+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The Iranian nuclear threat and other phantoms

The ‘framework agreement’ announced Thursday night in Lausanne is a lot better than no agreement. But an approach to Iran involving no sanctions and no hysteria would have been best of all.

Secretaries Kerry, Moniz Jot Down Notes Before P5+1 Strategic Session About Ongoing Iranian Nuclear Negotiations in Switzerland, March 30, 2015. (State Dept. photo)

Secretaries Kerry, Moniz Jot Down Notes Before P5+1 Strategic Session About Ongoing Iranian Nuclear Negotiations in Switzerland, March 30, 2015. (State Dept. photo)

NOTE: This post has been changed to reflect the author’s happy surprise that the framework agreement was not the dud he thought it would be – even after it was first announced – but is, according to all accounts, a very meaningful step.  

Remember the threat of North Korea going nuclear? The sanctions, the scare rhetoric from the United States, the specter of the craziest, cultiest nation on earth, one that starves its own people en masse, having the Bomb? So what happened? North Korea got the Bomb. They fired test shots until, in early 2013, it was recognized internationally that they’d built a nuclear weapon. Today Pyongyang is estimated to have a dozen to two dozen of them, plus missiles to fly them toward distant targets – the capability to destroy, for instance, nearby Seoul and Tokyo. By next year that nightmarish country is expected to have twice as many bombs as it’s got now.

So? Is anybody losing sleep? Are any South Koreans or Japanese fleeing their country?

No. The world has gotten used to a nuclear North Korea. It’s another danger to be dealt with, to contain, not something to go hysterical over. In hindsight, the world dealt with a nuclear Soviet Union and nuclear Communist China under, respectively, Stalin and Mao, two of the three most ruthless mass murderers of the last century, so it can deal with a nuclear North Korea.

And if necessary, with a nuclear Iran, too. If Tehran were to build nuclear weapons, the world – even Israel – would get used to it like the world, including Israel, got used to nuclear weapons in the hands of much crazier, incomparably more violent and aggressive countries than the Islamic Republic.

But the world’s leaders don’t see things this way, and Israel certainly doesn’t. They’ve decided they can’t let Iran get the Bomb, and that even starting a war would be preferable. (That one measly war wouldn’t stop Iran’s nuclear program is something world leaders and Israelis don’t discuss publicly.) So the “framework agreement” announced Thursday night between Iran and the U.S.-led world powers – assuming that it leads to a final pact by the June 30 deadline – is a great thing, considering the alternative, which was no agreement, more sanctions, Iranian defiance and the likelihood of an American, Israeli or American-Israeli attack further up the road.

But it came at the cost of hysteria, the threat of war (which the Obama administration will maintain for the duration of the agreement, and which the Republicans and Israel will never stop waving around), and above all, the suffering of masses of Iranians as a result of the sanctions. From an October 2013 story in Foreign Policy, “The human costs of the Iran sanctions”:

“The results have been devastating for the Iranian population, triggering a collapse of industry, skyrocketing inflation, and massive unemployment. As the rich and politically-connected prosper under sanctions, Iran’s middle class has disappeared, and even access to food and medicine has been compromised.”

Yet no sanctions advocate in America, Israel or anywhere else has the guts to admit this. None of them have the decency to acknowledge that the sanctions haven’t hurt Iran’s Supreme Leader or Revolutionary Guard, only the Iranian people, beginning, of course, with the most vulnerable.

E.U. High Representative Mogherini Sits With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif Before P5+1 Nations Resume Nuclear Talks in Switzerland, March 31, 2015. (State Dept. photo)

E.U. High Representative Mogherini Sits With Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif Before P5+1 Nations Resume Nuclear Talks in Switzerland, March 31, 2015. (State Dept. photo)

This whole Iran scare has been built on intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. The reasons offered to justify it have changed over the years, diminished in gravity, as one by one they begin to sound too ludicrous to keep repeating. You don’t hear much anymore about the threat of Iran one day just up and nuking Israel, because it’s hard to get people to believe that an ancient, illustrious civilization of 80 million people is going to commit mass suicide, what with Israel having second-strike capability. Neither do you hear about “the twelfth imam,” or “the hidden imam,” or the other mysterious features of Iranian fundamentalist Shia Islam that supposedly make it a blueprint for Armageddon. Nor do you hear that Iran’s mere possession of the Bomb, even without using it, would debilitate Israel economically and psychologically by scaring citizens and foreign capital out of the country.

