Weigh­ing our op­tions with Iran


The path to to­day’s prob­lems with Iran passed through the Univer­sity of Chicago squash court where on Dec. 2, 1942, for 4.5 min­utes physi­cist En­rico Fermi, mak­ing cal­cu­la­tions on a slide rule, achieved the con­trolled re­lease of en­ergy from an atomic nu­cleus. His­to­rian Richard Rhodes says that Fermi and his col­leagues were risk­ing “a small Ch­er­nobyl in the midst of a crowded city.”

Hu­man­ity was al­ready on the path to the dan­ger­ous present in 1918 when the Bri­tish physi­cist Ernest Ruther­ford, who was crit­i­cized for miss­ing a meet­ing about anti-sub­ma­rine war­fare, said, “I have been en­gaged in ex­per­i­ments which sug­gest that the atom can be ar­ti­fi­cially dis­in­te­grated. If this is true, it is of far greater im­por­tance than a war.”

So, when won­der­ing about what can be done about Iran’s nu­cle­ar­weapons as­pi­ra­tions, re­mem­ber this: Some ad­vo­cates of the Iran nu­clear agree­ment thought its pur­pose was to block “all of Iran’s path­ways to a bomb,” which was Barack Obama’s for­mu­la­tion when his goal was to dis­man­tle the in­fra­struc­ture of Iran’s pro­gram. Other ad­vo­cates of the deal thought it was pru­dent to pre­tend to think this. The re­al­is­tic pur­pose, how­ever, was the more mod­est one of mak­ing the “path­ways” longer and steeper, in the hope that in­ter­nal Ira­nian fer­ments would be­gin to make that na­tion less men­ac­ing by the time it be­gan to make nu­clear weapons.

Nu­clear non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ef­forts have been more ef­fec­tive than seemed pos­si­ble 60 years ago. Dur­ing the 1960 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, John F. Kennedy cited “in­di­ca­tions” that by 1964 there would be

“10, 15 or 20” nu­clear pow­ers. As pres­i­dent, he said that by 1975 there might be 20 such pow­ers. To­day, sanc­tions can in­crease the price Iran pays for at­tempt­ing to ac­quire nu­clear weapons; Is­rael can as­sas­si­nate sci­en­tists work­ing in Iran’s nu­clear pro­gram. If, how­ever, Iran wants such weapons as in­tensely as its decades of costly ef­forts sug­gest, it will get them.

It is a law of arms con­trol: Sig­nif­i­cant agree­ments are im­pos­si­ble un­til they are unim­por­tant, which means un­til they are not sig­nif­i­cant. If Den­mark wanted nu­clear weapons, we would con­sider that na­tion daft but not dan­ger­ous. Iran’s regime is malev­o­lent, but there are polls show­ing sub­stan­tial sup­port for the nu­clear weapons pro­gram and bal­lis­tic mis­sile devel­op­ment. The me­dian age in Iran is 30.3 (in the United States: 38.1; in the Euro­pean Union, 42.9). The na­tion is more por­ous to out­side in­flu­ences than can suit the regime, which has a despo­tism’s nor­mal pref­er­ence for in­tel­lec­tual au­tarky. So, buy­ing time was not a neg­li­gi­ble goal for the orig­i­nal deal or for what­ever comes next, if any­thing does.

It is condign pun­ish­ment for Obama that his sig­na­ture for­eign pol­icy achieve­ment could be so ca­su­ally jet­ti­soned. It should have been a treaty. If it were, it would have en­joyed more public sup­port and could not have been erased by what cre­ated it— pres­i­den­tial uni­lat­er­al­ism. Obama’s suc­ces­sor might learn from this when— if— he pro­duces an al­ter­na­tive plan for a slightly more dis­tant and less dan­ger­ous fu­ture.

Seventy-three years have passed since the first nu­clear ex­plo­sion, in New Mex­ico. Less than a month af­ter this there oc­curred the first two, and so far the only, uses of nu­clear weapons. Sixty-nine years have passed since the Soviet Union be­came the sec­ond nu­clear power. De­ter­rence as the ba­sis of con­tain­ment has not been rest­ful but has been suc­cess­ful. Nev­er­the­less, in Septem­ber 2012, the Se­nate voted 90-1 for a non­bind­ing res­o­lu­tion “rul­ing out any pol­icy that would rely on con­tain­ment as an op­tion in re­sponse to the Ira­nian nu­clear threat.” So, al­most six years ago the Se­nate de­clared un­ac­cept­able a pol­icy that, per­haps six years from now, the United States might have no al­ter­na­tive but to ac­cept.

A mi­nor league hockey game lasted six hours and had five over­time pe­ri­ods. The game fi­nally ended when they ran out of teeth.”

Co­nan O’Brien “Co­nan”

George Will georgewill@ wash­post.com


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.