Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

The world's nuclear gang-bangers have the upper hand

The gangster state of North Korea became a nuclear power in 2006-2007, despite lots of foreign aid aimed at precluding just such proliferation -- help usually not otherwise accorded such a loony dictatorship. Apparently the civilized world rightly suspected that if nuclear, Pyongyang would either export nuclear material and expertise to other unstable countries, or bully its successful but non-nuclear neighbors -- or both.

The United States has given billions of dollars in foreign aid to Pakistan, whose Islamist gangs have spearheaded radical anti-American terrorism. Since a corrupt Pakistan went nuclear in 1998, it has been able to extort such foreign payouts -- on fears that one of its nukes might end up in the hands of terrorists.

By any measure of economic success or political stability, Pakistan would not warrant either the cash or the attention it wins without nuclear weapons.

An observant Iran appreciates three laws of current nuclear gangbanging.

1. Nuclear weapons earn a reputation.

2. The more loco a nuclear nation sounds, the more likely civilized states will fear that it is not subject to nuclear deterrence, and so they pay bribes for it behave. Gangbangers always claim that they have nothing to lose; their more responsible intended targets have everything to lose.

3. As of yet there are no 100 percent effective nuclear defense systems that can guarantee non-nuclear powers absolute safety from a sudden attack. The nuclear gangbanger, not the global police, currently has the upper hand.

Again, the actual bombs are not the problem. We do not worry about a nuclear but democratic Israel or France. We are not even bothered by a hostile but non-nuclear Cuba or Venezuela. The combination of a bomb with a rap sheet is what changes all diplomatic and strategic considerations.

It would be hard to contain a nuclear Iran with bribes, as we have so far handled Pakistan -- and in the past North Korea as well. In both cases, we have had some help. Nuclear neighbor India assists in warning Pakistan to behave. A nervous Chinese overlord is amused by North Korean troublemaking -- but only up to the point that North Korea might threaten China's vital export markets.

In contrast, only one of Iran's two enemies -- Israel -- is nuclear. Its wealthier Sunni Saudi Arabian rival is not.

When Iran goes nuclear, one of two things will follow. Either its Arab rivals will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan to ensure that Iran does not bully them for political concessions -- on matters of oil production and pricing, autonomy for Shiite minorities, and an end to non-belligerency with Israel. Or the Sunni powers will accept Iran's hegemony to win exemption from its episodic lunatic threats of Armageddon. Either way, the Middle East will become a far more dangerous place.

There is yet another side to the nuclear gangbangers: the reaction of non-nuclear democratic civilized states that must live with their occasional existential threats.

Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan have the expertise, but so far not the need, to become nuclear states. Up to now, they have all felt that American power was overwhelming, and its security guarantees ironclad.

In addition, nuclear China and Russia were not so threatening after the end of the Cold War. The expense, the odium and the memories of horrific wars made nuclear proliferation unimaginable.

All that could soon change. The one constant in American foreign policy over the last five years is that the administration's game changers, red lines and deadlines proved mostly negotiable. Meanwhile, China is beginning to translate its economic success into military adventurism, in the same manner imperial Japan did in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The more nuclear powers, the less resistance to the addition of a new one. War would not necessarily be inevitable in the China Sea should there soon be five or six nuclear powers with a presence in the region, rather than the present China, U.S. and North Korea. But the odds of conflict would increase -- and the ability of the United States to ensure calm would diminish even further.

So far we have talked of democratic nuclear powers containing, coaxing or bribing outlaw nuclear gangsters to be reasonable -- or threatening military force to disrupt their nuclear programs before they come on line.

Yet just as likely looms the sudden growth in the nuclear family of responsible powers, who at present have no sure source of deterring nuclear renegades. Would a rich but non-nuclear Germany always count on a retrenching U.S., a fickle nuclear France, bribes or diplomacy to convince theocratic Iran to turn its missiles in a different direction? If Iran has a bomb, why not Turkey? Or, for that matter, Brazil?

In such a nuclear club of 20 or more, rather than the present nine nuclear powers, border disputes, religious rivalries, ideological antagonisms and terrorism could all escalate not just to regional wars, but to the end of 21st-century culture itself.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author, most recently, of "The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern" His email is author@victorhanson.com.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Keep talking with Iran

    Keep talking with Iran

    The announcement today that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to extend talks over Tehran's disputed nuclear program is far short of what we might have hoped for. But the extension can't be counted as a failure either. If the goal is to keep up the pressure on Iran's leaders to reach a deal, keeping...

  • Five questions for Cardin

    Five questions for Cardin

    I'd like to ask five questions of Sen. Ben Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and others who support congressional review of any final U.S. nuclear agreement with Iran ("Cardin lands complicated deal with GOP, Obama on Iran," April 14):

  • A bad deal with Iran is worse than war

    A bad deal with Iran is worse than war

    Salah al-Mukhtar, a Jordanian columnist who writes for the Amman News, wrote the following reaction to the framework agreement reached between Iran and the major powers over its disputed nuclear program:

  • Iran can't be trusted to keep its word

    Iran can't be trusted to keep its word

    Your recent editorial on the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks is another indication that the liberal media does not understand that negotiating with Iran from the position of weakness is a disaster ("Negotiating with Iran," April 3).

  • Congress should not kill Iran deal

    Congress should not kill Iran deal

    South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham got it right on Sunday when he said the framework accord between Iran and the major world powers on Tehran's disputed nuclear program is probably the best deal the Obama administration could have gotten. Of course, he didn't mean it as a compliment...

  • Congress should not dismiss Iran deal

    Congress should not dismiss Iran deal

    Before those opposed to the recent deal with Iran settle on their opposition ("Negotiating with Iran," April 5), I would hope they consider the following.

  • Iran never threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map'

    Iran never threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map'

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel will not accept any agreement that allows a country that vows to annihilate his nation to develop nuclear weapons.

  • Iran has stuck by its side of the interim deal

    Iran has stuck by its side of the interim deal

    I have rarely read a letter with so many falsehoods as the individual who recently asserted that the Iranians "have lied about working toward a nuke, where their facilities are, how any places, people and pieces of equipment they have working on projects. More importantly, they declare peaceful...

Comments
Loading

75°