During the decades preceding Trump’s election, both Israeli and U.S. leaders swore that their greatest wish was to ensure Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons. There was an argument between the two countries about the best way to do this, with U.S. presidents Bush and Obama refusing to use military force; while Israel argued incessantly that the only way to stop Iran from doing so was through a military strike.
I predicted here the same day that Soleimani was killed that JCPOA was dead. And indeed today the Iranians confirmed that they’ve abandoned it and will enrich uranium at its own pace, uninfluenced by outside interests. After reading former senior Obama Defense Department official, Frank Kendall’s analysis of this question, it’s clear that there are even bigger stakes. After Trump took the gloves off in murdering the most significant military leader in the Middle East, one of the most decisive steps Iran could take to respond is by renewing its nuclear weapons program, which it suspended in 2003.
Since 1984, Israeli media have been predicting Iran is six, twelve or eighteen months from getting “The Bomb.” Now, those pipe dreams could very easily turn true.
Until now, Iran has not only adhered to the JCPOA agreement, it has foresworn developing nuclear weapons. Whether or not Republicans believed them or not was immaterial. Everything Iran did indicated it was sincere in taking nuclear weapons off the table (at least for the length of JCPOA, if not longer).
But what incentive does Iran have now? It sees that Trump views virtually every country that refuses to bend to his will as a two-bit state; like the “shitty African countries” he railed against earlier in his presidency. If the president was willing to assassinate someone of Soleimanin’s stature, Iran now must believe Trump is capable of going much farther: up to and including war.
Other than continuing to build its military defenses in order to make the U.S. and its allies pay dearly for such an attack, what other options does Iran have? Yes, it can launch cyber-attacks, drone assaults on Saudi oil fields, and terror attacks against U.S. (or Israeli targets). But these are incremental methods, not decisive ones. They can do damage and inflict pain. But they are not game-changers.
Announcing that Iran has renewed its nuclear program and intends to build nuclear weapons would be that type of decisive step. As analysts have noted before, there are two options Iran sees regarding nations pursuing nuclear status: Libya and North Korea. Ghaddafi gave up his nuclear program in return for benefits offered him by those states who wanted his facilities dismantled. But when he faced internal enemies, he did so naked with no means of threatening the world. If he had such weapons, he could have demanded foreign help to prevent the weapons from falling into the hands of his enemies. Further, a leader with nuclear weapons is a much more formidable one even to his domestic enemies.
Then there is North Korea: Kim Jong Un and his father understood that nuclear weapons give him multiple options in extorting/influencing both his friends, the Chinese, and his enemies, the Americans. Trump would not dream of assassinating Kim or Kim’s military chief as he did Soleimani. He knows that the Korean dictator is fully capable of launching a nuclear missile at Tokyo or perhaps even the U.S. There are many insane measures Trump would contemplate. But even that he would not. There is apparently some deterrence the president understands.
The other benefit of developing an Iranian nuclear arsenal is that it does not involve recruiting proxy armies, fighting prolonged insurgencies in Syria or Yemen, or the death of 1-million of its soldiers as happened during the Iran-Iraq War. As David Ben Gurion discovered, having nuclear weapons is a relatively inexpensive and powerful deterrent against one’s regional enemies. It also enabled Israel to stand up to its allies (or even defy them) when you don’t like what they’re saying to you.
As Jewish tradition says, “since Moses, prophecy has departed from Israel.” I do not claim prophecy or clairvoyance. But I can look at the options Iran has, and see what appears to be the most pragmatic ones available. Getting nukes would appear to be one.
If Iran does so, it probably would not announce this aim. It would pursue the research as quietly and covertly as possible. This is precisely what Israel did in developing its own arsenal. After all, Iran doesn’t want to alienate the few nations in the world who do not want to see it attacked. At some point, when there is an existential threat Iran can always tell the world what it has done.
This, of course, contradicts the North Korean model of boasting about having nukes and threatening to use them. But there is a key difference between Iran and the North: the latter has one of the world’s superpowers as its ally. For whatever reason, China appears to need Kim as much as he needs China. So he can get away with much more. Iran has no such champion. So it must tread softly and conceal that “big stick” Teddy Roosevelt carried with him in his dealings with the world.
So returning to where we started, Trump may have done precisely what both Israel and two previous presidents desperately sought to avoid. It may have guaranteed Iran will be hellbent on getting nukes.
There is one major danger to renewing the nuclear program: it will embolden the war hawks advocating regime change in Washington and Tel Aviv. It would make such a full-scale military assault more likely. But the question the Iranians are asking themselves is likely: whatever danger we face by developing nuclear weapons, do we have a choice not to, considering the psychopath we face in the White House?
It is most unlikely that Iran will be “getting nukes”. Since the Revolution both the religious and political leaders have been strongly opposed to all weapons of mass destruction. Look up “the Golberg Predilictions” for dozens of statements to that effect. My favourite quotation from Khamenei is the following:
“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” said Ayatollah Khamenei.
There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.” As a logical and religious person I am in total agreement.
Readers might say “what about the nuclear weapons activities reported in 2003 by US intelligence, described by the IAEA as a “possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program”. This turned out to be an unauthorised program of research into some dual-use technologies of possible relevance to nuclear weapons, which was closed down by Hassan Rohani, the current president of Iran, when he became nuclear policy chief in 2003.
You wrote a whole article about Iran not getting WMD because of a fatwa. What have happened since?
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/05/02/irans-nuclear-fatwa/
@ Ariel Shaked: Well, gee, let’s see why I wrote one thing in 2014 and write something slightly different in 2020: hmm, why might that be? Could it be that six years have passed and that conditions were hopeful and optimistic then, comparatively, while they are bleak and catastrophic now? That might explain.
Regarding the fatwa, it is a strong compelling religious edict which Khamenei probably would not or could not break. So it’s likely Iran will not actually develop a nuclear weapon. But killing someone who was like his first-born son and a hero of the Islamic Revolution puts that at considerable jeopardy.
And really, the attempts at “gotcha” are pathetic. Go back to Hasbara 101 and try some new techniques. I am glad though that you’re combing through my blog archieve searching desperately for contradictions. Too bad you’re not paying any attention to the content of my arguments.
Oh the hypocrisy…. Natanyahu poses with the famous “bomb cartoon” and calls for US led attacks on Iran. Now he tries to distance himself from being dragged into a war by the lunatic Trump. Hey Bennie, you make your bed and you lie in it.
[comment deleted: you are now moderated. Comments which respect the comment rules will be published. Otherwise, not.]
It is a fatwa, not preference of pizza topping. It islamophobic to argue it will be changed just for revenge.
If a fatwa gets question marks, what wouldn’t? Your argument about the fatwa being set in stone which eliminates any Israeli argument about Iranian willingness to develop WMD, seemed very assured. I didn’t buy it then (when I heard of it from other people) and I don’t buy it now.
@ Ariel Shaked:
So what? There are laws in the Torah which are sacrosanct. Guess what later rabbis did? They amended them or reinterpreted them in order to permit Jews to live their lives without being enslaved or suffocated by outmoded beliefs and practices. Every religious tradition has such issues and the ones which survive are the ones able to adapt to changing circumstance.
OH and it’s quite rich that you’ve all of a sudden become a religious scholar on Islamic law. When did that happen?
Next time a gay person is stoned in Israel or any Jewish community, do let me know (though a few have been murdered, but hopefully this is a minority view in the Israeli Orthodox community). I can’t remember the last time a Jewish adulterer or adulteress was stoned, can you?