Why Might Iran Want a Nuclear Weapon?
Well, here’s one observation:
The United States has never so much as spat at a nation that possesses a nuclear weapon.
Just a thought.
Well we have cut off all economic ties to NK. We had a 40-year standoff with the former USSR. We tried to invade Cuba when the Soviets put nukes there. I could go on, but yeah you’re basically wrong.
Iran has shown no indication that they’re interested in obtaining nuclear capability since about late 2002. However, hypothetically, it would be clear why they would want to establish a nuclear arsenal. They’re surrounded by hostile/unfriendly nations, they’re isolated, and must self-rely on national security and defense mechanisms. To the East, Iran faces two nuclear nations: Pakistan and India and to the West, Iran is faced by very unfriendly states.
Proponents of nuclear proliferation tout a talking point from Robert McNamara: Nuclear weapons are never to be actually used and their only purpose is to serve as a deterrent. The thought amongst these theorists is that nuclear states will not go to war with one another because risking a potential nuclear attack is not worth it, nor is actually carrying out a nuclear strike. Any first-use of a nuclear weapon is suicidal because the offensive state would be wiped out in the retaliatory strike. When credible nuclear states threaten to use weapons, conflict is avoided because no one wants to risk a nuclear attack of any kind due to the sheer devastating nature of nuclear weapons. There is no “acceptable” amount of damage a state is willing to endure, so they seek other methods to resolve conflict.
That’s the theory proposed by pro-proliferation individuals anyway. In practice, we know that there have been several near-use situations among and between nuclear states. A nuclear Iran would be able to least somewhat successfully deter the United States from acting freely in the Middle East and dominating the region as we’ve seen.
Of course, deterrence would be a major factor in the decision whether or not to pursue nuclear capability, and I in no way refuted that fact. What I refuted was the assumption that the simple possession of a nuclear arsenal would somehow cause the US to basically appease Iran. The US carried out proxy wars against the Soviet Union, most notably in Korea and Viet Nam, and most recently by arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan with the explicit purpose of causing the economic ruin of the Soviet Union.
In a nutshell, arming themselves with nuclear weapons would most likely deter the US from a direct military attack on Iran, but indirect or non-military action would probably accelerate.
I feel that I also must say that even if Iran developed a nuclear weapon tomorrow, it’s highly doubtful that this weapon would be sophisticated enough to be used against any cities in the US, so depending upon the US’s military leadership, the possibility of a retaliatory strike against one of our allies could be viewed as a necessary evil.
