http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=36829

Iran just wants to play with the big boys

------------------------------------------------------------------

By Daniel Atherton

DAILY BRUIN COLUMNIST

datherton@media.ucla.edu

During the Cold War, the two most heavily armed militaries the

had ever seen stared each other down, and neither fired a shot.

the current quasi-Cold War between India and Pakistan over

of the world's most bitter enemies have come to the brink of

war, and neither has pulled the trigger. So, as the U.N. Security
Council readies to discuss the Iran nuclear crisis this week, can
someone explain to me why we're all so worried about Iran getting

bomb?

Being terrified of nuclear weapons has been ingrained in the

consciousness since the "duck-and-cover" drills of the 1950s. It

surely an unsettling thing to know that the Soviets could strike

time and that there was no way for the U.S. to defend itself; our

recourse was to declare that if they destroyed us, we'd destroy

A nuclear crisis or two later, most Americans seem terrified of

weapons, even our own. The theft and usage of a nuclear weapon by
terrorists against Americans was even a major plot element of the

season of "24," as ridiculous and implausible as that scenario may

We are right to be terrified of the potential power of nuclear

they are the most destructive force the world has ever seen. But

remain the only nation to have ever used one in combat. The

force of other nations having nuclear weapons that they could fire

you if you ever used one against them has been enough to keep nine
nations, several of whom hate each other, from pulling the nuclear
trigger in over 60 years.

According to a transcript on UC Berkeley's Institute of

Studies Web site, Kenneth Waltz, a political scientist, in the

series "Conversations with History," put it this way: "No matter

often the Bush administration people say 'containment and

not work,' it works as well as it ever did (in the Cold War). ...

of the striking things about nuclear deterrence is that it has

no matter what country we're talking about, no matter what kind of
government the country has, no matter what kind of ruler the

has had."

Waltz's argument is essentially this: People in power want to stay

power. Any nation that uses a nuclear weapon on another nation is
guaranteeing, if not its total destruction, a removal of its

from power by the U.S. and other nuclear nations. So why would a

with a nuclear weapon ever use it? A country's most likely reason

wanting to have the bomb in the first place, then, is not to make

but to get other countries to take it seriously.

And thus we come to Iran. Iran's announcement recently that it has
successfully enriched uranium is a step toward having the capacity

develop its own nuclear bomb. Experts say that Iran is still years

from being able to enrich uranium to the point necessary to make

"weaponizable."

RUBY RUDNICK/daily bruin staff
------------------------------------------------------------------

The Security Council has called for Iran to stop enrichment and is
considering sanctions if Iran continues to ignore its requests.
Although Iran said that its only objective is to have nuclear

not nuclear weapons, it remains a good idea to act on the

as most countries are, that Iran would like to have the bomb.

But let's think this through. Waltz said, "If a country ... badly

nuclear weapons, it is almost impossible in the long run to

that country from acquiring nuclear military capability."

Iran is only going to make it want a nuclear bomb more.

The most obvious threatened party would be Israel. But Israel is
believed by everyone to have its own nuclear weapons, even though

has never made a stockpile public.

The mullahs may want to wipe Israel off the map, but it's a big

to simply assume that they would be willing to sacrifice their

country for that goal in what would likely be a massive return

from Israel's secret stash of nuclear weapons.

Iraq is most likely Iran's other potential target in the Middle

since those two countries have been fighting for many years, but

is now protected by the United States.

It makes no sense for Iran to take any nuclear action against

country, because to do so would assure its own complete

government has ever been willing to take that step, so why are we

quick to assume that Iran will be?

Iran wants the status and the security associated with being a

power. It has already rebuffed the United Nation's demands for it

stop enriching uranium, and the situation is accelerating toward

War III (the prewar intelligence will certainly be easier; no need

convince everyone of Iran's nuclear status with

documents from Niger and satellite photos of barns like the last

we went to war over this).

Is it worth storming into another quagmire when the thing we're

to prevent might not be a measurable threat in the first place?

Or might it perhaps be a better idea to take a more cautious

offering incentives for Iran to stop its activity instead of

calling its nuclear bluff?

There's an argument to be made that the world would be safer if,
indeed, every nation had a nuclear bomb. You might not agree with

but it's worth wondering if, perhaps, we might not be just as safe

there were, at least, one more in the club.

The question should be: Would you personally be willing to go to

Iran in order to prevent its acquisition of a nuclear weapon?

The answer should be: no.


------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail Atherton at

datherton@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Contact Us
Email Viewpoint at viewpoint@
media.ucla.edu for questions or concerns about this article.

---0---