|
Ok, I'll give it a shot (we are talking theory and statecraft here, not whether or not they actually have nuclear weapons):
In theory there really shouldn't be any reason why Iran should not be able to pursue nuclear development, especially in a vacuum.
The argument that it makes economic sense to do so - export oil, use nulcear energy at home makes a ton of sense. It is indeed smart for them to take this path.
However, taken from a US or western point of view, Iran should not develop nuclear energy(unspervised) for the following reasons (as far as I can tell):
1. Start with the premise that Iran's nuclear energy pursuit is actually for weapons - that changes things drastically - NOTE: No one is opposed to Iran having nuclear energy; it is a trust issue - the opponents want check/inspections in place to make sure that nuclear energy isn't diverted to weapons use.
2. So what if Iran has nuclear weapons? Well, there are a couple of angles on this one.
a. Nothing wrong at all - realists such as Kenneth Waltz posit that EVERYONE
should have nuclear weapons to ensure that NO ONE (in their right mind)
would use them - sort of a MAD gone wild. Further, the argument follows
that having nuclear weapons make an actor more responsible. So in that
vein, nothing wrong with Iran having them.
b. What "threat" does Iran pose if nuclear? Well, the main problem stems
from Iran's grand strategy in terms of foreign policy.
i. We know that they have "threatened to wipe Israel off the map". It's
really hard to justify this as anything other than a threat (at best,
rhetoric).
ii. Iran is a known state-sponsor of terrorism: this is pretty significant.
Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah.
On those 2 points alone, a nuclear Iran is most certainly a "threat" (at least in terms of assessing potential). That seems fair and reasonable regardless of partisanship.
c. So, what about the nukes? Well, even with Iran "threatening" Israel etc. it
is also reasonable to assume, that Iran would not actually use those nukes
on Israel AS LONG AS there is a CREDIBLE THREAT of retliation by the US
or Israel. This is the critical part. A "rational" actor, assuming the state
looking out for state interests, would include survivability of the state.
Thus, any calculation of a "nuclear exchange" has to conclude ASSURED
DESTRUCTION of one state (Iran) and possible damage (extensive) to
another. This is different for US-USSR MAD as US-Iran are not equal
binaries, that is, not necessarily a mutually deterrent pair (yet). This is
also critical as a power asymmetry can produce unstable outcomes. For
example, Iran, most likely does not possess enough nuclear capability to
"deter" a US attack unless the US acceptable loss number is excessively
low. Most likely, Iran can only deliver as far as Israel anyways, or US
forces in Iraq etc. (Israel has a different threat matri and grand strategy
than the US). So, realistically, Iran would not attack the US, maybe Israel
(but a long shot) as to do so, would most certainly invite disaster upon
itself - not in its own interest.
Ok, so what's left?
Proliferation - in my opinion, the greatest and most credible threat. A nuclear capable Iran, can potentially spread nuclear weapons to non-state actors (no way to hold a non-state actor accountable) such as Hamas, Hezbollah and potentially others (assuming al-Qaeda etc). What makes this more "threatening" to the US and allies is the poor relation between the two: US-Iran. Therefore, the Us hold no diplomatic influence over Iran whereas it might hold some influence over say Pakistan or India (obviously this is debatable, but I'm using t for illustrative purposes).
Other reason might include:
The obvious: Nuclear powers would prefer that non-nuclear powers stay non-nuclear.
It's ok for some countries (friends) to be nuclear but not others (not friends)
EX: US treatment of India compared with Pakistan
Bottom line: From a US standpoint - the US has nothing to gain and a lot to lose with a nuclear Iran (not saying who's right or who's wrong, we're just looking at things from a strategic standpoint).
MojoPeiPei is a Political Science/international relations theory student, hopefully he can elaborate on my summary.
|