NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE?

Shocking was perhaps the word that best described the average reader's reaction to the op-ed piece in Friday's (18 July 2008) New York Times. Written by respected Israeli professor Benny Morris. the title alone was chilling. "Using Bombs to Stave Off War" was the lead in an article that seemed to endorse a conventional strike against Iran's nuclear facilities within the next four to seven months. Coupled with the inconsequential high-stakes conference between the West and Iran's nuclear negotiators, is it impossible to believe that Israel would take advantage of the final months of the Bush (p)residency to attack Iran, even if this means American collusion to the extent of providing the in-air refueling any Israeli plane would need, clearing the way through Jordanian airspace, or allowing the Israelis to land in Iraq and refuel before proceeding to Iran? What possible good could come of an Israeli attack on Iran? That's one nightmare too many to contemplate.

In the 1960s, it was common to speak of the nuclear o'clock slipping towards midnight and armageddon. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the United States and the Soviet Union came very, very close to a nuclear skirmish. Pakistan and India took us perhaps one step closer to the brink during their 2001 - 2 round of nuclear roulette. Now, a fearful Israeli government, worried that a nuclear armed Iran would not hesitate to send nuclear-tipped missiles towards Tel Aviv, might be tempted to launch a conventional assault on Iran in order to prevent a second Islamic bomb, one within missile range of Israel. Should a conventional assault fail, Professor Morris assures us that "a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow".

Indeed, should the West fail to stop Iran's dalliance with uranium enrichment in order to create enough weapons grade material to build a bomb and Israeli fail to severly dent the Iranian nuclear facilities at Natans and other sites, the Israelis (and the West) will stand before the horns of a dilemma. Either Israel and the West will face a nuclear armed Iran and await the development of a nuclear standoff ala Russia and the United States or Pakistan and India or the Israeli's will use the inevitable Iranian counterstrikes to launch a full-scale nuclear assault on Iran that will leave vast stretches of that state a nuclear wasteland for years to come.

That is scary, but it does highlight the dilemma. Indeed, with all of the West's fulmination over the shady nature of Iran's nuclear program - is it for energy or bombs or both - one question often overlooked is whether it matters if Iran acquires the bomb. Indeed, does it matter than North Korea acquired the bomb? To date, history suggests that acquisition of a nuclear device does not change the strategic balance, even though it does unsettle one's neighbors (Japan). Pakistan assumed India was trying to build a bomb and proceeded to build its own. Once at the brink of conflict with India over Kashmir, the Pakistanis discovered, as every other nuclear power before has learned, nuclear weapons may be the ultimate defensive weapon, but cannot be employed in any credible offensive manner. Will Iran succumb to this logic once it acquires the bomb? Or, will its leadership, or parts of it at least, be so hostile towards Israel that it will seek to wipe Israel from the map by nuclear weapons even if it means their own self-destruction?

From Professor Morris's article, it is not clear which factions in the Israeli governing coalition are prepared to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. One hopes that such factions exist, especially after the ill-prepared, poorly executed and badly achieved standoff with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Not only was Israel unable to punish Hezbollah in order to retrieve its two soldiers taken hostage, it has arguably left Hezbollah much more emboldened and might well have contributed to the tipping of the scales within Lebanon. Maybe a conventional air assault on Iran is feasible - one way or the other - and perhaps it could damage Iran's capability enough to bring Iran meaningfully back to the bargaining table. But, what if they are wrong? Is Israel truly prepared to launch a nuclear counterattack?

That's a nightmare worth pondering. Equally troubling, however, is the faith required in the Bush Administration to compel cooler heads in Tel Aviv to prevail. Is such faith warranted, especially when the Bushidos seemingly trot out every couple of months a new fear-inducing headline about Iran. How many times has the United States hinted that it is prepared to launch a war against Iran? Too many to allow me to feel comfortable placing trust in an administration that has yet to demonstrate any lasting understanding of international relations. The deal with North Korea was a positive sign, but it was completely aberrant behavior from an administration hell-bent on smashing whatever remains of the Axis of Evil.

There are less than 110 days till the election in November. Less than half a year remains of the Bush Administration. Let's hope we live long enough to experience meaningful change.