No, with the exception of the mandatory analogies to Munich and the Holocaust, the most often-heard arguments for stopping Iran’s nuclear program by any means necessary are now much more sober. One is that a nuclear-armed Iran will become even more aggressive in the region, with all other countries, including the U.S. and Israel, being afraid to stand in its way for fear of getting nuked. The other argument is that if Iran gets the Bomb, it will set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and other countries rushing to join the club.

If the first argument were valid – that the Bomb gives a country the freedom to attack, invade and even conquer other countries at will – then the Soviet Union would have gotten no resistance from Afghanistan. Britain wouldn’t have had to fight Argentina to keep the Falklands. There wouldn’t have been 40 years of proxy wars between the Soviets and the U.S.; each would have been too afraid to fight the other. But that’s not how it works. The advent of nuclear weapons has deterred direct wars between the two nuclear superpowers, Russia and America, but that’s it; all other wars between all sorts of other belligerents, some having the Bomb, some not, have continued to flourish. Nuclear weapons have proven to be a great defense against nuclear and other “existential” attacks, but nothing more. They’re not an offensive weapon (not since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anyway), and they’re not even a defensive weapon against conventional threats. A nuclear-armed Iran would be safe from nuclear or other life-threatening attack, but otherwise it would be no freer to mount cross-border aggression than it is now.

The second argument, though – that if Iran gets the bomb, a Mideast nuclear arms race will ensue – sounds pretty reasonable. However, it’s not an argument that can be made by Israel, which started the race. Or by the U.S., the only country to ever actually nuke anyone, or by Russia, China, France or Britain, whose diplomats have been in Lausanne (along with those of non-nuclear Germany) trying to convince Iran to give up what they never would. If the nuclear powers want Iran to stay Bomb-free, let them lead by example. Otherwise, they’re hypocrites who have no moral authority over the Iranians in this matter.

I grew up in America during the Cold War. I remember the “drop drills” in school, crouching under my desk and covering my head.  I remember saying to a friend, “Why don’t they just kill Khrushchev?” and him, being older and wiser, saying, “It’s not just one man, it’s an idea.” In the early 60s, people were seriously afraid that the Russkies were going to nuke America because they were an insane society that believed in   insane ideas, so they were ready to risk getting annihilated in the bargain. Then, in the late 60s, when Americans’ minds began to open up, and a lot of them saw in Vietnam that America could be pretty crazy, too, the “red scare” subsided. The drop drills ended. People calmed down, or at least the reasonable ones did. They stopped worrying about the Bomb.

That’s why I don’t worry about a nuclear Iran: I’ve heard all this crap before. And in America of the early 60s, the horror stories weren’t about an enemy threatening to build a Bomb, but one that already had thousands of them, an empire that ran on a fanatical ideology and that was far, far more aggressive and violent than the Islamic Republic.

We survived. We survived Stalin and Mao. We’re surviving North Korea. We’ll survive Iran, if it goes nuclear. I think the reason people can’t live with this idea is because it seems irresponsible, carefree, adolescent. Not adult. Adults are supposed to worry. They’re supposed to be afraid a lot. They’re supposed to threaten the people who make them afraid, and if that doesn’t work, they’re supposed to attack. That’s being a responsible adult these days: being frightened to the point of reckless hysteria. God help us.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Cupcake

      You sir really are a complete moron. Every single one of your arguments is built on a giant heap on wishful thinking. If the Soviet Union did not nuke the United States then no country will nuke another country is the epitome of the logic of a total idiot. A nuclear arms race is not a concern because Israel started it. Another fucking moronic argument. Just a complete jackass all around.

      Reply to Comment
      • SNerdley

        Poor wittle cupcake. He didn’t get to have daddy go blam! blam! blam! on Iwan for him on the playground. He has to share the swing set. And he’s cwying about it. He’s having a temper tantrum. Bwaaaaah! Poor wittle cupcake.

