Why Deterrence Isn't Enough

A few days ago, I posted a clip from a widely-watched TV debate about Iran policy between Podhoretz and Zakaria. Podhoretz, as per usual, called for more hawkish action; Zakaria, in contrast, argued that, if negotiations don't succeed, a strategy of deterrence is the obvious solution.

I often agree with Zakaria on Middle Eastern policy issues because he's a thoughtful and non-ideological analyst. Nonetheless, I think the notion that we can just 'deter Iran' oversimplifies the issue. The problem with the Iranian nuclear program is not just about what the mullahs might do with a weapon -- it's about the regional spillover as well. If Iran is successful in building the bomb, we're likely to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries throughout the Middle East.



Dan Murphy, writing in The Christian Science Monitor, makes this point pretty well: (Hat tip: Daniel Drezner)

This week Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern country in the past year to say it wants nuclear power, intensifying an atomic race spurred largely by Iran's nuclear agenda, which many in the region and the West claim is cover for a weapons program.

Experts say the nuclear ambitions of majority Sunni Muslim states such as Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are reactions to Shiite Iran's high-profile nuclear bid, seen as linked with Tehran's campaign for greater influence and prestige throughout the Middle East.

"To have 13 states in the region say they're interested in nuclear power over the course of a year certainly catches the eye," says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior nonproliferation official in the US State Department who is now a fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "The Iranian angle is the reason."

But economics are also behind this new push to explore nuclear power, at least for some of the aspirants. Egypt's oil reserves are dwindling, Jordan has no natural resources to speak of at all, and power from oil and gas has grown much more expensive for everyone. Though the day has not arrived, it's conceivable that nuclear power will be a cheaper option than traditional plants.

But analysts say the driver is Iran, which appears to be moving ahead with its nuclear program despite sanctions and threats of possible military action by the US. The Gulf Cooperation Council, a group of Saudi Arabia and the five Arab states that border the Persian Gulf, reversed a longstanding opposition to nuclear power last year.

As the closest US allies in the region and sitting on vast oil wealth, these states had said they saw no need for nuclear energy. But Fitzpatrick, as well as other analysts, say these countries now see their own declarations of nuclear intent as a way to contain Iran's influence. At least, experts say, it signals to the US how alarmed they are by a nuclear Iran.

"The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region," Jordan's King Abdullah, another US ally, told Israel's Haaretz newspaper early this year. "Where I think Jordan was saying, 'We'd like to have a nuclear-free zone in the area,' … [now] everybody's going for nuclear programs."

The negative consequences of a successful Iranian nuclear (bomb) program go far beyond what Tehran might do with a weapon. An equally serious outcome -- one that American and Israeli strategic deterrence will be unable to prevent -- is the tide of regional nuclear proliferation that is already looming on the horizon. This is a scary possibility, and Zakaria doesn't grapple with it in a very serious way. We absolutely must succeed in convincing Iran to give up its nuclear program - there really is no other option.