The Economist says US should give Middle East a nuclear umbrella against Iran
Issandr El Amrani | Iran US nuclear I could not disagree further with this (the bold bit):
If Iran does not halt its nuclear programme, its rulers should expect their country to be treated as an international pariah. That means not just pushing for more serious sanctions, but also stepping up the covert campaign to disrupt Iran’s nuclear facilities. It also means preparing for the day when Iran deploys nuclear weapons. To that end, America must demonstrate to its allies who feel threatened by Iran—not just Israel, but Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states too—that its commitment to extending nuclear deterrence to them is as firm as it was to Europe at the height of the cold war. America must also be willing to make available to its allies advanced ballistic missile defences.
Iran must be made to understand that owning nuclear weapons is a curse for it rather than a blessing. And Israel must be persuaded that striking Iran would be far more dangerous than living with its nuclear ambitions.
Overall this leader strikes the right tone, although it inverses the seriousness of the crimes: a nuclear Iran would be a breach of the NPT, but a strike on Iran is an act of war that strikes at the very foundation of the international legal system. In any case, the suggestion that the US should extend a Cold War style nuclear umbrella over the Middle East is pure folly, the exact opposite of the disengagement from the region by the US that is now necessary. Iran's nuclear program does not represent a threat in itself (few think Iran would use the bomb) but rather an increase of Iran's regional prestige and influence. It is also a reaction to a long threat of regime change against it (and the case of Libya must not be giving it confidence that giving up nuclear weapons is the right choice.)
This idea of a US nuclear umbrella, though, strikes me as deeply flawed. Who is going to pay for this nuclear umbrella? What risks will it expose the US to? What kind of overstretch will it be getting into? What does it mean in terms of the number of ships, submarines, bases, aircraft, etc. affected to the region? There were dozens of US bases across Europe providing a nuclear umbrella there. Do we really need more in the Middle East?
Reader Comments (3)
Juan cole writes that A key allegation in the IAEA report on Iranian nuclear activities has fallen apart.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/11/the-little-iran-nuclear-report-that-couldnt.html
I don't think the idea of a nuclear umbrella is as crazy as it sounds. First, of all, there would be zero cost, all it would mean is that the US would guarantee nuclear retaliation for a nuclear attack on those countries, which the US is perfectly capable of doing with its current arsenal.
Secondly, this may be a way to live with a nuclear Iran, which is much better than starting a preemptive war with them. I'm pretty confident that the Iranians can be deterred if they get a nuclear weapon, just as the Soviets and the US were, so making explicit security guarantees would be a big step towards effective deterrence. However, this policy would of course need to wait until Iran actually has nuclear weapons, which as always is either just around the corner or never going to happen.
I am not sure a "nuclear umbrella" would be zero-cost, but it wouldn't entail a US military presence on the same scale as that In Europe during the cold war - most of the troops stationed there were intended to halt a Soviet ground attack. The US nuclear threat consists largely of ICBMs and submarine-based cruise missiles, which don't require feet on the ground, unlike ballistic missile defences.
The examples of Libya and Iraq (and Israel) are absolutely relevant - without nuclear weapons, an unpopular regime is vulnerable to attacks from hostile neighbours; with nuclear weapons, the threat of conventional warfare is all but eliminated. It is impossible to imagine the US (or anyone else) attempting "regime change" in a nuclear state - far too dangerous.
The primary effect of extending the US nuclear umbrella over the neighbours of a nuclear Iran would be to prevent further proliferation - Egypt, for example, would not need the bomb if it was guaranteed protection from the US.