David Brooks's recent column arguing that the Republican presidential candidates' portrayal of Iran as a nuclear threat was solely based on their desire to win the nomination ("The Nuclear Reality" Jan. 11) would falsely lead one to believe that Iran posed no real threat to the national security of either the United States or Israel. Although the portrayal of Iran as sinister is partially based on the candidates' presidential aspirations, the claim that Iran poses no threat to national security ignores the geopolitical and diplomatic realities of the region.
Nuclear weapons are largely status symbols by nature of the so-called "nuclear taboo" that many international political theorists claim exists. The possession of a nuclear weapon acts as a deterrent to other nations and serves as a political pawn in the chess game that is international diplomacy. The existence of an Iranian nuclear weapon would lend an air of legitimacy to the regime that no other form of conventional military force could, and it would also substantially increase Iran's ability to extend its regional influence. Iran has already made inroads into the fragile nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and given the power and prestige that comes with joining the "nuclear club" Iran would possess an enhanced ability to project its influence. This, in turn, poses a great threat to the security of Israel as it is already surrounded by enemies and constantly faces attacks in its cities. The presence of a nuclear power with animosity toward Israel, and the subsequent support that such power could lend to Hezbollah and Hamas, would only increase the terrorist threat facing Israel already.
The claim that nations engage in war "to provide advantageous outcomes for themselves," as Brooks said, is a classic one made by political scientists. However, the term "advantageous outcomes" is ambiguous and loosely defined. For a theocratic state such as Iran, an advantageous outcome can include those goals which transcend the physical interests of traditional nation-states. History has repeatedly proven that nations are willing to go to war over ethnic or religious differences. Therefore, to make the sweeping generalization that Iran would not achieve an advantageous outcome in any scenario ignores the difference in what we perceive and what Iran could perceive as advantageous.
In addition, the claim that Iran does not have the capability to project nuclear weapons into Israel through formal military means ignores the possibility of extra-governmental channels. If the fall of the Soviet Union has taught us anything, it is that a country can easily lose control of its nuclear weapons. If not for the influx of American dollars used to prevent officers from selling their nuclear stockpiles and to increase the security for these weapons, the world might have seen a nuclear weapon in the hands of a non-state actor. The possibility of a terrorist organization gaining possession of an Iranian nuke through intentional transfer or accidental means poses a direct threat to both Israel and the United States.
Finally, the Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon has already been described by the U.S. government as a threat to Israeli security. If the United States were to allow Iran to possess the nuke, its commitment to its allies, specifically to South Korea and Taiwan, might be questioned. The main deterrent against Chinese aggression toward Taiwan and North Korean aggression toward South Korea is the assurance that the United States would respond quickly and without hesitation on the side of its allies. However, if the United States were to hedge on its commitment to Israel, then this would be seen as a sign of weakness and would hinder the United States' ability to defend its allies from aggression.
Iran is a real threat to American and Israeli national security, and the Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon would only enhance this threat. The United States does not want war with Iran as it would prove economically straining and would drag the United States into a conflict bordering on quagmire. However, a war does not have to be sought in order for it to occur. If anything, the presidential candidates' political pandering does accomplish a strategic objective: It illustrates to Iran that it will continue to face staunch resistance from the United States and discourages Iran from mistakenly believing that the United States would allow some forms of limited aggression. If history has taught us anything it is that mankind does not respond to weakness with conciliation but instead with increased aggression.
