An op-ed piece in USA Today appears under the almost satirical headline “Iranian nukes? No worries.”
It advises, “A nuclear-armed Iran would probably be the best possible result of the standoff and the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.” A nuclear Iran, the author of the piece writes, would counter “Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly,” which “has long fueled instability in the Middle East.”
I’m all for counterintuitive op-ed pieces that re-examine widely held assumptions, and it’s tempting to dismiss this one as so silly as to be unworthy of a serious response. But USA Today says the article is a condensed version of a longer piece that will appear in the July-August issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Its author, Kenneth Waltz, is an adjunct professor in the department of political science at Columbia University. His biography says he has also taught at Brandeis and at the United States Air Force Academy.
So it’s worth taking a moment or two to point out the problems with Professor Waltz’s argument. First, there’s that word “probably.” Waltz writes, “It is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of enhancing its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities.”
“Probably” and “likely” aren’t all that reassuring. If Waltz is wrong and the Iranians do launch a nuclear attack aimed at Tel Aviv, Washington, or New York, the consequences would be catastrophic.
Second, there’s a double standard when it comes to the Israeli A-bomb and an Iranian one. Waltz writes that “by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.” But he blames Israel’s nukes for fueling instability. (Never mind the question of whether “stability” is something that should be desired in the case of some of the Middle East’s more tyrannical or otherwise backward regimes.)
Third, Waltz writes:
Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded. When Israel acquired the bomb in the 1960s, it was at war with many of its neighbors. If an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now.
The lack of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East hasn’t been for lack of trying by Israel’s neighbors. Rather, Iraq’s Osirak reactor was bombed by Israel in 1981, and a Syrian nuclear site was flattened in 2007 in an action that is widely attributed to Israel.
Anyway, consider the USA Today article the latest proof that some ideas are so far out there that only Columbia professors believe them. Let’s hope it stays that way, because if Europe or the United Nations or the Obama administration are looking for an argument to justify standing by while Iran gets the bomb, the Waltz argument may prove too readily available to resist.
Maybe Waltz comes by his opinions honestly. Didn't Achmadinejad vist Columbia and interact with staff and students? n nMaybe he whispered the 'truth' to Waltz during the visit. n nWe should all thank Waltz for his considered and valuable foreign policy contribution. n nThe subtext of Waltz piece might be: n n 'Vote for Obama – he thinks just like adjunct professors at Columbia University. How wrong can he be? '
In Europe this would be considered fairly mainstream.
In Europe, what isn't? Just don't bathe downstream in their mainstream without taking your inoculation shots.
Kenneth Waltz created a model of how International Relations work. This model remains basically unchanged since 1979. Waltz does not allow inconvenient facts to get in his way or plays down those facts which do not conform to his model to point of invisibility. One such inconvenient fact is pointed out by Stoll- that the lack of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East resulted by direct military intervention by Israel. Another inconvenient fact that Waltz will not account for is the Sunni /Shia divide. If we are good Neo-Realists, then we're going to believe that the Sunni States will provide no motivation whatsoever in Suuni States trying to obtain nuclear weapons to prevent Shia dominance of the Middle East, especially in the Gulf region. nAt 88, Waltz need not worry too much longer about the consequences of his silly theory should it prove wrong headed. The rest us, especially if we live in the Middle East don't have that luxury.
The Sunni emirates have said loudly that the Iranian program gives them the willies. This is not exactly esoteric.
One key assumption for those in the West: Past stability or sanity is an indication of future stability or sanity. This assumption is actually false. The Arab Spring and the global financial crisis are examples where past stability does not mean future stability. The rise of Adolf Hitler is an example were past sanity did not guarantee future sanity. n nAnother assumption flaw is that leaders don't want to commit suicide. Who says they have to commit suicide to launch a nuclear war? Very often they can just ride it out in underground bunkers, along with their military and some citizens, and the rest of the population takes a beating. It's not like some leaders have a problem making their population suffer. n nAnother problem is that the West can read the mind of difficult leaders around the world. Russia, China or Iran would never launch a nuclear attack against the US or Israel. Really! How do you know? n nFinally, difficult countries like Iran (Russia and China too) do not have an agenda of their own. They only react to the other side. Apparently, they have been ignoring religious leaders in Iran explaining how Iran wants to facilitate the return of the Mahdi. That means Israel has got to go, and so do millions of others. So the dummies in the West should be working more with Israel instead of throwing it under the bus. First Israel, then the rest of the West.
Point of Fact… when someone says they want to kill you … take them at their word
Trouble is that Waltz and some others are a bit confused about the standards of proof to be employed with regard to particular situations by particular players. For example, a professor in the social sciences or a journalist in an newspaper commonly relies on the standard of "on the balance of the probabilities“ which is the civil law standard. By contrast the standard for natural science is generally much more rigorous, in fact, something like the "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the criminal law standard. However, a statesman responsible for the destiny of his country may in certain circumstances be compelled to employ something like environmental law's "precautionary principle." If there a hole in the ozone layer threatening to destroy all life on earth? Well, we take remedial action pronto! We do not sit back and wait until we have rock solid evidence that meets the criminal law standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." For centuries, statesmen have been forced to sometimes rely on something like the "precautionary principle" in dealing with matters of national security. However, the same subject matter handled by professors has invariably to meet meet the higher standard of "on the balance of the probabilities." And, in some cases, for purposes of driving home an argument, interlocutors even try to use the very exigent standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for national security subject matter. However, those with significant experience of government realize the inappropriateness of invariably requiring for national security issues those higher standards of proof. Good to have probability, even certainty, but in practice a nation's vital interests sometimes require acting on something like the "precautionary principle."