Under the belief that Iranian leadership is willing to
pursue to a foreign policy that includes wiping its enemies off the face of the
earth, a number of states in the West and Middle East have become restless at
the thought of a nuclear Iran. From this perspective, the possession of nuclear
arms would instantly transform Iran from a pariah state, into a regional
hegemon that could use threats of nuclear warfare to bully its neighbors into
reluctant compliance. Seemingly unfazed by international pressures, Iran appears
determined to continue to develop its nuclear capabilities, whether for
domestic or military use, no matter the cost. If possessing nuclear weaponry
provides a gateway for additional power and international recognition, it would
be irrational for Iran to cease its behavior even in the face of economic sanctions
and widespread condemnation. But, is the benefit of nuclear capability really
worth the ever-increasing price tag?
Although nuclear arms have the potential to create extensive
physical and psychological damage, the procurement and maintenance of weapons
is both time-consuming and resource-intensive. Generating an extensive
stockpile of nuclear warheads may increase a state’s military capabilities on
paper, but at the expense of monitoring and storing technology that becomes
increasingly obsolete each passing day. An alternative to a mass buildup of
arms is to instead focus upon the creation of small, tactical weapons that can
be used for small-scale operations, but maintain the frightful guise of “weapons
of mass destruction”. Nevertheless, in the case of Iran, it is not the size or
strength of its arsenal that worry the international community, but the mere
possession of the technology and capabilities to create nuclear arms.
Yet, without a nuclear attack since the back-end of WWII,
the need to actually develop and construct nuclear arms is quickly becoming
less of a necessity. In the case of Iran, it has oft been considered an
international menace and military threat despite the lack of evidence that it
possesses or has even pursued the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Instead,
Iran has gained credibility through its ability to create doubts and confusion
about its desires and pursuits, an achievement coined “strategic ambiguity”. By
keeping its true intentions hidden, the Iranian state could potentially develop
nuclear technology and gain recognition as a member of the “nuclear club”,
without the costly measure of truly creating a single warhead. Although the
risk of a nuclear facade may be worth the reward in the short-term, it is
difficult to say how long the international community is willing to fear an
Iranian state without proof that its bite matches its bark.
No comments:
Post a Comment