Paradoxes of a Nuclear Iran
August 12, 2012 by Team SAISA
Filed under Analysis
Iran’s nuclear ambitions have dominated the western policy makers as it promises to alter the geopolitical dynamics of West Asia with concomitant impact on global nuclear equations. As per western estimates it would escalate the threat matrix for Iran and provide impetus to Arab countries joining the race for nuclear weapons. The Persian vs Arab bomb race would heat up aided by the AQ Khan Wal-Mart of Pakistan. A combination of deterrence and containment might eventually be what the U.S. is forced to do, since it seems unlikely that the U.S. will succeed in dissuading Iran from going nuclear. The global and regional implications of such a race are ominous and merit continued efforts at preventing Iran’s ambitions without starting a new war.
Understanding that Iran’s actions and behaviour are rational, or at the very least not entirely irrational, should help in thinking through whether a nuclear armed Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and whether the conventional doctrines of nuclear deterrence and containment might have any traction in the context of the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear programme is as much about national prestige and regional standing as strategic interest. The current Iranian leadership would probably prefer to be isolated with the bomb, than on warm terms with the international community without the bomb.
Global Equations
Stability of the region (Afghanistan specific) without extra regional powers like US would depend on the alignment of power between two camps: Iran, India and Russia on one hand and China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the other. It is opined that to maintain reasonable balance of power America will have to play the swing state between the two blocks. It is a result of this growing schism between America (with Israel mounting the pressure) and Iran which is realigning anti-American forces such as Russia, China and Pakistan thus marginalizing any US efforts to play the swing state. In either case, Russia, China and Iran have stepped up activity to fill the post 2014 vacuum in Af Pak. The acrimonious interplay between the “Sunni block” (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the UAE) against the “Shiite block” (Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon) accentuates the regional fault lines further.
Regional Implications
Arabs cannot accept a nuclear-armed Iran because this would mean Persian superiority over the Arabs. Secondly, if Iran obtained nuclear weapons there would emerge a balance of power between Iran and Israel. However, Iran’s main goal is not confrontation with Israel but with the Arab countries, especially the Persian Gulf countries. So it is clear to the latter that Iran is a menace to them in the first place rather than to Israel.
Turkey, though secular and protected by NATO umbrella, may want to build a capability of their own to counterbalance Iran’s would-be bomb. Muslim countries of the ex-Soviet Union, such as Azerbaijan, which is a predominantly Shia country, and Uzbekistan have a direct stake. Those are only some of the countries that could be threatened by nuclear-capable Iran. The Shia crescent is likely to disturb the equations in Iraq, Bahrain Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Chinese fear that in case Iran got caught in a conflict they would lose their oil market and not receive cheap and stable oil. Given China’s increasingly closer energy and economic ties with Iran, Beijing is thus caught in a dilemma vis-à-vis the issue of uranium enrichment in Iran.
Indian Policy Options
India is already on the nuclear radar of China, Pakistan, Russia and US. Another name in the list would materially make little difference but would severely impinge upon its energy security (both from Arabs and Iran) and be an anathema to its Af Pak and connect Central Asia Policies. Thus it is in Indian interest to diffuse the tensions between the West and Iran while promoting peace in the region.
The key question remains whether India has the requisite bandwidth to ensure reproachment between US and Iran. There is a school of thought which argues that India should not get involved in the US – Iran feud and let Russia and China take care of it.
Secondly, Ambassador Ishrat Azziz articulates that India should stand firm in stating that the IAEA should be the agency that should deal with Iran’s nuclear profile. If an anti-Iran resolution or a resolution perceived by Iran as against it comes up for vote in the UNSC, India must abstain and avoid taking sides. If it is proved that Iran has enriched to higher percentages other than for peaceful purposes, then India might have to take a stance.
A nuclear Iran ultimately may be a far less dangerous proposition to starting a war to prevent the Iranian bomb.
Related articles
Why Azerbaijan is closer to Israel than Iran
If america can be nuclear,why not Iran.America and its puppets are simply trying to intimidate Iran for gaining supremacy in the region which they feel is declining.Attacking Iran can be doom-spelling for america as US and its allies have crossed limits in interfering the Muslim world and trying to maintain their supremacy simply by maintaining their hegemony.The question is why Iran only not deserves Nuclear enrichment when so many nations round the world are already nuclear powers.let america destroy its nuclear power first and then intimidate others.right from iraq to afghanistan to libya to syria america is playing foul and trying to shape things their way,this shapes nothing but the violence.Iran has made it quite clear that its nuclear programme is for energy purposes and if going nuclear is a crime then all nuclaer states should shun their nuclaer enrichment..
All this is OK but the real question from the Indian perspective is Arab/non-Arab (ie Hindu)Asia.The entire non-Arab Asia is the great Hindu(ie non-Arab)World and we have to concentrate on this sole factor.Hindu World should become for us the KEY-SECTOR which starts from Iran and goes up to Indonesia as well as from Mongolia to Australia including all “stans” of Central Asia and the Buddhist Far-East world of China/Japan/and Korea.We have to move forward from Hindu-Rashtra to Hindu World.
During freedom movement we used to be inspired by the ideal of Hindu Rashtra only but as we are free now, we have to go further up and understand the reach of Hindu World which consists of some 40 countries. Arab World has only 22 countries(see Arab League),but our Hindu World is far bigger than that.
But thanks to this so-called “congress secularism”, we nurture strange antipathy and prejudice for the Hindu word which we have to get rid of.In fact Hindu is the word for non-Arab and the 7th century Arab invasion of Sindh is responsible for giving this word currency. After that the non-stop cycle of invasions from the North-West and long spell of Muslim rule over India, filled it with religious connotations, otherwise this word is basically, political, not religious.Someone told me that that doyen of civil service Vajahat Habibullah has written somewhere that he was a Hindu.Here he has used this word very correctly.Everybody knows that he is Muslim by faith but even then he calls himself Hindu.This line we have to follow. We all are Hindu.Not only we Indians as such,but the whole of NON-ARAB ASIA.
ONAA(Org.of non-Arab Asia) is required most. Govt. has not yet realized this.We are still lost in the old world of NAM and the Third World defunct ideology. We need this non-Arab Hindu Doctrine.Only this can take us to the cherished destination.
Everything else is OK; this is the real issue.