What's wrong with an Iranian nuke?

If and when the United States concludes that Ahmadinejad’s presence and the regime’s behavior make it impossible to negotiate with Iran, Washington will get tougher on sanctions, as well as support some future Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The same applies to European governments. (Even Saudi Arabia is rumored to support an Israeli attack.)

In this context, the threat of Iran having nuclear weapons is often misunderstood. True, the most horrendous scenario—and the main concern for Israel and its supporters—is the use of a nuclear weapon against Israel, however low the likelihood of this happening.
Yet this is by no means the whole picture. While the world may be indifferent to another mass slaughter of Jews, Western and Arab interests are also threatened by Iran having nuclear weapons.

Consider the following:

* A nuclear-armed Iran will be able to intimidate Arab countries, especially the oil-rich ones such as Saudi Arabia across the Persian Gulf, on a whole range of issues. Remember, Israel can protect itself from Iran, but these countries cannot.
* The same applies to the West. European countries and even the United States would not dare take action that Tehran opposed so strongly that it might use nuclear weapons.
* The price of oil would skyrocket. This would result both from the increased perception of regional instability and because Tehran wants higher prices. Would the Saudis, whose interests dictate lower prices, hold out if Iran waved its nuclear arms?
* Of course, Arab states would run to the United States for protection, but would they feel safe at present in putting their trust in the Obama administration?
* Nuclear weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists. Even without an Iranian government decision to give them, individual officials or lax security could lead to a terrorist attack that would dwarf 9/11.
* Last but certainly not least, tens of thousands of Muslims throughout the Middle East would conclude that Iran’s Islamist regime has shown the way to victory. They will flock to join radical Islamist groups, and the levels of violence and terrorism would rise in every Arab country and in Europe as well.

So what can Israel do about this? The first step is to push harder for meaningful sanctions at the United Nations to try to block Iran’s weapons drive, though this is not expected to work.

A second step, which receives little international attention, is to build an effective antimissile defense. Without going into all of the details, this can certainly keep Israel safe unless Iran has a large arsenal of missiles and launchers, which will take years to develop even after Iran has a small number of bombs.

The final option is an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is a longer-term matter than many observers think. Could it succeed? Yes, with a small amount of luck and with or without United States approval. Would the cost be sustainable in terms of the international political developments that would follow? Again, yes.

The key problem with an attack, of course, is that even if successful it would only set the Iranian regime back and not end the threat altogether. So there are no easy options for Israel.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal (www.gloria-center.org). His blog is RubinReports