack on a nuclear power is to become a nuclear target.”
I am one of those who holds that the opposite is true; that many states—Iran, among others—have leaders who are very capable of acting in ways that are profoundly irrational, hence posing a serious threat both to other countries as well as to their own. We now have a new report that says volumes on the limits of rationality of heads of state.
George Piro, the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Hussein over several months, has just revealed what he learned about the Iraqi dictator’s mindset leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. It turns out that Saddam did not expect that the U.S. would respond to his WMD posturing with a full-scale ground invasion. Saddam “told me” Piro says, that “he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack…He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." This was not merely some minor tactical “misunderstanding” or “miscalculation” on Saddam’s part; it turned Iraq into an occupied land, caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, a regime change, and, ultimately, his execution.
(One reason Saddam opened up to this rather low-ranking agent was that he believed that the agent was a direct emissary from President Bush. This suggests how gullible even heads of state can be—not exactly what we’d consider rational.)
The conclusion is not that the next American president should refuse to talk or negotiate with the likes of Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. After all, we talk even to mental patients. However, to dismiss concerns about verbal threats made by such leaders, especially when they are backed up with nuclear arms, is nothing but irrational.
Behind this simple phrase looms an important and influential foreign policy thesis; namely, that a nuclear-armed Iran could be reliably deterred from employing nuclear weapons. After all, we are often reminded, despite the dire warnings of scores of experts, scholars, and peace activists (myself included), quite a few nations have acquired nuclear arms over the last several decades, and none have employed them. What explains this nuclear restraint, we are told, is that nations who possess such deadly arms fear that if they strike, they will be wiped off the face of the earth by the retaliatory strikes sure to be launched by rival nuclear states.
This thesis that nuclear deterrence can be reliably achieved through the threat of mutual destruction, so called ‘rational deterrence theory.’ attained a prominent place in American security policy at the height of the Cold War. Indeed, it worked well; the superpowers did not come to nuclear blows—though on several occasions they did come dangerously close to the brink.
Over the years, this rational deterrence theory gained popularity in Political Science and International Affairs departments as well as in the military. Some scholars have even advocated the proliferation of nuclear weapons in developing nations as a way of bolstering security. For example, in the early 90s, the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer pushed for encouraging a newly independent Ukraine to maintain an arsenal of former Soviet nuclear weapons. And, in 2000, he pushed for encouraging a nuclear-armed India. In both cases, Mearsheimer argued that nuclear proliferation would enhance security, because “Simply put, no state is likely to attack the homeland or vital interests of a nuclear-armed state for fear that such a move might trigger a horrific nuclear response.”
The same rational deterrence theory suggests that even rogue states, such as a Kim Jong Il’s North Korea or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad’s Iran can be counted on to act rationally regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Former CENTCOM commander John Abizaid believes that “Nuclear deterrence would work with Iran” since "Iran is not a suicidal nation.” “We can live with a Nuclear Iran,” Barry Posen, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, assures us, because it knows that “to threaten, much less carry out, a nuclear attack on a nuclear power is to become a nuclear target.”
I am one of those who holds that the opposite is true; that many states—Iran, among others—have leaders who are very capable of acting in ways that are profoundly irrational, hence posing a serious threat both to other countries as well as to their own. We now have a new report that says volumes on the limits of rationality of heads of state.
George Piro, the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Hussein over several months, has just revealed what he learned about the Iraqi dictator’s mindset leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. It turns out that Saddam did not expect that the U.S. would respond to his WMD posturing with a full-scale ground invasion. Saddam “told me” Piro says, that “he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack…He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." This was not merely some minor tactical “misunderstanding” or “miscalculation” on Saddam’s part; it turned Iraq into an occupied land, caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, a regime change, and, ultimately, his execution.
(One reason Saddam opened up to this rather low-ranking agent was that he believed that the agent was a direct emissary from President Bush. This suggests how gullible even heads of state can be—not exactly what we’d consider rational.)
The conclusion is not that the next American president should refuse to talk or negotiate with the likes of Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. After all, we talk even to mental patients. However, to dismiss concerns about verbal threats made by such leaders, especially when they are backed up with nuclear arms, is nothing but irrational.
How was it possible for Chris de Burgh to come to Iran and hold a concert there? Are the Iranian women being oppressed by the government in Iran? Is Iran dispatching weapons to Lebanon and Iraq? Is the Iranian government promoting terrorism and violating human rights? Are the Persian Gulf countries planning to support US against Iran? Find all the answers and documentaries on http://helloyahoomail.net/en and let me know about your views by commenting on the posts.
