Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

Op-Ed Contributor
Irans Two-Edged Bomb
 

By ADAM B. LOWTHER
Published: February 8, 2010

With Iran having notified the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency that it is now enriching its stockpile of uranium to a higher level, we should admit that Washingtons approach to countering the Islamic Republic is leading nowhere. Whats needed, however, may be less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb. (Im speaking for myself here, and in no way for the Air Force.) Five possibilities come to mind.

First, Irans development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Heres why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.

Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.

Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Irans nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties, leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents. Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way to undercutting Tehrans animosity toward Israel, and would ease longstanding tensions in the region.

Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.

With the likelihood of austere Pentagon budgets in the coming years, Boeing has been making noise about shifting out of the defense industry, which would mean lost American jobs and would also put us in a difficult position should we be threatened by a rising military power like China. A nuclear Iran could forestall such a catastrophe.

Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost. And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas counterinsurgency operations.

What about the downside that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, thats less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less. The 50-year standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States was called the cold war thanks to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

There is reason to believe that the initial shock of a nuclear Iran would soon be followed a new regional dynamic strikingly like that of cold-war Europe. Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be united along with their smaller neighbors by their fear of Iran; the United States would take the lead in creating a stable regional security environment. In addition, our reluctant European allies, and possibly even China and Russia, would have a much harder time justifying sales of goods and technology to Tehran, further isolating the Islamic Republic.

Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American influence in the Middle East.

Feb. 9. 2010: This Op-Ed has been updated to reflect the news.

Adam B. Lowther is a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute.


UserPostedImage
dfosterf
15 years ago
I think I should have one also.
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
Technically, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to possess one.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
15 years ago
Her's a fact they seem to forget.
Yes, RATIONAL people wouldn't use a nuke.
REMEMBER who we are dealing with????
We are talking about another nut job that doesn't THINK like a person with a BRAIN.
You can't make deals with someone that hates us and who's only goal is to kill as many of us as they can. These are NOT rational thinking people we are dealing with. What reason does Iran have to have nukes? Unless it's to USE them. And Iran is NOT like us. Iran is a powderkeg, with a nut case with a lit match in his hand.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
15 years ago
Actually, they'd nuke Israel first. Their beef with us is Israel's flying American made planes and driving American made tanks.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Cheesey
15 years ago
Yup.....the Bible said to expect as much. I don't doubt if they start WW3.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

We are talking about another nut job that doesn't THINK like a person with a BRAIN.
You can't make deals with someone that hates us and who's only goal is to kill as many of us as they can.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Please don't tell me you actually believe this tripe. If you do, you've been brainwashed by our own government beyond its wildest dreams. The first step in making an enemy is always dehumanizing him, which you've just done in spectacular fashion.

Let's look at the facts surrounding this situation, shall we?

Fact: Modern Iranians are the descendants of the ancient Persians; in fact, every Iranian I've met hates the word "Iranian" and refers to himself or herself as "Persian." By contrast, many Iraqis are descendents of the ancient Babylonians. This should ring a bell: throughout history, Persians and Babylonians have always been bitter enemies. So it should come as no surprise that they still are.

Fact: Iran and Iraq (or Persia and Babylon, if you will) share a very long border, which leaves them vulnerable to each other, an unnerving situation for two countries who have hated each other for 4,000 years.

Fact: The United States openly supported Saddam Hussein against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War that lasted from 1980 to 1988. In this war, at least half a million soldiers died, not including 1 million Iranian civilians. This doesn't count the thousands of Iranians who are still dying slow, agonizing deaths from the effects of chemical agents used by Saddam Hussein in that war -- agents, by the way, that were sold to him by the United States.

Fact: In 2003, the same United States that supported their enemy in this unspeakably bloody war invaded Iraq and commenced an 8-year (and counting) occupation of a country on Iran's border, with the obvious intent of cementing American hegemony in the Middle East.

Now let's stop to think about this for a minute.

Imagine a country -- say, Germany -- supported Canada against the United States in a bloody war that killed half a million of our soldiers and a million of our civilians. Then a few years later, Germany invaded Canada, toppled its government, and occupied the land. Do you think the United States would sit idly by as this happened, or would we find this development downright terrifying? The answer is obvious.

So how can you fault Iran for being alarmed that the one-time ally of their most ancient enemy has occupied the neighboring country -- and what's more, has been openly rattling its sabers against Iran for the better part of a decade? Frankly, I would have no respect for Iran as a nation if they didn't have some misgivings over this obvious threat to their national security, because it would be obvious they were completely naive.

Let's go on.