        Reply to Comment
        • Sticky Rice

          @Nerdly, what a jackass you are. By the way, you remind me of Brian

          Reply to Comment
      • Cupcake:

        Your immediate resorting to name calling and total absence of any reasoning is quite representative of the ‘bomb Iran’ crowd.

        Larrys’s piece is empirical and almost 100 % correct (although he doesn’t address the power play in the region, which is the REAL reason for containing Iran), by contrast your comment is vacuous excrement, not worth refuting (there’s nothing to refute because there’s nothing there).

        Reply to Comment
      • Bryan

        Obviously you are an ardent proponent of nuclear non-proliferation, and there is a very strong case for action against the rogue states (North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel) and strong sanctions against these states until they comply with a regime of international inspection, as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed in 1968 and ratified in 1970. Israel has resisted all attempts at international inspection and has refused to sign the NNP Treaty. President Kennedy put very strong pressure on Israel to submit to inspections, especially in a May 1963 letter to Ben-Gurion, but unfortunately a few months later he was assassinated.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Bruce Gould

      Which parts of the past do we selectively want to remember? For the Israelis it’s the Holocaust, that’s the whole raison d’etre for the Israeli state. For Iranians its Mohammad Mossadegh.


      Reply to Comment
    3. Average American

      Consider that Iran is characterized as being some sort of rogue state fixated on a mission at any cost: destroying Israel. Now consider that Israel is not characterized but has stated itself that it is fixated on a mission at any cost: expanding Israel. Iran has no nukes, Israel has an un-audited and un-inspected arsenal of nukes, and a mobile “iron dome” to protect itself against other’s nukes. Which country is potentially more dangerous? What if Israel goes “rogue” and starts nuking whoever they want? Is Israel already being rogue with its refusal to sign nuclear non-proliferation treaty (so it can traffic in nuclear technology or components with anyone they want) and its ignoring international law (so it can aggressively expand its territory with occupation of West Bank, Golan, and probably next Jordan Valley)? Who should we really be watching here?

      Reply to Comment
      • ”[…] and a mobile “iron dome” to protect itself against other’s nukes.”

        I’m fairly certain that is factually incorrect: Iron Dome would not protect against long range incoming ballistic missiles. What does protect Israel against any hypothetical Iranian nukes is that deployment of the latter would mean sudden death and certain for Iran. No country is suicidal. Iran’s animosity towards Israel is a proxy war with the US: not worth risking EVERYTHING for.

        But if Israel had a water-tight missile shield against incoming ballistic missiles, that layer of security would not change Israel’s attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program because the Great Game isn’t about security but about regional geopolitics.

        Reply to Comment
    4. Excellent summary and very little to disagree here, except for this bit:

      ”Not adult. Adults are supposed to worry. They’re supposed to be afraid a lot. They’re supposed to threaten the people who make them afraid, and if that doesn’t work, they’re supposed to attack. That’s being a responsible adult these days: being frightened to the point of reckless hysteria. God help us.”

      All this ‘containment’ of Iran’s nuclear program is really about containment of Iran herself. The US/West/Israel isn’t going to give up one more nanowatt of geopolitical power in the region to Iran. So Iran has to be defanged and that’s what this is all about.

      And for Israel’s Right Wing and their ‘Spiritual King’ Netanyahu, who see everything (Occupation included) in terms of Israel’s ‘National Security’, Iran’s ‘Bomb’ is of course a wonderful talking point. Their US Senate counterparts are willing to follow these nutters into hell [war with Iran], if AIPAC so demands. Meanwhile this linkage serves perfectly well to keep the issue of Occupation and the Palestinian right to self-determination on the back burner.

      Reply to Comment
    5. To the list of significant examples where nuclear armed arch-enemies have not tried to obliterate each other by means of multiple large mushrooms but where small scale conventional skirmishes nonetheless take place, one can also add India vs Pakistan.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Average American

      Gert: I wonder if USA would really give Iran sudden certain death. Since Iran is considered the leader of the “Shiite Crescent”, would we want to alienate the entire crescent against us. Also we happen to buy oil from Iran, Iran is geographically a buffer between Russia and Middle East, Iran is a very large and populous country to bomb to death, and there are still alot of very wealthy and well-connected Iranians who could affect USA economically without nukes. I just don’t think we’d really “do it” and I think everybody knows that.

      Reply to Comment