Iran has had nuclear ambitions for a while now. Specifically, they have expended a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in an effort to get into a position where they could build an atomic bomb. They claim that they don't want to build a bomb. They just want to ramp up their capabilities in the area. Others say, "they want to build a bomb".
We won't know who is correct until they either abandon their current efforts or succeed in building a bomb. But does it really matter if they build a bomb? There is a widespread belief that the answer as a resounding "yes". That is a belief I subscribed to for a longtime. But recent events have caused me to revise my thinking.
Conventional analysis says that the Iranians are bad people, they are a "rogue state" capable of much mischief. Topping the list of what mischief Iran might get up to is that they might nuke somebody. Israel thinks that they are the most likely target, so they are adamantly opposed to Iran getting the bomb.
A less extreme concern is that of "the domino theory of proliferation". If Iran gets the bomb, then its neighbors will be forced to "keep up with the Jonses" and launch bomb building programs of their own. So, who are Iran's neighbors? It turns out that Iran has a lot of neighbors.
One of them is Pakistan. But Pakistan already has the bomb. Then there's Afghanistan. It is too poor, both financially and intellectually to build a bomb. The same is true of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Armenia. There are some gulf states, but I think we can discount them too.
That leaves the big three, Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Any one of them might decide to start a bomb building program. But they might do that regardless of what Iran does. All have aspirations to be seen as major powers. Nothing says "major power" like "we have the bomb", or so conventional wisdom would have it.
Underneath all this is something more basic and fundamental. The world has been living with the existence of nuclear weapons for more than seventy-five years. One way it has done this is by dividing nuclear powers into two groups, the responsible countries and the irresponsible ones. The danger, we are told, stems from the irresponsible ones.
The list of responsible powers starts with the U.S., Britain, and France. At least the list that is created by Americans and Europeans does. To this are normally added Russia and China. And the same cabal that assumes that the U.S., Britain, and France are responsible powers assumes that Iran would be an irresponsible one. But this whole responsible/irresponsible dichotomy quickly breaks down.
The first atomic bomb was created by a joint effort between the U.S. and Britain. The U.S. is the only country that has used an atomic bomb as an instrument of war. We dropped two of them on Japan at the end of World War II.
The initial plan was to keep the nuclear club at two members. But Russia, then the U.S.S.R., using a combination of smarts, spying, and a herculean effort, initially succeeded in building one bomb. Later they built lots of bombs, far more than they could conceivably need.
This was the first instance of nuclear proliferation. It would be far from the last one. As a favor to France, a wartime ally who suffered grievously, France was let into the club. Perhaps in an effort at balance, Russia helped China to get the bomb.
At this point the club had five members, all substantial powers at the time they got the bomb. But proliferation continued. Israel is not officially a member of the club. But the story goes that at some point the U.S. decided to help them out.
So, although they are not officially a member of the nuclear club, pretty much everyone believes that they have a small number of bombs. Of course, this all speculation. Israel has never admitted they have the bomb. And they have never tested one.
Then there's China. They decided to actively support proliferation. In particular, they helped Pakistan get the bomb. India got the bomb a decade after China did and over two decades before Pakistan did. And the newest member of the nuclear club is North Korea.
The responsible/irresponsible division perhaps made some sense a few decades ago. But there is a case to be made that it never really did. And relatively recent events call it even further into question. The first one is the addition of North Korea to the list of nuclear powers in 2006. North Korea is not by any stretch of imagination a responsible country. But it is a nuclear power and life goes on.
And there has been no rush by other countries to join the nuclear club as a result of North Korea's admission. South Korea would be the obvious candidate. They are an economically and technologically advanced country. If they wanted to, I have no doubt they could join the club. But they have chosen not to make the attempt.
Then there is the second member to join the club, Russia. Earlier this year Russia invaded Ukraine. Things have not been going well. That has caused Putin, Russia's leader, to make all kinds of dire threats of a nuclear nature. These threats are completely irresponsible.
So, the question needs to be asked. Would Iran behave more irresponsibly than Russia or North Korea? I don't think so. Culturally, Iran is Persian. That makes them one of the oldest civilizations on the planet. They know in their bones what proper governance looks like. That doesn't stop them from doing reprehensible things.
But then all countries that have the capability do reprehensible things. We invaded Iraq. The justification for the invasion turned out to be completely false. So, there are no countries who are without sin.
Is Iran somehow more sinful than other countries in the region or the world? Not that long ago Iraq invaded Iran. Turkey under Erdogan has not shown itself to be a bastion of probity. I could go on.
A key question to ask is "will a nuclear Iran behave differently and worse than an Iran without the bomb?" Bluntly, will Iran behave more badly than North Korea or Russia? I tend to think not. After all, the behavior necessary to pass that test would have to be pretty extreme.
So, given that, is it worth the effort to continue to try to block Iran from getting the capability to build an atomic bomb? I don't think so. This is especially true because successfully blocking Iran from continuing their nuclear program depends critically on Russia cooperating.
And that leads to another question: If we stopped trying to block their nuclear aspirations could Iran be turned into a partner who is more reliable and helpful than some of our current partners and allies in the region?
This is one of those "low bar" questions. Nominally, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are our partners and allies. But neither is a bastion of virtue. If we reversed our position and told Iran, "go for it" when it comes to their nuclear program then many things immediately become possible.
We currently have an oil shortage due to Russian bad behavior. Iran has stated that, if encouraged, they could ramp oil production up substantially. Turkey is making mischief. They are talking about blocking the admission of Sweden and Finland into NATO. They were less than completely helpful in dealing with Syria, under Assad a very irresponsible country.
Turkey has great power aspirations. In other words, they want to throw their weight around in order to get what they want. Iran can counterbalance that.
Another country that likes to throw its weight around, and not in a good way, is Saudi Arabia. To say that they have a repressive society that is deeply corrupt and has a terrible human rights record is to understate the situation. Again, Iran can function as a counterbalance.
Would Iran be a better partner on the world stage than Russians has turned out to be? They would be hard pressed to do worse.
So, my suggestion is to rethink our whole strategy of opposing Iran's nuclear program. Getting into the nuclear club just isn't as rewarding as it used to be. Trading away what are now very damaged goods in exchange for much more useful benefits in other areas sounds like a more productive course to embark on to me.
