I have been asked and accepted an opportunity to speak on a panel here at GCC on May 1st. The panel discussion will focus on nuclear enrichment in Iran. Particularly the question of whether zero-enrichment is the policy best followed by the U.S. and its European allies involved in negotiations with Iran over the Iranian nuclear program will be discussed. I thought I'd offer a highlight of some of my thinking on this issue. In the interest of full disclosure I will admit that much of my thoughts on this issue are informed by the realist theoretical framework for understanding international relations.
What should be, probably is, the goal of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East? I would answer the establishment of any programs for the enhancement of U.S. citizen's economic gains is priority one. The second priority is tied to the first, peace generally enhances economic opportunity. So what should we think about a potentially nuclear weapon capable Iran?
First, I would point out that nuclear weapons make states generally more risk adverse. The more horrible the prospects for the use of a weapon and engagement in war, the more likely states are to avoid war or find ways to avoid escalations of open hostilities. After all, how many nuclear capable states have gone to war against other nuclear capable states? Iranian deterrence against aggression by other Arab states and against any other states increases with the likelihood that they could employ nuclear weapons.
Based on the likelihood of a nuclear Iran, my second point is that there are a few potential benefits to the U.S. Iran is really a threat to its neighbors, not to the U.S. We can offer a security blanket to autocratic Arab states in return for meaningful economic, political, and social reforms. We can offer the deterrent in return for break up of OPEC, potentially creating increased production of oil and lowering of global commodity prices. And, borrowing from a four year old op-ed by Adam Lowther, there could even be break through benefits in reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians.
I guess, for my two cents, there are worse things that can happen to U.S. security and economic well-being than Iran gaining nuclear weapons capacity. International relations are not about charity, international relations are about governments representing the interests of their own population outside of their own borders. International relations are about maintaining peace and some systemic order. I just don't see a nuclear Iran as a real threat to peace and order in general and U.S. interests in particular. Plus, what hubris we have to say we get to have our nuclear capacity but no other states can have it because we say so.
What should be, probably is, the goal of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East? I would answer the establishment of any programs for the enhancement of U.S. citizen's economic gains is priority one. The second priority is tied to the first, peace generally enhances economic opportunity. So what should we think about a potentially nuclear weapon capable Iran?
First, I would point out that nuclear weapons make states generally more risk adverse. The more horrible the prospects for the use of a weapon and engagement in war, the more likely states are to avoid war or find ways to avoid escalations of open hostilities. After all, how many nuclear capable states have gone to war against other nuclear capable states? Iranian deterrence against aggression by other Arab states and against any other states increases with the likelihood that they could employ nuclear weapons.
Based on the likelihood of a nuclear Iran, my second point is that there are a few potential benefits to the U.S. Iran is really a threat to its neighbors, not to the U.S. We can offer a security blanket to autocratic Arab states in return for meaningful economic, political, and social reforms. We can offer the deterrent in return for break up of OPEC, potentially creating increased production of oil and lowering of global commodity prices. And, borrowing from a four year old op-ed by Adam Lowther, there could even be break through benefits in reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians.
I guess, for my two cents, there are worse things that can happen to U.S. security and economic well-being than Iran gaining nuclear weapons capacity. International relations are not about charity, international relations are about governments representing the interests of their own population outside of their own borders. International relations are about maintaining peace and some systemic order. I just don't see a nuclear Iran as a real threat to peace and order in general and U.S. interests in particular. Plus, what hubris we have to say we get to have our nuclear capacity but no other states can have it because we say so.
