Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

Jeffrey Goldberg makes the case that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is, indeed, quite the horrifying prospect. Not because they could annihilate Israel, but because of how it will destabilize the Middle East:

It is not meaningless that Iran is the only country in the world that has “Death to America” as its foreign policy, but what interests me more are the consequences of the chaotic nuclear proliferation that will almost definitely follow the successful testing of an Iranian nuclear device. Iran’s traditional adversaries, the Saudis, as well as the Turks, will surely develop nuclear weapons, as will, quite possibly, the Egyptians and the Algerians. The Syrians, of course, have already tried.  The Saudis are probably more agitated by the Iranian program than the Israelis.

Can we really live with a Middle East that has eight or ten nuclear powers? And will our allies succumb to Iranian pressure and one day line-up against us? Right now, we have enormous influence in the Gulf states, influence that helps us fight terrorism and assure the smooth flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. All this changes if Iran becomes a proven nuclear power. Our Gulf allies will have to make impossible choices, between the country that has guaranteed order in their region, and the rising Shia power.

This analysis, which strikes me as basically correct, emphasizes something very important about the Iranian threat. It’s not Iran having the bomb, per se, that’s dangerous. It’s the effect it will have on the region, specifically how it would spark a chain-reaction of wildfire proliferation. So the US (and European) strategy shouldn’t be myopically focused on “how can we prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon,” but instead on “how can we prevent region-wide proliferation.” When you look at the question this way, Iran fades into the background a bit – and Israel becomes the central question. After all, it’s Israel who has 60 nuclear weapons, it’s Israel who’s the rogue proliferator in the Middle East. And it seems totally unreasonable to expect every other MIddle Eastern country to abandon any prospect of obtaining a deterrent when one country has such an overwhelming advantage. After all, it’s Israel that can strike other states with impunity, and one could probably chalk up Syria’s recent attempts at building a nuclear capacity to Israeli threats as much as Iranian ones. So the US focus should be on some sort of comprehensive settlement with the goal of making the Middle East a nuclear free zone. This could easily get reduced down to Israel merely declaring its weapons and perhaps reducing its arsenal, but still, that’s where the focus ought to be at.

Jonathan Schell has a good piece in the Nation arguing for a Middle East nuclear settlement along those lines. Read it.