Fact: The government of Iran has a parliamentary system, which means that the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is essentially little more than a figurehead, albeit a loud, obnoxious, and fulminating one. Ahmadinejad is like a chained bulldog that barks really loud to keep out the burglars but is little harm if you stay outside the radius of his chain. And before you say, "But he denies the Holocaust and blah-blah-blah," of course he is going to say things like that. He's a loud-mouthed spokesperson whose main function is to polarize public opinion, much as George Bush said a bunch of things that were patently false to whip up public frenzy for his pet war. That doesn't mean Ahmadinejad represents the opinion of the sensible members of parliament, even if the ayatollahs are silently cheering him on.

Fact: The oldest Jewish community in the world resides in Iran (this was told to me by a Jew who lives in Israel), and in fact, until the founding of the State of Israel in 1949, one of the largest, most vibrant Jewish populations in the world was centered in Iran. (There used to be many Jews in Iraq too, until the British, not the Muslims, drove them out.) Iranians don't hate Jews. There is no tension between Jews and Persians in Iran. Many Persians, and the Iranian government in particular, do indeed distrust Israel; however, that is not because Israel is a "Jewish state" (it's entirely secular), but because they regard Israel as little more than an American and British colony that represents a direct threat to their national security. And when you think about it, this is actually a pretty accurate assessment of the situation.

Fact: President Ahmadenijad has never called for the destruction of Israel. He has been much quoted in the media as proclaiming that Israel must be "driven into the sea," but in fact, he never said that. His comments have been not only poorly translated, but (probably deliberately) mistranslated. According to a professor at the University of Minnesota, who was interviewed on WPR recently, what he actually said was a quote of an ayatollah, who said that there may come a day the names of their (Israel's) leaders are wiped from the pages of history. In other words, not that Iran would destroy Israel, but that future generations would not look favorably upon the decisions Israel has made as a nation.

Israel, a small but brash and bombastic nation, already has nukes, not to mention the backing of the United States. Iran, a much larger nation with a much larger population, is understandably concerned and wants to be able to defend itself. Their desire for nukes has nothing to do with a supposed hatred of the United States, which, if it exists, is purely a product of our support of Israel and Iraq. If the United States pulled out of the Middle East and stopped supporting Israel, Iran wouldn't give two shits about us.

Iran is not a global threat. It is at most a regional threat. What are we worried about? These regional conflicts have been raging for four millennia and more. I say, let them rage.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
15 years ago
FACT: Iran held a bunch of our people hostage.
FACT: They don't play by the RULES.

As far as a regional threat goes, Israel is one of our allies. If they attack THEM, they are attacking US.
So by your words we shouldn't CARE what Iran does, as it's not in our backyard?
Turn our backs and ignore a guy that would blow us off the face of the earth if he could. You don't want to believe that, but THAT is "fact".

We didn't fear the terrorists either. We thought they were too small to attack us.
9/11
Hell of a wake up call for those that thought we couldn't be attacked by a small minority.
You keep your head in the sand Non. I prefer to keep an eye on those that we know from history can NOT be trusted.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 years ago
Apropos of nothing...

Why _do_ ostriches put their head in the sand?

As an economist who tends to believe there tend to be rational explanations (i.e., net positive benefit) from most actiions observed, might the ostrich's approach be the correct one.

And of course, the natural extension of this....might there ever be a case when taking an ostrich approach might be the best choice?

Just wondering (and not putting forth an opinion one way or another on the Iran question at hand).
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
So the holding of 53 Americans 30 years ago justifies potentially destabilizing the situation in the Middle East and risking the lives of potentially thousands in a senseless war that we WILL lose? Where is the logic in that argument?

Because while no Iranian I've met actually supports the current regime (think of all the protests going on in Iran), they all fanatically love their country and have assured me that if they were invaded, they will defend their land, regardless of who is in power. Iran is like the United States -- everyone has guns. And they love their country in a way Iraqis can't, since Iraq is an artificial country. They won't simply lay down before our troops like the Iraqis did.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (10-Jul) : Us Padres fans love it....But it'll be a Dodgers/Yankees World Series
Zero2Cool (9-Jul) : Brewers sweep Dodgers. Awesome
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : And James Flanigan is the grandson of Packers Super Bowl winner Jim Flanigan Sr.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : Jerome Bettis and Jim Flanigans sons as well!
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Thomas Davis Jr is OLB, not WR. Oops.
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Larry Fitzgeral and Thomas Davis sons too. WR's as well.
Mucky Tundra (5-Jul) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
10-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-Jul / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

6-Jul / Random Babble / Martha Careful

4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.