In 1979 a group of Iranians took 55 Americans hostage at the US embassy in Teheran. For nearly a year, the world held its breath as American citizens were paraded around with blindfolds on their faces. The incident had far-reaching consequences, influencing the 1980 election, and playing a significant role in the U.S. decision to sell arms to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war of the early 1980s. Now imagine this, instead of taking 55 Americans hostage, Iranian terrorists decide to take 55 million Americans living on the eastern seaboard hostage. Such a feat is impossible without the use of a nuclear missile. But unfortunately, CIA officials admitted Monday (NY Times 1/17/00) that they can no longer rule out the possibility that Iran might be capable of creating such a weapon.
The entry of Iran into the rapidly swelling rolls of the nuclear arms club could raise the risk of war in the Middle East to frighteningly high levels. The country with the most to worry about is Israel. In a statement last year the Iranian foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, said Muslims throughout the world will feel more confident now that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, because it will help balance Israel's nuclear capability. If Iran seeks to match Israel's nuclear weapons, there could be yet another nuclear weapons race in that region of the world. In addition, Iran's nuclear capability would undoubtedly encourage Sadam Hussein to pursue his own plans for a nuclear arsenal. Imagine what the Gulf War would have been like if instead of Scud missiles, Hussein was capable of raining nuclear fire down on U.S. troops and Israeli civilians.
A nuclear Iran could easily create greater mistrust and tension between Pakistan and India. The possibility that Iran would side with Pakistan in an India/Pakistani conflict will only provide fuel for those in India that want to escalate the number of nuclear missiles that the country possesses.
The threat of a nuclear attack by a "rogue" state such as Iran has lead many Americans to conclude that we need a missile defense system. Although it is similar to the "Star Wars" plan proposed by the Reagan administration, the new proposal is for a cheaper, ground based- anti-missile system. The idea is that intercept-missiles, similar to the Patriot missile system used during the Gulf War, would be stationed at various sites around the country. The intercept missiles would theoretically be able to destroy an incoming nuclear bomb before it detonated, thereby saving millions of American lives. The defense system would in effect, create a giant shield around the entire country. There are several problems with this plan. First, is the actual technology. In almost every test, the system has proved unreliable. Even a recent successful test-run, was later proven to be a failure because the intercept missile had actually hit a nearby decoy rather than destroying the actual test-missile (NY Times 1/14/00). Even if the technology were proven, there is always the possibility that a "rogue" nation could instead attack one of our allies. Are we going to equip all of Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia with equally reliable systems? If we don't, those countries will be forced to rely on nuclear deterrence for protection " the idea that one country won't attack another because the risk of devastating counter-attack is too great.
If not a defense system, what should we do to protect ourselves against countries like Iran? The over-used mantra of "the best defense is a good offense" might ring true in this case. A good offense however, does not imply we should invade Iran and confiscate their nuclear weapons. We need to go on the offense in other arenas. Iran does not have the scientific ability, to manufacture certain components of nuclear weapons. This means that they must have purchased these components on the black market from China, Russia or North Korea. We need to start taking a harder stance on Russia and China with regard to proliferation, instead of just looking the other way while they wheel and deal. This is especially true when it comes to making U. N. Security Council decisions about inspections teams in Iraq. We cannot afford to let Iraq restart its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Another method for combating "loose nukes" is to focus our military priorities differently. Instead of funding out-dated projects like super-large submarines and slow-moving artillery and tank units, we should be spending money on information gathering in order to prevent and expose these black market deals. We do not need to spend more on the military; it is already a sizable portion of GDP. We do need to bring an end to the ear-marking of special interest projects in defense-spending bills. National defense is too important to use as a congressional bargaining chip.
If Iran truly has developed the capability for nuclear weapons, we should do everything in our power to make sure that there is peace in the Middle East. Hopefully the next administration will be more successful in it attempts to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Otherwise we may see a day when instead of hijacking planes, terrorists take entire countries hostage, with all of our lives hanging in the balance.