Hello Yahoo Mail has been established in order to protest Yahoo mail removal of Iran's name from its list of countries and it was a good pretend to teach the global opinion more about Iran, Persian culture, civilization and lifestyle.
Wait to hear from you
Best Wishes
Posted by: Persian Gulf | June 03, 2008 at 09:07 AM
New Direction for This Century
The basis of the article” Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran”, By Charles Schumer, June 3, 2008; Page A19, The Wall Street Journal,
rests on a false statement:
” The Bush administration in turn needs to use every diplomatic tool in its arsenal to halt Tehran's development of nuclear weapons."
A response to the assumption that Iran is developing nuclear bomb is provided by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Tuesday June 3, 2008 (Associated Press):
"Iran is after the peaceful use of nuclear energy and we will strongly pursue and reach it despite the envy of our enemies," he said. "No wise nation is interested in making a nuclear weapon," since it is not logical and can't be used, he added."
Our foreign policy about the world has to restart with a fresh new direction. We are not on the right track anymore. We can't bully other nations into submission.
McCain and Bush are remnants of the past century. Their ideas were well suited to the cold-war period between the Soviets and USA. We need to look forward to a new direction for this century.
• US Foreign Policy must be a Reflection of Our National Character: Justice, Peace, Respect for Human Life, and Fair Treatment of all Other Nations.
• The future of our civilization is at risk of global annihilation by nuclear, biological and chemical arsenals of nations. For the civilization to survive, we must eliminate the nuclear arsenals.
• We must rely on the International Court and the United Nations to resolve the regional conflicts.
• The global environment must be protected and the adverse effect of human activities reversed or repaired.
• The global natural resources are diminishing rapidly by the world over population, over harvesting and destruction. These resources include fresh water and agricultural resources for production of food. World has to create equitable management of these resources. The United States must take the leadership position in these areas.
Posted by: Saint Michael Traveler | June 03, 2008 at 11:47 AM
New Direction for This Century
The basis of the article” Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran”, By Charles Schumer, June 3, 2008; Page A19, The Wall Street Journal,
rests on a false statement:
” The Bush administration in turn needs to use every diplomatic tool in its arsenal to halt Tehran's development of nuclear weapons."
A response to the assumption that Iran is developing nuclear bomb is provided by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Tuesday June 3, 2008 (Associated Press):
"Iran is after the peaceful use of nuclear energy and we will strongly pursue and reach it despite the envy of our enemies," he said. "No wise nation is interested in making a nuclear weapon," since it is not logical and can't be used, he added."
Our foreign policy about the world has to restart with a fresh new direction. We are not on the right track anymore. We can't bully other nations into submission.
McCain and Bush are remnants of the past century. Their ideas were well suited to the cold-war period between the Soviets and USA. We need to look forward to a new direction for this century.
• US Foreign Policy must be a Reflection of Our National Character: Justice, Peace, Respect for Human Life, and Fair Treatment of all Other Nations.
• The future of our civilization is at risk of global annihilation by nuclear, biological and chemical arsenals of nations. For the civilization to survive, we must eliminate the nuclear arsenals.
• We must rely on the International Court and the United Nations to resolve the regional conflicts.
• The global environment must be protected and the adverse effect of human activities reversed or repaired.
• The global natural resources are diminishing rapidly by the world over population, over harvesting and destruction. These resources include fresh water and agricultural resources for production of food. World has to create equitable management of these resources. The United States must take the leadership position in these areas.
Posted by: Saint Michael Traveler | June 03, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I'm sure that Iran would be open to letting inspectors come to their facilities if Israel would do the same.
And I'm sure Iran would renounce nuclear weaponry if Israel would do the same.
So have we got a deal?
Posted by: Realist | June 18, 2008 at 03:06 AM
Some time ago, I really needed to buy a house for my business but I did not have enough money and couldn't order anything. Thank God my colleague suggested to try to get the business loans from reliable creditors. Thus, I did that and used to be satisfied with my collateral loan.
Posted by: RuizAngelique18 | April 06, 2010 at 04:41 AM
In live we have to full of confidence,because Self-confidence and self-reliance are the mainstays of a strong character.
Posted by: coach purses | July 30, 2010 at 02:31 AM